Is this an extreme position?

[Fishking]

But what if it is a dead baby/fetus at 7 months and carrying it to term would certainly cause sepsis in the mother and her possible death?

You can't kill something that is already dead.

 

[Josie]

Why did you avoid (weakly) answering my challenge until just now? Have you been cornered enough?

I didn’t avoid anything. If you asked before, I didn’t see it. I don’t read everything in the thread.

How do you determine if a girl has been raped? Seems like an awfully big loophole. Just walk in and say, "I've been raped".

We both know that you don't mean this in practical terms.

Another man telling me what I think. How novel.

You didn't address any of the real-world scenarios I presented. I consider this a full dodge.

You can consider it whatever your heart desires.

Based on what data or evidence? This is like saying, 'If government stopped enforcing laws and regulations, corporations would do the right thing and criminals would stop breaking the law.'

Libertarians are a total joke.

Then there’s no reason for me to try to convince you.

Doctors actually do. I thought you trusted doctors in this scenario?

Some do, some don’t. My doctor is against elective abortions.

 

[Dans La Lune]

I didn’t avoid anything. If you asked before, I didn’t see it. I don’t read everything in the thread.

Oh yes, the ol' "I didn't see that! No comment!" tactic that the right-wing uses habitually. You actually responded to my posts where I cited my challenge to you.

Another man telling me what I think. How novel.

If I'm wrong you could have easily answered my challenge without the dodge, and are still free to do so.

You can consider it whatever your heart desires.

It's empirically a dodge.

Then there’s no reason for me to try to convince you.

You don't have to convince me, but you could post evidence for others to see.

Some do, some don’t. My doctor is against elective abortions.

And there's still a few "scientists" who deny climate change, thus disproving the consensus.

 

[Gordy327]

Is there a rational reason to limit it after viability?

Not really. Viability is just a reasonable compromise between both sides of the issue.

 

[Josie]

Not really. Viability is just a reasonable compromise between both sides of the issue.

Do you agree with this compromise or are you for no restrictions?

 

[Gordy327]

Do you agree with this compromise or are you for no restrictions?

Both.

 

[weaver2]

The idea is that the mother may kill the baby because the baby doesn't have the right to live at the mother's (or anyone else's) expense. That doesn't change once the baby is born.

Actually, the physiology of birth changes a great many things. The flood of hormones in both mother and child at birth are many and complex. Most either primarily or secondarily enhance bonding. This bonding makes maternal feticide rare.

 

[Lursa]

Suppose no one does. Should people be punished if they refuse to take care of it?

No. What would be the foundation for that punishment?

 

[Lursa]

Here's my theory. She has a narrative she heard on Fox News: "Leftists want zero restrictions so they can kill live babies". So, she put up her poll, waiting for the first person to say, "they want zero restrictions", so she can "pounce" and say, "See!".

When we answer her question with any nuance, she's not ready for it and gets very frustrated. She wants a "yes or no", but regarding medicine, it's not that simple.

Well she's been doing this same schtick for a few years. If you try to nail her down long enough on getting real answers to the tough questions, she will stop acknowledging your posts. I dont find that much of an problem tho, since I continue to point out where her's fail regarding the issue and others can still consider.

 

[Lursa]

You're evading the argument, just like @Lursa is.

The idea is that the mother may kill the baby because the baby doesn't have the right to live at the mother's (or anyone else's) expense. That doesn't change once the baby is born.

What did I evade? Please see post 208.

And then please answer why the mother may not kill the unborn, since it doesnt have the right to live off of her body, and she certainly has a right to her own body, health, and safety? If that's your stance.

 

[aociswundumho]

Actually, the physiology of birth changes a great many things.

But nothing relevant regarding the baby's rights, and that's the only thing that matters in this discussion.

The flood of hormones in both mother and child at birth are many and complex. Most either primarily or secondarily enhance bonding. This bonding makes maternal feticide rare.

 

[Lursa]

But nothing relevant regarding the baby's rights, and that's the only thing that matters in this discussion.

Babies have rights. The unborn dont. What have you got to dispute this?

 

[aociswundumho]

Why does that not change.

Because the baby's rights haven't changed.

Considering it would then become murder to kill a baby.

Why wasn't it murder to kill the baby right before it was born?

 

[aociswundumho]

Babies have rights. The unborn dont. What have you got to dispute this?

You're making the assertion that the baby magically acquires rights after it is born, so the burden on you. Go answer the question in post 213

 

[Scrabaholic]

Is there a rational reason to limit it after viability?

No.

 

[Lursa]

You're making the assertion that the baby magically acquires rights after it is born, so the burden on you. Go answer the question in post 213

Actually it's a fact, so please answer the question. Unless the entire thread is based on fantasy and you are just inventing things as you go along.

Then I can do follow up. Your answer may inform the direction of our conversation.

 

[Gordy327]

Because the baby's rights haven't changed.

Babies have rights. The unborn do not.

Why wasn't it murder to kill the baby right before it was born?

Because it wasn't a person with rights before birth.

But nothing relevant regarding the baby's rights, and that's the only thing that matters in this discussion.

Babies have rights, like any other born individual. That's not really in question.

 

[Gordy327]

You're making the assertion that the baby magically acquires rights after it is born, so the burden on you. Go answer the question in post 213

Nothing magical about it. The unborn do not have rights and there is no legal recognition of unborn rights or personhood. After birth, they are legal persons with rights. I defy you to prove otherwise.

 

[aociswundumho]

Babies have rights. The unborn do not.

These are assertions, not arguments.

Assertions are easy to make. Watch me do it:

Babies don't have rights. The unborn do.

See how easy it is?

But if you asked me to back them up with evidence and reasoning, I wouldn't be able to.

Because it wasn't a person with rights before birth.

Babies have rights, like any other born individual. That's not really in question.

 

[aociswundumho]

Actually it's a fact, so please answer the question. Unless the entire thread is based on fantasy and you are just inventing things as you go along.

No, it isn't a fact, it's an assertion.

Then I can do follow up. Your answer may inform the direction of our conversation.

 

[Lursa]

These are assertions, not arguments.

Assertions are easy to make. Watch me do it:

Babies don't have rights. The unborn do.

See how easy it is?

But if you asked me to back them up with evidence and reasoning, I wouldn't be able to.

Is the Const not included in this argument? Otherwise, what is the authority behind 'your rights' that you're asserting?

 

[Lursa]

No, it isn't a fact, it's an assertion.

See above, post 221, and then still answer my questions first.

Or do you not recognize the Constitution?

 

[Gordy327]

These are assertions, not arguments.

No, those are facts!

Assertions are easy to make. Watch me do it:

Babies don't have rights. The unborn do.

See how easy it is?

But if you asked me to back them up with evidence and reasoning, I wouldn't be able to.

The difference is, my assertion is based on legal fact. Yours is not. The law does not recognize unborn rights or persons. That's a fact.

 

[aociswundumho]

Is the Const not included in this argument?

Of course not. The constitution once condoned human slavery, is that evidence that black people are the legitimate property of white people?

Otherwise, what is the authority behind 'your rights' that you're asserting?

I'm not claiming the unborn have rights, I was using that as an example of how easy it is to make assertions.

 

[aociswundumho]

No, those are facts!

The difference is, my assertion is based on legal fact. Yours is not. The law does not recognize unborn rights or persons. That's a fact.

The abortion argument is over what the law should be. Using existing law as evidence for what the law should be is circular. For example:

"The Bible is true because it's the word of God."

2 TIMOTHY 3:16 KJV All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,...

2 Timothy 3:16 KJV: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org