I've noticed something has changed about the abortion debate on DP

[Lursa]

Wrong. It's not a child until it's born. What's being aborted I'd just an embryo/fetus. Simple fact. Look it up.

Meh, the semantics are just a means of avoidance for his and similar posters' arguments. If they can keep bobbing and weaving around terminology and using their emotionally manipulative ones, they can avoid answering the tough moral and legal questions.

 

[Gordy327]

Meh, the semantics are just a means of avoidance for his and similar posters' arguments. If they can keep bobbing and weaving around terminology and using their emotionally manipulative ones, they can avoid answering the tough moral and legal questions.

Yes, I've noticed. Notice how some get increasingly whiny about it too. It always reminds me of Mrs. Lovejoy from the Simpsons annoyingly screaming. "Oh won't someone please think of the children." It's worse than nails on the chalkboard.

 

[Lursa]

Yes, I've noticed. Notice how some get increasingly whiny about it too. It always reminds me of Mrs. Lovejoy from the Simpsons annoyingly screaming. "Oh won't someone please think of the children." It's worse than nails on the chalkboard.

I've never watched the Simpsons.

 

[Gordy327]

I've never watched the Simpsons.

Wow, you might be the first person I've ever heard say that. Although. To be fair, I stopped watching a long time ago myself. I think their crossover with Family Guy was the last time.

 

[watsup]

You are intentionally forgetting the child.

Except the child.

You've already agreed that abortion is "killing".

And since the fetus is human...it's murder.

No she does not. It's not her life that she's "choosing" to end.

And much of society also values the life of the child.

Why not consider her responsibilities of her child?

It's nothing but immature selfishness.

Her contributions (and that's how you spell it) do not negate her responsibilities to her child.

That is your opinion. It is hardly a moral standard but, then again, murder never is.




I'm simply reminding you that you have stipulated that abortion is "killing" which is your simple admission that the child is alive in the womb.

If it's a "grammar-school level question" then you think you could have articulated the question better.

And here I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

If you are talking about preventing conception (condom, "the pill", etc.), I do not--nor do I know anyone--who argues against conception (our Catholic friends not included). I've no problem with conception as it is not killing anything but only preventing conception.

I've no problem with contraception.

Strawman. That was never my argument.

It also means that states can recognize a child's right to life...just like the rest of us enjoy.

That is because you simply lack the intelligence to consider any view other than your own.

Not substantially, no. I don't think abortion "rights" overall will be changed greatly.

Asking women (and men) to accept responsibility for their actions is neither un-American nor subjugation.

It's simply being an adult.

Have a nice day.

You keep saying child. Is a zygote a “child”? Perhaps you need a biology lesson on the stages of life.

 

[watsup]

What is being aborted is, in fact, a living human child.

Undeveloped?

Yes.

But still alive and and in possession of human DNA which is the very thing that prevents it from being anything else.

Do you understand the stages of life? Is an acorn an oak tree?

 

[minnie616]

Do you understand the stages of life? Is an acorn an oak tree?

Or is a caterpillar a butterfly ?

 

[watsup]

Or is a caterpillar a butterfly ?

Or is a hellgrammite a Dobson fly?

 

[dockside]

Yes...the left likes to dictate from the top and force their beliefs on everyone else. They are phrasing that the overturning of Roe is undemocratic and forcing beliefs on them but it's literally the opposite. The overturning of Roe puts the decision back into the hands of the people to decide with their votes, in each state. They don't want people to have a voice, and that isn't limited to abortion.

The reality is is that their position is undemocratic.

The pro-choice crowd is not forcing any beliefs on you. You are free to believe whatever you want to about embryos and abortion. You are NOT free, however, to force your beliefs by making and supporting laws against women and their medical provider regarding abortion. That, in case it never occurred to you, is forcing beliefs on everyone. There should be no laws regarding abortion, IMO. Leave it up to the persons involved. Don't have one if are against it. But, keep your laws off our bodies.

Forcing a belief would be asking legislators to pass a law requiring all men to get a vasectomy and not be allowed to reverse it until and unless he was able to show he would be a responsible father. After all, isn't that similar to telling a woman to keep her knees together? Then we really wouldn't be having these debates about abortion. For some reason, old white men and their Stockholm Syndrome women seem to believe it's necessary for women to forgo sex if they don't want to get pregnant, but men? Eh. That's unnatural.

 

[dockside]

Nope. It is the question on abortion. When is someone human enough to gain rights? Most everything else is noise.

The answer to your question is in the very first sentence of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Fishking]

The pro-choice crowd is not forcing any beliefs on you. You are free to believe whatever you want to about embryos and abortion.

False. The Roe decision at the Supreme Court took the choice away from the people to decide it at the state level, or even through the legislature at all.

 

[The Baron]

Wrong. It's not a child until it's born. What's being aborted I'd just an embryo/fetus. Simple fact. Look it up.

Being human is a state of being and not defined by a persons position with them womb in which he / she was initially created.

 

[Gordy327]

Being human is a state of being and not defined by a persons position with them womb in which he / she was initially created.

That's philosophical rhetoric. Personal autonomy, rights, and abortion is a matter of law, which is what is applicable.

 

[watsup]

Being human is a state of being and not defined by a persons position with them womb in which he / she was initially created.

Is a zygote to be considered in the same level as a fully developed baby? Why do you not understand the difference?

 

[Indydave]

I think it is safe to say that the majority of women seeking an abortion are not victims of rape or incest but women who have sex know the possibility of getting pregnant and hoping/thinking they would not get pregnant.......if I were a woman wanting to engage in sex I would take and use birth control as I believe millions probably do......otherwise refrain from sex......obviously this is an over simplification

 

[uptower]

 

[watsup]

I think it is safe to say that the majority of women seeking an abortion are not victims of rape or incest but women who have sex know the possibility of getting pregnant and hoping/thinking they would not get pregnant.......if I were a woman wanting to engage in sex I would take and use birth control as I believe millions probably do......otherwise refrain from sex......obviously this is an over simplification

Obviously this is an oversimplification, so why even bring it up?

 

[minnie616]

I think it is safe to say that the majority of women seeking an abortion are not victims of rape or incest but women who have sex know the possibility of getting pregnant and hoping/thinking they would not get pregnant.......if I were a woman wanting to engage in sex I would take and use birth control as I believe millions probably do......otherwise refrain from sex......obviously this is an over simplification

Actually , 92 percent of women in the United States are being responsible for their fertility by using Birth control consistently.
( unless they are currently pregnant or are actively trying to become pregnant.)

Info from :

https://www.self.com/story/report-two-thirds-women-use-birth-control

From the article :

Oh, and as for 35.1 percent of women who aren’t using contraception?

They’re not all just having unsafe sex.

About half of them (17 percent of the respondents) hadn’t had sex in the past three months while the rest were either pregnant, postpartum or trying to conceive (7.5 percent), or, indeed, sexually active but not using protection (7.9 percent).

 

[Indydave]

Obviously this is an oversimplification, so why even bring it up?

to point out how simple it would be to not get pregnant I guess......

 

[Lursa]

to point out how simple it would be to not get pregnant I guess......

It's 'simple' to believe that people wont have sex, since for all of human history, men and women have done so, taken the risk, no matter what the penalties...death, stoning, STDs, exile, being disowned, beatings, dying in childbirth, shotgun weddings and murderous husbands/fathers, etc etc etc. It's the strongest instinct on the planet.

Today in America, modern reality is that the risks are so much less than the past that it's 'simple' to believe people would choose to have less sex.

 

[watsup]

to point out how simple it would be to not get pregnant I guess......

An oversimplification by far. Education about and access to birth control is far from universal in this nation, especially among the economically disadvantaged. That is why Planned Parenthood is such an important organization, because it caters mostly to those particular women. Anyone who is serious about lessening the numbers of abortion should be in full support of that mission of PP.

 

[dockside]

False. The Roe decision at the Supreme Court took the choice away from the people to decide it at the state level, or even through the legislature at all.

Your response is what is false. Notice that I said "you" and not imposing beliefs on "the people" to decide at the state level. And even if "the people at the state level" decided to abolish the ability to make a choice to HAVE and abortion, that is taking away the choice of people who would have had an abortion - an imposition of a belief they don't share - on them. If you don't support choice, nothing is being imposed on you, regardless of whether abortion is prohibited or limited. Nothing has changed since you your belief can still be acted upon - you won't get an abortion either way Only if abortion or choice is prohibited, are beliefs imposed by the government on those who don't believe as you do. All that is obvious, but somehow you think that your beliefs would not be allowed.

 

[Fishking]

Your response is what is false. Notice that I said "you" and not imposing beliefs on "the people" to decide at the state level. And even if "the people at the state level" decided to abolish the ability to make a choice to HAVE and abortion, that is taking away the choice of people who would have had an abortion - an imposition of a belief they don't share - on them. If you don't support choice, nothing is being imposed on you, regardless of whether abortion is prohibited or limited. Nothing has changed since you your belief can still be acted upon - you won't get an abortion either way Only if abortion or choice is prohibited, are beliefs imposed by the government on those who don't believe as you do. All that is obvious, but somehow you think that your beliefs would not be allowed.

What you're trying to do is move the goal post and I'm not budging. Dems want to dictate from the top-down, they always have. Overturning Roe puts the choice back into the hands of the people. Full stop.

 

[watsup]

What you're trying to do is move the goal post and I'm not budging. Dems want to dictate from the top-down, they always have. Overturning Roe puts the choice back into the hands of the people. Full stop.

Yeah, I’m sure that you hated it when the Supreme Court established top-down restrictions on the ability of states to segregate black children from “whitel” schools or to restrict the ability for people to marry whomever they wanted. Those terrible top-down edicts, eh?

 

[Fishking]

Yeah, I’m sure that you hated it when the Supreme Court established top-down restrictions on the ability of states to segregate black children from “whitel” schools or to restrict the ability for people to marry whomever they wanted. Those terrible top-down edicts, eh?

Thank you for supporting my point via your desperate attempt to deflect away to a different subject because you have nothing.