Should the unborn have a right to self-determination?[W:1064]

[Andalublue]

It is basing it on a point of faith, you're right, but whether it's a poor basis for Policy Making I'm not so sure.

What does it have to recommend it? No Western nation has labelled itself a theocracy. Making policy on the basis of religious dogma is what Iran and Saudi Arabia do. I don't think it's for us.

It's probably the strongest basis for your policy making.

That's certainly what the Islamists argue.

Just look at what the Democratic "correct policies" (since we on the right seem so stupid to you) have gotten us so far. Horrible! So many babies brutally stripped of Their humanity, their right to self-determination, and other atrocities before being killed.

You don't like a law, so you decide to throw out the entire legislative premise of your society. Yeah, that makes sense.

What we need a much better policy than what your left wing policies have given us so far.

Then devise one, propose it, find supporters for it and get it adopted.

Oh and just because my belief in souls may be real. There is a lot to think about before you make a statement like "there is no such thing as "The Soul".

I've no doubt your belief is real, just as my belief in the non-existence of the soul is real. That old, "Because you don't agree with me, you haven't thought about it" schtick is weak sauce. The Buddhist teaching on impermanence, which precludes ANYTHING from being eternal or unchangeable is entirely rational. I wouldn't make my social policy based on it however, since my faith is mine, and not something to be imposed on anyone else.

 

[Reed95]

It shouldn't be hard to show some credible data.


I had two major abdominal surgeries in childhood (in the same year), and two broken bones in different years during adulthood. It's incredibly narcissistic of you to presume that no man could possibly understand what pain is.

I think you are making a mistake here, a big mistake. I'm not saying that avoiding the one time pain at child birth should be the major reason for women's self-determination. But bringing up your broken bones etc. to compare with women's pain at child birth seems to be petty. I seriously doubt you have a real idea about what a pregnancy and raising a child mean for a woman. I think an apology here is in order.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

I think you are making a mistake here, a big mistake. I'm not saying that avoiding the one time pain at child birth should be the major reason for women's self-determination. But bringing up your broken bones etc. to compare with women's pain at child birth seems to be petty. I seriously doubt you have a real idea about what a pregnancy and raising a child mean for a woman. I think an apology here is in order.

It would be for many people, but you clearly don't know Scrabaholic. She has absolutely no interest in anything but suppressing debate on the abortion issue in any backhanded way possible.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

It's bad form to answer a question with a question. And I don't fly into a rage. Good grief.

It is? You must truly hate Socrates.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

It would be for many people, but you clearly don't know Scrabaholic. She has absolutely no interest in anything but suppressing debate on the abortion issue in any backhanded way possible.

I been noticing that over the years on this site. Tons of philosophical and ethical debates about abortion when I joined. Now, it's usually people trying to turn a philosophical/ethical discussion into law semantics.

 

[Andalublue]

Moderator's Warning:

Thread under review. Stop the personal attacks and address the topic, not the other posters.

 

[RamFel]

That's a lie. Not "interfered" with? How can you imagine that a fetus is not interfered with when it is constantly drawing life from another being. How can a woman take a hands-off approach to a being that lives within her? It's absurd to ignore the constant physical sacrifice that women make EVERY SECOND of their pregnancy.

In typical fashion, the conservative argument is defined by willful ignorance of the facts, delivered with the arrogance of the better informed.

Actually, you speak wrongly. The conservative argument has been, and always will be (unless we also become so self-centered in our own interests) by the willful attention to the truth.

 

[D_NATURED]

It's not being interfered with simply by being fed by the Host mother. Where ever did you come up with that?

So, you think the host mother only feeds the fetus? Wrong again. The fetus not only draws nutrition from the bloodstream of the host but it draws oxygen and water from her too. It also excretes waste into the bloodstream of the host and, after all of this drawing and excreting is done, it emerges from her body, tearing her flesh and causing bleeding that very often, if not interfered with, will kill the host.

So, despite your attempts at soft selling the degree to which a fetus exploits and risks the health of a woman, the truth is clearly not what you claim it to be. How pathetic that in order to forward the false notion that fetuses are, somehow, separate beings from their host who don't pose any real threat, you must exclude so many facts.

Lies of omission are still lies. I'm sure Jesus will forgive you, though, because you're lying to keep women under control. That is clearly a godly mission for so many pro-lifers.

 

[RamFel]

Pirates have been in

 

[RamFel]

So, you think the host mother only feeds the fetus? Wrong again. The fetus not only draws nutrition from the bloodstream of the host but it draws oxygen and water from her too. It also excretes waste into the bloodstream of the host and, after all of this drawing and excreting is done, it emerges from her body, tearing her flesh and causing bleeding that very often, if not interfered with, will kill the host.

How terrible!

So, despite your attempts at soft selling the degree to which a fetus exploits and risks the health of a woman, the truth is clearly not what you claim it to be. How pathetic that in order to forward the false notion that fetuses are, somehow, separate beings from their host who don't pose any real threat, you must exclude so many facts.

Oh, I don't think so. I tell the truth all the time. If you don't believe me, just look at my reasons for believing what I do.

Lies of omission are still lies. I'm sure Jesus will forgive you, though, because you're lying to keep women under control. That is clearly a godly mission for so many pro-lifers.

Where do you get your information?

I always have been. And I know how you are.

And whatever think, you are wrong. You have always known that. Your support for this excuse of just doing it to benefit women, or for women's rights is hogwash. You have made fools of those who believe you, but you never will get me to believe you on all that you always spew out because it's just too fantastic. The things you just said at the beginning of this post proves it.

 

[D_NATURED]

How terrible!



Oh, I don't think so. I tell the truth all the time. If you don't believe me, just look at my reasons for believing what I do.



Where do you get your information?

I always have been. And I know how you are.

And whatever think, you are wrong. You have always known that. Your support for this excuse of just doing it to benefit women, or for women's rights is hogwash. You have made fools of those who believe you, but you never will get me to believe you on all that you always spew out because it's just too fantastic. The things you just said at the beginning of this post proves it.

Well, that was a pretty awkward display of gibberish. Obviously, pregnancy poses a real threat to women that is deliberately overlooked by those who wish the debate to focus on the fetus. That intentional, tenacious ignorance is the hallmark of faith-based politics. Women deserve better than to have their rights be relative to the arbitrary spiritual whims of those who justify their pro-life opinions with incomplete, inaccurate data.

What is fantastic is the idea that humanity is pre-doomed due to a rib-woman's misdeeds and all women must, therefore, exit as unwitting beneficiaries of this misogynist tradition. The cross has signified the suffering of more than just one skinny Jew. Women understand that on a level you never could.

 

[RamFel]

Well, that was a pretty awkward display of gibberish. Obviously, pregnancy poses a real threat to women that is deliberately overlooked by those who wish the debate to focus on the fetus. That intentional, tenacious ignorance is the hallmark of faith-based politics. Women deserve better than to have their rights be relative to the arbitrary spiritual whims of those who justify their pro-life opinions with incomplete, inaccurate data.

What is fantastic is the idea that humanity is pre-doomed due to a rib-woman's misdeeds and all women must, therefore, exit as unwitting beneficiaries of this misogynist tradition. The cross has signified the suffering of more than just one skinny Jew. Women understand that on a level you never could.

It doesn't matter what you come up with. The day that I surrender will never come. Why? Because everything all of you have ever said, and even some things that liberal have accomplished is based on a group of people that latched on to people who were percieved as victims, so that they could come to there and rescue them when they never asked for help from the far left.

With all this rescuin going on, time finally came for payback when election time came up. In the liberal world, that's the way things seem to work. Fight for others rights, not out of goodness, but out of greed, doing favors, and seeking payback in the form of votes. Which turns into power. So when you talk, I know what you are really trying to tell me, which are usually either inflated stories, and just out right lies.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert, or historian. Inaccuracies I stated here are based on my limited knowledge of leftists, and labor unions, organizations and mob mentality from protests. I am a former New Yorker and I seen plenty of strikes and the way they come out of the woodwork every time a company trimmed the fat to survive tough times. Mothers were seen as victims the damage is done. More than 50 million killed so don't tell me about victimhood.

I am not buying you're lines and woman as victim, who suffers being ripped apart by babies who are just trying to survive, and the price they are paying every time they abort a baby. Women are the victims but not from the right. I refuse to let it all slide, and I forgive, but I don't forget. Being a socalist is not a sin. But being a fool sure should be.

 

[D_NATURED]

It doesn't matter what you come up with. The day that I surrender will never come. Why? Because everything all of you have ever said, and even some things that liberal have accomplished is based on a group of people that latched on to people who were percieved as victims, so that they could come to there and rescue them when they never asked for help from the far left.

With all this rescuin going on, time finally came for payback when election time came up. In the liberal world, that's the way things seem to work. Fight for others rights, not out of goodness, but out of greed, doing favors, and seeking payback in the form of votes. Which turns into power. So when you talk, I know what you are really trying to tell me, which are usually either inflated stories, and just out right lies.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert, or historian. Inaccuracies I stated here are based on my limited knowledge of leftists, and labor unions, organizations and mob mentality from protests. I am a former New Yorker and I seen plenty of strikes and the way they come out of the woodwork every time a company trimmed the fat to survive tough times. Mothers were seen as victims the damage is done. More than 50 million killed so don't tell me about victimhood.

I am not buying you're lines and woman as victim, who suffers being ripped apart by babies who are just trying to survive, and the price they are paying every time they abort a baby. Women are the victims but not from the right. I refuse to let it all slide, and I forgive, but I don't forget. Being a socalist is not a sin. But being a fool sure should be.

Well, if foolishness is a sin, you've got a dunce cap waiting for you in Hell. Please don't brag about how little you understand and then brag about how married you are to your ridiculous opinions. That's the tenacious ignorance I was talking about. It would be better if you just kept quiet.

Like the saying, it's better to remain quiet and have people think you a fool than to speak and prove it beyond all doubt.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

That's a lie. Not "interfered" with? How can you imagine that a fetus is not interfered with when it is constantly drawing life from another being. How can a woman take a hands-off approach to a being that lives within her? It's absurd to ignore the constant physical sacrifice that women make EVERY SECOND of their pregnancy.

No one is ignoring anything. And statistically, the point you're getting so hysterical about is quite true. If no human action is taken to end a pregnancy, the likelihood of a healthy birth is fairly good.

No ignorance here; just look at statistics in developed nations. And by the way, this issue is hardly a conservative-vs-liberal affair. I am not 'conservative' by any stretch of the imagination.

In typical fashion, the conservative argument is defined by willful ignorance of the facts, delivered with the arrogance of the better informed.[/QUOTE]

 

[minnie616]

No one is ignoring anything. And statistically, the point you're getting so hysterical about is quite true. If no human action is taken to end a pregnancy, the likelihood of a healthy birth is fairly good.

No ignorance here; just look at statistics in developed nations. And by the way, this issue is hardly a conservative-vs-liberal affair. I am not 'conservative' by any stretch of the imagination.

In typical fashion, the conservative argument is defined by willful ignorance of the facts, delivered with the arrogance of the better informed.

Actually about 2/3 ( two-thirds) of zygotes will pass through the woman's body without implanting or will self abort within the first week of implantation. Another 15 to 20 percent of known pregnancies ( where the woman is aware she is pregnant ) will miscarry. In addition some pregnancies end in stillbirths or babies with major defects.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Actually about 2/3 ( two-thirds) of zygotes will pass through the woman's body without implanting or will self abort within the first week of implantation. Another 15 to 20 percent of known pregnancies ( where the woman is aware she is pregnant ) will miscarry. In addition some pregnancies end in stillbirths or babies with major defects.

Doesn't refute my claim that the majority of known pregnancies end in a healthy birth.

Besides which, I'm all for abortion as a choice if in utero tests indicate major defects.

 

[D_NATURED]

No one is ignoring anything. And statistically, the point you're getting so hysterical about is quite true. If no human action is taken to end a pregnancy, the likelihood of a healthy birth is fairly good.

Who is more hysterical than a pro-life baby savior? I'm not hysterical, I'm pissed that medicine for women must be filtered through a subjective god fantasy and juvenile sexuality. Drown yourself in piety, if you must, but don't drag your sisters down with you.

It's abundantly arrogant of you to presume to speak of birth as if there is but one participant (and it ain't the woman!). What may constitute "health" in birth for the fetus takes a physical toll on women, sometimes their lives. When you, as a moral being, begin to understand that both parties can die without warning, and that history is replete with cases of infant and mother mortality at their "sacred", miracle of birth, you will begin to understand the word "choice". But birth and sex must be sacraments to god because they are the things that prove we are but evolved animals, not intelligently designed. So, to compensate for their conspicuous insecurity, religion sticks its flag into the flesh of women, unrepentantly claiming their bodies for god.

No ignorance here; just look at statistics in developed nations. And by the way, this issue is hardly a conservative-vs-liberal affair. I am not 'conservative' by any stretch of the imagination.

What's in a name? Conservative and liberal are just boxes that almost nobody really fits. It's enough that your argument treats women like a footnote in the question of abortion. That's conservative enough.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Who is more hysterical than a pro-life baby savior?

If you're referring to the "Operation Rescue" crazies from a while back, then I agree. I have never approved of those tactics.

I'm not hysterical, I'm pissed that medicine for women must be filtered through a subjective god fantasy and juvenile sexuality.

What are you talking about? Medicine isn't "filtered" in either of those ways.

Drown yourself in piety, if you must, but don't drag your sisters down with you.

You have the wrong number: I've never been religious. Obviously I'm interested in ethics and morality, but in no way does either concept have to be tied to religion.

It's abundantly arrogant of you to presume to speak of birth as if there is but one participant (and it ain't the woman!).

It's abundantly dishonest of you to claim that I said or even implied any such thing.

What may constitute "health" in birth for the fetus takes a physical toll on women, sometimes their lives. When you, as a moral being, begin to understand that both parties can die without warning, and that history is replete with cases of infant and mother mortality at their "sacred", miracle of birth, you will begin to understand the word "choice". But birth and sex must be sacraments to god because they are the things that prove we are but evolved animals, not intelligently designed. So, to compensate for their conspicuous insecurity, religion sticks its flag into the flesh of women, unrepentantly claiming their bodies for god.

Sorry, but I'm not going to defend religion, either here or anywhere else.

What's in a name? Conservative and liberal are just boxes that almost nobody really fits. It's enough that your argument treats women like a footnote in the question of abortion. That's conservative enough.

Not that today's "conservatives" would ever agree with the first sentence, but again, you're trying to put words in my mouth. I have said repeatedly that there are many situations where the choice of abortion is completely justified, morally and ethically.

 

[RamFel]

Who is more hysterical than a pro-life baby savior? I'm not hysterical, I'm pissed that medicine for women must be filtered through a subjective god fantasy and juvenile sexuality. Drown yourself in piety, if you must, but don't drag your sisters down with you.

It's abundantly arrogant of you to presume to speak of birth as if there is but one participant (and it ain't the woman!). What may constitute "health" in birth for the fetus takes a physical toll on women, sometimes their lives. When you, as a moral being, begin to understand that both parties can die without warning, and that history is replete with cases of infant and mother mortality at their "sacred", miracle of birth, you will begin to understand the word "choice". But birth and sex must be sacraments to god because they are the things that prove we are but evolved animals, not intelligently designed. So, to compensate for their conspicuous insecurity, religion sticks its flag into the flesh of women, unrepentantly claiming their bodies for god.

I wonder why you say that when I have stamped that theory (and it’s only a theory) to death. True it does happen from time to time, but nowhere near the numbers you and your group like to spit out. Your post, especially this paragraph of yours is full of mistakes, errors, and probably both intentional.

What's in a name? Conservative and liberal are just boxes that almost nobody really fits. It's enough that your argument treats women like a footnote in the question of abortion. That's conservative enough.

 

[Removable Mind]

Doesn't refute my claim that the majority of known pregnancies end in a healthy birth.

Besides which, I'm all for abortion as a choice if in utero tests indicate major defects.

I'm all for women's right to have an abortion for any reason prior to viability.

Most pro-choice women wouldn't have an abortion except for long-term health reasons, potential death, or a significantly defective fetus (or dead fetus)...thus the majority of pregnancies are brought to full-term.

 

[Removable Mind]

Who is more hysterical than a pro-life baby savior? I'm not hysterical, I'm pissed that medicine for women must be filtered through a subjective god fantasy and juvenile sexuality. Drown yourself in piety, if you must, but don't drag your sisters down with you.

It's abundantly arrogant of you to presume to speak of birth as if there is but one participant (and it ain't the woman!). What may constitute "health" in birth for the fetus takes a physical toll on women, sometimes their lives. When you, as a moral being, begin to understand that both parties can die without warning, and that history is replete with cases of infant and mother mortality at their "sacred", miracle of birth, you will begin to understand the word "choice". But birth and sex must be sacraments to god because they are the things that prove we are but evolved animals, not intelligently designed. So, to compensate for their conspicuous insecurity, religion sticks its flag into the flesh of women, unrepentantly claiming their bodies for god.



What's in a name? Conservative and liberal are just boxes that almost nobody really fits. It's enough that your argument treats women like a footnote in the question of abortion. That's conservative enough.

:applaud

 

[trouble13]

I'm all for women's right to have an abortion for any reason prior to viability.
.

You could of stopped your post right here. The rest of it is just useless noise being made by another uncle tim.

In case your familiar with the term
Urban Dictionary: Uncle Tim



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Removable Mind]

You could of stopped your post right here. The rest of it is just useless noise being made by another uncle tim.

In case your familiar with the term
Urban Dictionary: Uncle Tim

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

You could stop pretending that you're a perpetual victim. But you apparently you aren't capable of stopping. So in other words, you're using the Urban Dict-shun-ary word "Uncle Tim" to call me a bigot. How sweet of you.

Maybe I need submit a new Urban word:

"Uncle Victim". 1) A person who cries being a victim and refuses to take responsibility for their own failures. 2) One who is cognitively stuck and looks for excuses to remain a victim, knowing they don't exercise their choices when appropriate to do so.

 

[trouble13]

You could stop pretending that you're a perpetual victim. But you apparently you aren't capable of stopping. So in other words, you're using the Urban Dict-shun-ary word "Uncle Tim" to call me a bigot. How sweet of you.

Maybe I need submit a new Urban word:

"Uncle Victim". 1) A person who cries being a victim and refuses to take responsibility for their own failures. 2) One who is cognitively stuck and looks for excuses to remain a victim, knowing they don't exercise their choices when appropriate to do so.

What failure are you referring too?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[year2late]

What failure are you referring too?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Perhaps your ugly view of woman in general based on your then wife and her nurse practioner wanting some moment alone in the exam room?? Perhaps telling us that you ex-wife never contributed financially to the child when in future posts you stated that she worked as a "nurse" in a school? Do you views might spill over into the perception of your perpetual victimhood? Failures to understand boundaries and disrespect your ex-wife's contributions to the raising of your child?

Is that a start?