Planned Parenthood ADMITS THAT IT KILLS BABIES

[KillerGoose]

(06-24-2022, 09:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: One has the goal of killing. One has death as the most likely outcome. I’m not necessarily ok with the latter but it is different just like my grenade analogy. Death while almost a certainty is not the goal. Death is the inly goal in abortion.

In what scenarios are you okay with an abortion being performed? 

[*michaelsean*]

(06-25-2022, 10:02 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: In what scenarios are you okay with an abortion being performed? 

Morally or legally?

[KillerGoose]

(06-25-2022, 10:09 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Morally or legally?

I'm interested in both answers.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-25-2022, 10:16 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: I'm interested in both answers.

I don’t know if I know anymore. There is what you have always believed, but then there is what you feel when something happens. Turns out I wasn’t happy when it was overturned. I’m not sure why though. I think I don’t like the disruption. I guess it should be legal but I don’t want to be a pro choice person. I don’t like the way they assign motive. I probably wouldn’t want to be a pro life person if I grew up pro choice because they’re probably just as bad. I just don’t notice them as much.

Morally? Big answer is most abortions would be immoral, but then you hear case by case and there has to be some compassion. I do hold doctors who do them on a regular basis in some contempt. Much more than the patients.

That’s the best I’ve got right now because I’ve been confused about it for a while now.

[*Nately120*]

(06-25-2022, 10:02 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: In what scenarios are you okay with an abortion being performed? 

When it prevents us from turning into a bigger version of Mexico. 

[KillerGoose]

(06-25-2022, 10:36 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don’t know if I know anymore. There is what you have always believed, but then there is what you feel when something happens. Turns out I wasn’t happy when it was overturned. I’m not sure why though. I think I don’t like the disruption. I guess it should be legal but I don’t want to be a pro choice person. I don’t like the way they assign motive. I probably wouldn’t want to be a pro life person if I grew up pro choice because they’re probably just as bad. I just don’t notice them as much.

Morally?  Big answer is most abortions would be immoral, but then you hear case by case and there has to be some compassion. I do hold doctors who do them in a regular basis in some contempt. Much more than the patients.

That’s the best I’ve got right now because I’ve been confused about it for a while now.

I think this is similar to my wife's feelings. I posted this another thread, but all of my in-laws are conservative. They are religious, and morally are against abortion. However, they all believe that it should legal and available in all states. They weren't happy with the decision yesterday. I view it as a clash of rights. I tend to move past the personhood argument as it never really progresses past that point. If we decide that the fetus is in fact a person, I do not believe that the fetus' right to life grants said fetus the right to control the bodily autonomy of the mother. 

We all have the right of life, but what if what is needed to continue that life is something that this individual has no right at all to be given? Say a man with Rh-null blood type is in desperate need of a blood transfusion. If he does not receive this blood transfusion, he will certainly die. It just so happens that you are one of <50 individuals on the Earth that also have this blood type. Does his right to life grant him access to your blood? No, of course it doesn't. You have a choice. You can say no, even with the knowledge that this man will certainly die if you do not provide him access to your blood. Your right to bodily autonomy is weightier than his right to life. 

Now, there are other nuances of pregnancies and abortions that aren't considered in that analogy, but I don't find them to be significant enough to change the final opinion - the fetus' right to life does not outweigh the right of bodily autonomy of the mother. Those are just my quick thoughts on the topic. It is certainly not a fun topic to be discussed and I was hoping we wouldn't be here, but we are. 

[*michaelsean*]

(06-25-2022, 10:56 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: I think this is similar to my wife's feelings. I posted this another thread, but all of my in-laws are conservative. They are religious, and morally are against abortion. However, they all believe that it should legal and available in all states. They weren't happy with the decision yesterday. I view it as a clash of rights. I tend to move past the personhood argument as it never really progresses past that point. If we decide that the fetus is in fact a person, I do not believe that the fetus' right to life grants said fetus the right to control the bodily autonomy of the mother. 

We all have the right of life, but what if what is needed to continue that life is something that this individual has no right at all to be given? Say a man with Rh-null blood type is in desperate need of a blood transfusion. If he does not receive this blood transfusion, he will certainly die. It just so happens that you are one of <50 individuals on the Earth that also have this blood type. Does his right to life grant him access to your blood? No, of course it doesn't. You have a choice. You can say no, even with the knowledge that this man will certainly die if you do not provide him access to your blood. Your right to bodily autonomy is weightier than his right to life. 

Now, there are other nuances of pregnancies and abortions that aren't considered in that analogy, but I don't find them to be significant enough to change the final opinion - the fetus' right to life does not outweigh the right of bodily autonomy of the mother. Those are just my quick thoughts on the topic. It is certainly not a fun topic to be discussed and I was hoping we wouldn't be here, but we are. 

I get your analogy but it ignores active vs passive action. I’m not disagreeing completely, but that will come up if you use that analogy. Also, most people seem ok with limiting abortions after a certain period. That’s doing the same thing, just at a later stage.

Edit: To me there is a question for each side of the argument that only the extremes can answer with certainty. To pro-choice, I would ask why do you limit the time period of when a woman has a right to control her body?

To pro-life if you actually believe that is a hum night baby no different than a born baby, then why are you opposed to the Eric Rudolph types? If you knew a person was slaughtering children in his house and nobody was stopping him, would you just walk around his house with a sign?

[Belsnickel]

(06-25-2022, 09:47 AM)michaelsean Wrote: It’s being pedantic when you know what we are talking about and you bring up a D and C.

Being pedantic would be pointing out that the definition of abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not the termination of a life, and D&C is still an abortion service.

(06-25-2022, 09:47 AM)michaelsean Wrote: And no rare exceptions don’t put us in agreement.

But it proves that abortion is not only about causing death. You agree to that. Don't blame me for your choice of absolutist language.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-25-2022, 12:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Being pedantic would be pointing out that the definition of abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not the termination of a life, and D&C is still an abortion service.


But it proves that abortion is not only about causing death. You agree to that. Don't blame me for your choice of absolutist language.

We were speaking of abortion in the common usage. Nobody thinks about a D and C when speaking about abortion. If we had to clarify every time we were speaking in common terms to satisfy the bores then we would get nowhere.

And ok. For the vast majority of non-D and C abortions the goal is killing. Now that is clarified we can go on discussing it exactly as before. Excellent work.