Pro-Choice People: Babies Feel Excruciating Pain During Abortions

[Benton]

(12-20-2018, 08:29 AM)GMDino Wrote: Why?  You are then saying it is okay to kill a living being because of the woman.  What if the father agrees to raise the child by himself? 

When you (universal you) leave the door open for exceptions you (universal you) are no longer standing on the high moral ground of all life is sacred. 

Same as if you support the death penalty.

All life is sacred or it isn't.  

That's not a shot at you per se (because I agree there must be exceptions if it is made illegal again...I just don't think it should be illegal)...it's the fact that a lot of people wanted to deny the choice from women but "allow" them to have the procedure if it meets other people's parameters.  (Which ignores that there are already parameters set up for suck things.)  And then in the next breath say it's "not about controlling a woman's body".

Any time the state tells you what you can and cannot do with your own body it is controlling your body.  From abortion to euthanasia to prostitution.  

Because of consent.

As a guy, I think if a woman enters into a sexual relationship willingly and there's a baby conceived out of it, she's accepted the responsibility there. On the other hand, if that's not something she willingly agreed to (or if she's unable to make a rational decision due to age or other circumstance), then that's none of my business. None. Because I can't really put myself in that victim's shoes. And no one else can either. 

[BFritz21]

(12-21-2018, 02:15 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No. I believe that a fetus is not entitled to individual rights when it can not survive seperate from another host individual.

Actually, then you were saying that her shoes have more value than the baby growing inside her.

Nice work 

[fredtoast]

(12-21-2018, 02:33 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I could not breathe on my own for a few weeks.  Was I not entitled to individual rights?

A mother has individual rights over her own body. A respirator machine does not.

[fredtoast]

(12-21-2018, 02:40 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Actually, then you were saying that her shoes have more value than the baby growing inside her.

Nice work 

No. I never said anything like 

If shoes are destroyed against her will it is misdemeanor vandalism. If a fetus is destroyed against her will it is a felony.

[BFritz21]

(12-21-2018, 02:44 AM)fredtoast Wrote: A mother has individual rights over her own body. A respirator machine does not.

[fredtoast]

(12-21-2018, 02:50 AM)BFritz21 Wrote:

Okay then i have no problem with a law that gives the father the right to the fetus taken out of the womans body.

You fine with that?

[BFritz21]

(12-21-2018, 03:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Okay then i have no problem with a law that gives the father the right to the fetus taken out of the womans body.

You fine with that?

No because it would kill the baby.

[BFritz21]

(12-21-2018, 03:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Okay then i have no problem with a law that gives the father the right to the fetus taken out of the womans body.

You fine with that?

Also, the baby feels excruciating pain when being aborted, but that's ok because "it's the mom's choice to put a child through excruciating pain"?

[fredtoast]

(12-21-2018, 03:21 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: No because it would kill the baby.

The only way the fetus is "not the womans body" is if it is seperate from the womans body.

As long as it depends on the mothers body to survive then the mothers body gets to decide if it survives.

[fredtoast]

(12-21-2018, 03:24 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Also, the baby feels excruciating pain when being aborted, but that's ok because "it's the mom's choice to put a child through excruciating pain"?

That is one of the reasons most abortions are illegal after the second trimester .

Are you okay with abortion if the fetus is numbed or terminated in a way that causes no pain?

[ballsofsteel]

Abortion is wrong. If my parents believed in abortion you all wouldn't have the pleasure of my company here.

[GMDino]

(12-21-2018, 02:40 AM)Benton Wrote: Because of consent.

As a guy, I think if a woman enters into a sexual relationship willingly and there's a baby conceived out of it, she's accepted the responsibility there. On the other hand, if that's not something she willingly agreed to (or if she's unable to make a rational decision due to age or other circumstance), then that's none of my business. None. Because I can't really put myself in that victim's shoes. And no one else can either. 

I want that to be true...but it isn't because sexual relationships are not just for conception.

Literally having getting pregnant can be an accident.

It is then up to her to decide how they will handle it moving forward.

Again, I am AGAINST abortions in general, but I do not want them to be illegal because all that will do is create more danger for the woman.  But until we can remove the fetus at any stage of pregnancy it is her choice.  Her "responsibility" is to make the decision on what to do.

If the man does not like that choice then he can go impregnate someone who agrees with him.

[BFritz21]

(12-21-2018, 03:33 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The only way the fetus is "not the womans body" is if it is seperate from the womans body.

As long as it depends on the mothers body to survive then the mothers body gets to decide if it survives.

Ok.  So, so you're ok with ripping the babies limbs from it while it's still in the womb or early on just because the mom wanted to have a baby that grew up with no arms or legs?

Or say the mom wanted to inject the baby with AIDs or some other disease while it was still in the early stages, it would be ok because it's her body and her choice?  I know that's unlikely because then she'd have it, too, but you're saying that that's ok?

  Or say she wanted to gauge out the babies eyes while it was still early in development, that's ok?

[BFritz21]

(12-21-2018, 03:39 AM)fredtoast Wrote: That is one of the reasons most abortions are illegal after the second trimester .

Are you okay with abortion if the fetus is numbed or terminated in a way that causes no pain?

Did you not read the original post or title?  

Babies can feel pain at eight weeks, which isn't the second trimester, so if you're using that as a reason of why abortions are ok, you're arguing against yourself.

Welcome to the good side!

[Belsnickel]

(12-21-2018, 08:51 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Did you not read the original post or title?  

Babies can feel pain at eight weeks, which isn't the second trimester, so if you're using that as a reason of why abortions are ok, you're arguing against yourself.

Welcome to the good side!

The framework starts to get into place at 8 weeks to feel pain. That isn't the same as actually feeling the pain. Neural connections are not developed in a way where the pain receptors are functioning fully at 8 weeks. You're misinterpreting the information in the article you linked, which is really the intention of the article. They are preying on people who want to see things the way you do because they know with that bias they can easily lead you astray,

[Au165]

(12-21-2018, 09:12 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The framework starts to get into place at 8 weeks to feel pain. That isn't the same as actually feeling the pain. Neural connections are not developed in a way where the pain receptors are functioning fully at 8 weeks. You're misinterpreting the information in the article you linked, which is really the intention of the article. They are preying on people who want to see things the way you do because they know with that bias they can easily lead you astray,

"Liberal media" explanation coming in 3...2...1...

[fredtoast]

(12-21-2018, 08:46 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Ok.  So, so you're ok with ripping the babies limbs from it while it's still in the womb or early on just because the mom wanted to have a baby that grew up with no arms or legs?

Or say the mom wanted to inject the baby with AIDs or some other disease while it was still in the early stages, it would be ok because it's her body and her choice?  I know that's unlikely because then she'd have it, too, but you're saying that that's ok?

  Or say she wanted to gauge out the babies eyes while it was still early in development, that's ok?

No. I am not. Once the child is alive outside the womb it woul ne entitled to individual rights and the mother could be charged for any damage to that individual.

I actually deal with this on a regular basis in cases where a wman had used drugs during pregnancy and births a child with Neonatal Addiction Syndrome.

[fredtoast]

Going back to the "consent" argument i want to make this point. When a man and a woman have sex they both should understand that a child could be born and they would both be legally responsible for raising and supporting that child.

However since the physical burden and other consequences of carring the child i.e. losing a job, dropping out of school, stunting a career, physical pain, possible death, etc are 100% on the woman then she has a right to terminate the pregnancy.

The man knows the possible consequences of his action but we cant give him the right to control the womans body and force her to carry the child.

The woman can't force the man to do anything that she would not also have to do and the man can't force the woman to do something he would not have to do. That is as fair as the law can be.

[BFritz21]

(12-21-2018, 09:36 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No. I am not. Once the child is alive outside the womb it woul ne entitled to individual rights and the mother could be charged for any damage to that individual.

I actually deal with this on a regular basis in cases where a wman had used drugs during pregnancy and births a child with Neonatal Addiction Syndrome.

I said if they did it while the child was still in the womb before eight weeks.

The child has no individual rights because it’s still a fetus, correct?

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2018, 09:53 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Going back to the "consent" argument i want to make this point. When a man and a woman have sex they both should understand that a child could be born and they would both be legally responsible for raising and supporting that child.

However since the physical burden and other consequences of carring the child i.e. losing a job, dropping out of school, stunting a career, physical pain, possible death, etc are 100% on the woman then she has a right to terminate the pregnancy.

The man knows the possible consequences of his action but we cant give him the right to control the womans body and force her to carry the child.

The woman can't force the man to do anything that she would not also have to do and the man can't force the woman to do something he would not have to do. That is as fair as the law can be.

Sure she can. She can force the man to support a child he does not want.

When a woman can get pregnant using her body only, then you have a point. But until science can catch up the duo must understand and accept the consequences of their actions, even if it is a temporary inconvenience.