Pro-Choice People: Babies Feel Excruciating Pain During Abortions

[Benton]

(12-21-2018, 08:22 AM)GMDino Wrote: 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.

Biologically, sex is for reproduction. Like how the euphoric high experienced by some joggers is a primal part if fight or flight responses. It's not there for pleasure, but some people jog for that response.

[Benton]

(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.

Fourth graf and second graf. Both know what might happen, so both bear the responsibility (except in issues of consent).

[GMDino]

(12-21-2018, 12:52 PM)Benton Wrote: Biologically, sex is for reproduction. Like how the euphoric high experienced by some joggers is a primal part if fight or flight responses. It's not there for pleasure, but some people jog for that response.

No doubt is it pleasurable to encourage reproduction.  But it serves other purposes, pleasure in and of itself as you say.

Not everyone is having sex just to have babies and many go through the trouble of trying to prevent it.

[*Nately120*]

(12-20-2018, 03:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If I invited you to place the core there then perhaps you do. If you did it without my consent; you have no say in the matter.

Do you see it now?

If we want to play the odds, I'd assume we made the tree by accident.

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2018, 01:07 PM)Nately120 Wrote: If we want to play the odds, I'd assume we made the tree by accident.

No accident. I asked you to throw the core.

[*Nately120*]

(12-21-2018, 01:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No accident. I asked you to throw the core.

Pfft, it kills the romance if you ask me to do it.  

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2018, 01:31 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Pfft, it kills the romance if you ask me to do it.  

I suppose it depends on the method used to "ask".

[fredtoast]

(12-21-2018, 12:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure she can. She can force the man to suppot a child he does not want

They both agree to the possibility of supporting a child when they have sex. 

But the man does not gain the right to force a woman to have his baby by having sex with her.  Neither does he gain the right to fotce her to get an abortion. Women do not consent for men to gain control of their bodiles just because they they have sex.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(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,

The article was done, because the Liberals keep changing the line in the sand.

if people wish to use science as their defining definition, then you lose at the moment of conception. Just because that little clump of cells isn't in the form we are used to seeing, does not mean it is not alive by it's own right. It is still in it's simplest form of the human cycle. There is no skipping any stage in the cycle in order to get to the next stage. From the simple sperm fertilizing the egg to the Elderly adult stage where it dies. All stages are part of all human beings and the cycle of life.

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2018, 01:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They both agree to the possibility of supporting a child when they have sex. 

But the man does not gain the right to force a woman to have his baby by having sex with her.  Neither does he gain the right to fotce her to get an abortion. Women do not consent for men to gain control of their bodiles just because they they have sex.

They agree to the possibility of supporting it, but not the possibility of having it?

As I said, once she can get pregnant by herself, then "her body her choice" makes sense. But until science catches up.......

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2018, 02:53 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The article was done, because the Liberals keep changing the line in the sand.

if people wish to use science as their defining definition, then you lose at the moment of conception. Just because that little clump of cells isn't in the form we are used to seeing, does not mean it is not alive by it's own right. It is still in it's simplest form of the human cycle. There is no skipping any stage in the cycle in order to get to the next stage. From the simple sperm fertilizing the egg to the Elderly adult stage where it dies. All stages are part of all human beings and the cycle of life.

The Left likes to "ignore science" when it benefits them.

[*Nately120*]

Doesn't abortion being legal keep a whole boatload of unmarried poor women from bringing kids that they can't or won't support into this country? Why doesn't this sort of thing fall under the "unpleasant, but necessary to protect us" classification as other defense measures and policies we're undertaken and have been championed by the right? Just pretend the kid is an immigrant and the woman's vagina is the southern US border. Sorry kid, we don't mean to punish you, but your mom isn't on the up-n-up and we've got to protect ourselves.

And don't tell me these unwanted kids can be adopted by loving families, because that's how you get Colin Kaepernick.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-21-2018, 03:59 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Doesn't abortion being legal keep a whole boatload of unmarried poor women from bringing kids that they can't or won't support into this country?  Why doesn't this sort of thing fall under the "unpleasant, but necessary to protect us" classification as other defense measures and policies we're undertaken and have been championed by the right?  Just pretend the kid is an immigrant and the woman's vagina is the southern US border.  Sorry kid, we don't mean to punish you, but your mom isn't on the up-n-up and we've got to protect ourselves.

And don't tell me these unwanted kids can be adopted by loving families, because that's how you get Colin Kaepernick.

Never understood why the rhetoric is that Republicans don't care about moms and their babies.

We do, but we also stress the importance and accepting the consequences of your actions.

Unfortunately adoption laws in the US need to be revamped. Why do you think people keep going over seas to adopt?
So bad that the Chinese men are out numbering the women and many men are staying single because they can't find a woman.
Then there's Russia, where they made it illegal with the Magnitsky Act in 2012.

[*Nately120*]

(12-21-2018, 04:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Never understood why the rhetoric is that Republicans don't care about moms and their babies.

We do, but we also stress the importance and accepting the consequences of your actions.

That's fine, but the consequence we're going to have to accept from outlawing abortion is more entitlement spending and a higher crime rate.  That's where the cynicism comes into it.  We found a way to turn asylum-seekers into dangerous criminals, but we can't fathom an unaborted fetus turning into an uneducated, impoverished adult wreaking havoc on our system and citizens?

Just take that M&M meme the right wing loves so much and replace Syrian Refugees with fetuses.  If 10 out of ever 10,000 abortions prevent dangerous criminals from entering out system, would you outlaw abortion?

Again, abortion can be as illegal or legal as people want it to be...it's out of my hands, but the prospect of adding an extra 600k people per year, some 450k of which will be born into this country with our widening wage gap is one that can be spun into a pretty scary scenario.  You want to pay more taxes to poor people who have kids they can't afford?  Want more poor thugs overrunning the streets?  Well if you do, then open the borders and overturn Roe vs Wade.

Poor people are either dangerous or they aren't. You can't pick and choose once the fear monster is out of the bag.

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2018, 04:58 PM)Nately120 Wrote: That's fine, but the consequence we're going to have to accept from outlawing abortion is more entitlement spending and a higher crime rate.  That's where the cynicism comes into it.  We found a way to turn asylum-seekers into dangerous criminals, but we can't fathom an unaborted fetus turning into an uneducated, impoverished adult wreaking havoc on our system and citizens?

Just take that M&M meme the right wing loves so much and replace Syrian Refugees with fetuses.  If 10 out of ever 10,000 abortions prevent dangerous criminals from entering out system, would you outlaw abortion?

Again, abortion can be as illegal or legal as people want it to be...it's out of my hands, but the prospect of adding an extra 600k people per year, some 450k of which will be born into this country with our widening wage gap is one that can be spun into a pretty scary scenario.  You want to pay more taxes to poor people who have kids they can't afford?  Want more poor thugs overrunning the streets?  Well if you do, then open the borders and overturn Roe vs Wade.

Poor people are either dangerous or they aren't.  You can't pick and choose once the fear monster is out of the bag.

Why do you stereotype so?

Are you suggesting only poor people have abortions?

[*Nately120*]

(12-21-2018, 05:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why do you stereotype so?

Are you suggesting only poor people have abortions?

I didn't say only poor people have abortions. I'm just wondering why outlawing abortion isn't being treated as yet another of those "asking to be invaded and put in danger" scenarios.

All it takes is 10 out of those 10,000 M&Ms, right?

[BrownAssClown]

(12-21-2018, 02:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The Left likes to "ignore science" when it benefits them.

...and the right does the same thing when it come to global warming....err...I mean "climate change".

[fredtoast]

(12-21-2018, 02:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They agree to the possibility of supporting it, but not the possibility of having it?

As I said, once she can get pregnant by herself, then "her body her choice" makes sense. But until science catches up.......

Yes. They agree to the responsibility of supporting a child if it is born but the man is not given control over a womans body just because he has sex with her.

Under our laws that recognze individual freedom that is the only way it can work. We can not give a man control over the womans body.

If it worked the way you suggested then when women can get pregnant by themselves men will never have any parental rights to any child ever born. Is that what you really want to happen?

[fredtoast]

(12-21-2018, 02:53 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The article was done, because the Liberals keep changing the line in the sand.

if people wish to use science as their defining definition, then you lose at the moment of conception. Just because that little clump of cells isn't in the form we are used to seeing, does not mean it is not alive by it's own right. It is still in it's simplest form of the human cycle. There is no skipping any stage in the cycle in order to get to the next stage. From the simple sperm fertilizing the egg to the Elderly adult stage where it dies. All stages are part of all human beings and the cycle of life.

I 100% agree with the science. Life begins at conception. But legal individual rights do not attach until the fetus can exist as an individual seperate from the mother. The mother is an individual with rights over her own body. The fetus is not.

When the fetus can be removed at conception and survive as an individual then the law should change. Until then it has no individual rights.

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2018, 06:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes. They agree to the responsibility of supporting a child if it is born but the man is not given control over a womans body just because he has sex with her.

Under our laws that recognze individual freedom that is the only way it can work. We can not give a man control over the womans body.

If it worked the way you suggested then when women can get pregnant by themselves men will never have any parental rights to any child ever born. Is that what you really want to happen?

Sounds like you're the one that's not a big fan of a man's parental rights. 

But even if a woman can get herself pregnant; most would probably like the offspring to have some traits of the father.

You're just talking in bumper stickers; no one is giving anyone control over another's body; they're simply saying you cannot kill his offspring. 

But the discussion is moot and nothing's going to change. I find allowing a woman to terminate a perfectly healthy baby (that she freely participated in his/her creation) that the child's parent wants to raise every bit as perverse as you do "giving the man control over her body". Believe it or not we see a great many things through a different lense,