Pro-Choice People: Babies Feel Excruciating Pain During Abortions

[*bfine32*]

(12-26-2018, 07:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Both the man and the woman have the right to terminate the fetus while it is still part of their body.  That is as fair as the law can get.

The law can not give one person control over another equal persons body.  We can't take away a woman's individual rights just because nature made her different from man.

You do realize that they reason they can procreate in the first place is because their bodies are different don't you?

Each person understands the function of their body and should accept the responsibility. There's nothing "fair" about the woman being the sole voice for termination of the offspring formed by their union. 

[fredtoast]

(12-26-2018, 05:14 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: To me, there has to be a way to find middle ground. Giving the woman absolute control is not what equality is about. if you want equality, then you have to willing to give equality as well. I understand it's her body, but it takes 2 to make one and to eliminate one persons rights is not what equality is about.

Why should a woman's rights transgress a man's rights? It takes 2 to make a baby, it should take 2 to decide the babies future.
What if they are married, the spouse has no rights?
If the father wants an abortion and mother doesn't, why can't the man pay for a financial abortion and never have to do anything ever again with/for the child?
What if the mother trapped the male by stopping her BC? For men it's called "Stealthing?" for Women it should be same, but it's not. At the very least it should be Fraud, but even so, the male is on the hook for the Child Support and was robbed of his right to pick his circumstances as to when and who he wants to have a child with.

Equality is about letting all people have control over their own body.  What you want to do is strip away a woman's individual rights just because nature made her different from men.

You have 100% control of your seed.  If you don't want a kid then don't put your seed in a woman.  If you do put your seed in a woman then you need to know that you will be responsible if a child is born, but this does not give you any control over a woman's body.  You can neither force her to have an abortion nor force her to carry the child.  

This may not sound fair to  man, but if you change the law then it is not fair to the woman.

[BFritz21]

(12-26-2018, 07:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Equality is about letting all people have control over their own body.  What you want to do is strip away a woman's individual rights just because nature made her different from men.

You have 100% control of your seed.  If you don't want a kid then don't put your seed in a woman.  If you do put your seed in a woman then you need to know that you will be responsible if a child is born, but this does not give you any control over a woman's body.  You can neither force her to have an abortion nor force her to carry the child.  

This may not sound fair to  man, but if you change the law then it is not fair to the woman.

But back to the thread topic, what about the baby's body?  Just because it is inside the woman, it is ok to cause it excruciating pain?

[fredtoast]

(12-26-2018, 07:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There's nothing "fair" about the woman being the sole voice for termination of the offspring formed by their union. 

The full burden of carrying the child falls on the woman, so the decision is hers alone.  A woman can die from childbirth.  She can lose a job, lose a career, be forced to drop out of school.  There is A LOT of physical suffering involved with a pregnancy.  

How is it fair to give the man a control over the woman's body that she will never have over his?  And remember that BOTH parents are liable for raising the child.  So in that case the man is not required to do anything that the woman also does not have to do.

If the man wants equal rights then give him the right to get the fetus when it is removed from the woman's body.  I have no problem with that.

[*bfine32*]

(12-26-2018, 07:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The full burden of carrying the child falls on the woman, so the decision is hers alone.  A woman can die from childbirth.  She can lose a job, lose a career, be forced to drop out of school.  There is A LOT of physical suffering involved with a pregnancy.  

How is it fair to give the man a control over the woman's body that she will never have over his?  And remember that BOTH parents are liable for raising the child.  So in that case the man is not required to do anything that the woman also does not have to do.

If the man wants equal rights then give him the right to get the fetus when it is removed from the woman's body.  I have no problem with that.

And I have no problem with a woman have the singular voice when she can get pregnant on her own.But until science catches up....

I have stated in cases of physical harm to the mother, then the choice should be solely hers.

Lot's of things can cause one to lose a job, lose a career, be forced to drop out of school and many times the individual did not freely volunteer in the activity that led to these issues. 

He has no control over her body; he just says you cannot kill my offspring because I want to accept responsibility for it. 

[fredtoast]

(12-26-2018, 07:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He has no control over her body; he just says you cannot kill my offspring because I want to accept responsibility for it. 

He has control over her body if he forces her to use it to carry his child.

If he wants equality then just give him the fetus when it is removed from the woman.  I have no problem with him having equal rights to it.  That way he is not given any control over the woman's body and neither party can complain about being treated unfairly.

[fredtoast]

(12-26-2018, 07:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Lot's of things can cause one to lose a job, lose a career, be forced to drop out of school and many times the individual did not freely volunteer in the activity that led to these issues. 

I have no idea what this even means, but nothing compares to giving another person power to make decisions about your body if you have broken no laws.

[BFritz21]

(12-26-2018, 07:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The full burden of carrying the child falls on the woman, so the decision is hers alone.  A woman can die from childbirth.  She can lose a job, lose a career, be forced to drop out of school.  There is A LOT of physical suffering involved with a pregnancy.  

How is it fair to give the man a control over the woman's body that she will never have over his?  And remember that BOTH parents are liable for raising the child.  So in that case the man is not required to do anything that the woman also does not have to do.

If the man wants equal rights then give him the right to get the fetus when it is removed from the woman's body.  I have no problem with that.

Actually, isn't it illegal to fire someone because they're pregnant?  Isn't it also illegal to fire someone just because they have a child?  Schools have daycares, so that's not a valid excuse, either.  

[BmorePat87]

(12-26-2018, 07:17 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: But back to the thread topic, what about the baby's body? 

From a philosophical point of view, the argument is that the fetus has no right over the woman's body, and so while it is not viable outside of a womb, the woman has the right to abort it. One's right to life cannot be at the expense of another's right to self. 

A counter argument would say that there's some sort of consent given by the woman during the procreation process. 

Quote:Just because it is inside the woman, it is ok to cause it excruciating pain?

There was no confirmation that a fetus feels excruciating pain. You're not likely to get anyone to entertain an argument that hinges on this. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-26-2018, 07:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have no idea what this even means, but nothing compares to giving another person power to make decisions about your body if you have broken no laws.

Unless of course, if it's a mother solely making a choice about an unborn child created by a mutually agreed union

[BFritz21]

(12-26-2018, 07:37 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: There was no confirmation that a fetus feels excruciating pain. You're not likely to get anyone to entertain an argument that hinges on this. 

There wasn't?

Quote: It is entirely uncontested in the scientific and medical literature that a fetus experiences pain in some capacity from as early as eight weeks.” This information has been found through scientific study, not, as abortion activists falsely claim, through Pro-Life activists manipulating data. Eller called Condic’s work “a coercion of science to forward a political agenda,” but the error seems rather to be on the part of abortion activists who refuse to acknowledge scientific evidence that calls into question the ethics and legal status of elective abortion.

Seems like pretty definitive confirmation to me that trumps the unscientific opinion of someone that doesn't have a medical background but does have a bias opinion that's not based on science.

[Belsnickel]

(12-26-2018, 07:53 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: There wasn't?



Seems like pretty definitive confirmation to me that trumps the unscientific opinion of someone that doesn't have a medical background but does have a bias opinion that's not based on science.

You are misrepresenting the information you are quoting. The statement is that "a fetus experiences pain in some capacity from as early as eight weeks" which is not the same thing as a fetus feeling excruciating pain. I don't know how many times I hav eto point out to you that you aren't actually reading your own information correctly for you to understand this.

[*bfine32*]

(12-26-2018, 07:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You are misrepresenting the information you are quoting. The statement is that "a fetus experiences pain in some capacity from as early as eight weeks" which is not the same thing as a fetus feeling excruciating pain. I don't know how many times I hav eto point out to you that you aren't actually reading your own information correctly for you to understand this.

So the difference is the use of the word excruciating? 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-26-2018, 07:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Equality is about letting all people have control over their own body.  What you want to do is strip away a woman's individual rights just because nature made her different from men.

You have 100% control of your seed.  If you don't want a kid then don't put your seed in a woman.  If you do put your seed in a woman then you need to know that you will be responsible if a child is born, but this does not give you any control over a woman's body.  You can neither force her to have an abortion nor force her to carry the child.  

This may not sound fair to  man, but if you change the law then it is not fair to the woman.

And if she lies about Birth Control or pokes holes in the condom??

Should the man still be on the hook then if a child is conceived?

[fredtoast]

(12-26-2018, 07:36 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Actually, isn't it illegal to fire someone because they're pregnant?  Isn't it also illegal to fire someone just because they have a child?  Schools have daycares, so that's not a valid excuse, either.  

If a woman is unable to perform her duties while pregnant then the employer is not required to employ her.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-26-2018, 07:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The full burden of carrying the child falls on the woman, so the decision is hers alone.  A woman can die from childbirth.  She can lose a job, lose a career, be forced to drop out of school.  There is A LOT of physical suffering involved with a pregnancy.  

How is it fair to give the man a control over the woman's body that she will never have over his?  And remember that BOTH parents are liable for raising the child.  So in that case the man is not required to do anything that the woman also does not have to do.

If the man wants equal rights then give him the right to get the fetus when it is removed from the woman's body.  I have no problem with that.

So, you are saying if I can extract the fertilized egg(s), and do an embryo transfer to a prepared body, then I'm good to go? if the woman desires an Abortion and I find someone willing to carry for me?

[fredtoast]

(12-26-2018, 08:15 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And if she lies about Birth Control or pokes holes in the condom??

Should the man still be on the hook then if a child is conceived?

This is an issue that has nothing to do with abortion.

Funny how so many guys that seemed to be so worried about the "life that began at conception" turn out to be fine with aborting a fetus the father doesn't want.

[*bfine32*]

(12-26-2018, 08:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If a woman is unable to perform her duties while pregnant then the employer is not required to employ her.

So just that we're clear: an employer can fire an employee simply being pregnant? 

[Belsnickel]

(12-26-2018, 08:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So the difference is the use of the word excruciating? 

It's a big difference. At 8 weeks, a fetus has the beginnings of the architecture that allow pain sensations to be transmitted. That is what the science tells us. The degree to which a fetus feels pain at 8 weeks is not known but we know that the ability to feel pain completely is not developed until much later, at 20 weeks. Since intense pain sensations require a more developed architecture within the nervous system, it is highly unlikely that a fetus at 8 weeks is able to feel excruciating pain. That would happen sometime later in the development. Because of this, the continued use of the word excruciating is misleading, if not outright lying, with the intent to make an argument to emotion.

[fredtoast]

(12-26-2018, 08:20 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So, you are saying if I can extract the fertilized egg(s), and do an embryo transfer to a prepared body, then I'm good to go? if the woman desires an Abortion and I find someone willing to carry for me?

Yes.  I think that would be fair.