Pro-Choice People: Babies Feel Excruciating Pain During Abortions

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2018, 05:09 PM)Nately120 Wrote: 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?

Meh, I must have read someone else's comments and mistook them for yours. Maybe there's a Mately120 in this forum

[BmorePat87]

(12-21-2018, 06:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Maybe there's a Mately120 in this forum

He's a British libertarian. 

[Belsnickel]

(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.

No, the article was written to make an emotional argument in favor of banning abortion. Why do you think the anti-abortion crowd chose pain sensation as their latest line in the sand? It's to make an argument based on an appeal to emotions.

(12-21-2018, 06:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

And then there is this, which is exactly right. My pro-choice position is entirely founded on rights and has nothing to do with science. In order to be a citizen, according to the Constitution, one must be born. Right now, by law, the unborn are not legal persons that have rights. The mothers, however, are persons and so their liberty cannot be infringed upon without due process of the law.

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2018, 10:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And then there is this, which is exactly right. My pro-choice position is entirely founded on rights and has nothing to do with science. In order to be a citizen, according to the Constitution, one must be born. Right now, by law, the unborn are not legal persons that have rights. The mothers, however, are persons and so their liberty cannot be infringed upon without due process of the law.

So there's a loophole. Stop them from being born; stop their rights. 

[fredtoast]

(12-21-2018, 06:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sounds like you're the one that's not a big fan of a man's parental rights. 

Actually i am a strong advocate for a fathers parental rights.  I feel they are often treated unfairly in custody cases.

But a man is not a legal father until the child is born. That is why a guy who has impregnated a woman talks about how he is "about to become a father".

[fredtoast]

(12-21-2018, 06:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

A man does not have "off spring" until tje child is born.

And giving a man the power to force a woman to carry a child and give birth is absolutely giving him control over her body. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-22-2018, 03:29 AM)fredtoast Wrote: A man does not have "off spring" until tje child is born.

And giving a man the power to force a woman to carry a child and give birth is absolutely giving him control over her body. 

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/offspring

Quote:offspring

Quote: 
Also found in: Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Wikipedia.
off·spring
  (ôf′sprĭng′, ŏf′-)
n. pl. offspring
1. The organism or organisms resulting from sexual or asexual reproduction.
2. A child or children of a parent or parents: the offspring of Zeus and Leto.
3. The result or product of something: "the glaciers, the offspring of the gentle snow" (John Muir).

You'll have to forgive me if I choose the dictionary over Fred's neutral word. 

As I said we see it differently. The man controls nothing that wasn't once freely offered while knowing full well the possible outcome. 

[fredtoast]

(12-22-2018, 09:55 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said we see it differently. The man controls nothing that wasn't once freely offered while knowing full well the possible outcome. 

No woman freely offers a man the right to make decisions about her body.

Every man knows he will not get pregnant, but he knows that if a baby is born he will have equal responsibility to support it just like the woman.

You see it differently because you want the man to have the right to control the pregnancy even though it is not his body or life circumstances that have to suffer due to the pregnancy.  The onlky reason it does nto seem "fair" to you is because it is impossible for the man to suffer the consequences of carrying a child

[fredtoast]

(12-22-2018, 09:55 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You'll have to forgive me if I choose the dictionary over Fred's neutral word. 

You don't have to excuse me for anything because I use the term in the exact same context as everyone else.

When a man gets a woman pregnant he talks about "becoming a father" when the child is born.

[Benton]

(12-26-2018, 12:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No woman freely offers a man the right to make decisions about her body.

Every man knows he will not get pregnant, but he knows that if a baby is born he will have equal responsibility to support it just like the woman.

You see it differently because you want the man to have the right to control the pregnancy even though it is not his body or life circumstances that have to suffer due to the pregnancy.  The onlky reason it does nto seem "fair" to you is because it is impossible for the man to suffer the consequences of carrying a child

It's not his body, but it does change his life circumstances. As you say, he shares in a responsibility. 

[GMDino]

(12-26-2018, 12:58 PM)Benton Wrote: It's not his body, but it does change his life circumstances. As you say, he shares in a responsibility. 

Unless he runs from it, denies he's the father, drags things out, never pays child support, etc.

The female is pretty tied in to her part as the fetus is growing inside her body.

[*bfine32*]

(12-26-2018, 12:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1. You don't have to excuse me for anything because I use the term in the exact same context as everyone else.

2. When a man gets a woman pregnant he talks about "becoming a father" when the child is born.

1. It's OK to say you were wrong when you made a feeble attempt to correct me about the definition of the word. You don't have to bring "everyone else" into it.

2. A man often looks at a pregnant woman and says 'That's my child".

[*bfine32*]

(12-26-2018, 12:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No woman freely offers a man the right to make decisions about her body.

Every man knows he will not get pregnant, but he knows that if a baby is born he will have equal responsibility to support it just like the woman.

You see it differently because you want the man to have the right to control the pregnancy even though it is not his body or life circumstances that have to suffer due to the pregnancy.  The onlky reason it does nto seem "fair" to you is because it is impossible for the man to suffer the consequences of carrying a child

No I see it differently because I want the father to have the chance to raise a child he created.

No man freely offers he financial support to a woman simply because they have sex.

The only reason it doesn't seem "fair' to me is because the mother alone gets to make the choice to kill their child. Now once science catches up and a woman can get pregnant  on her own; then she should have to sole word, but as it is now: it's a joint effort.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-21-2018, 10:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, the article was written to make an emotional argument in favor of banning abortion. Why do you think the anti-abortion crowd chose pain sensation as their latest line in the sand? It's to make an argument based on an appeal to emotions.

And then there is this, which is exactly right. My pro-choice position is entirely founded on rights and has nothing to do with science. In order to be a citizen, according to the Constitution, one must be born. Right now, by law, the unborn are not legal persons that have rights. The mothers, however, are persons and so their liberty cannot be infringed upon without due process of the law.

And why was it written like this? Maybe a counter argument to the whole de-humanizing it by calling it nothing but a clump of cells that does not feel pain or have a soul or a brain etc?
So have to fight fire with fire.

(12-22-2018, 03:29 AM)fredtoast Wrote: A man does not have "off spring" until tje child is born.

And giving a man the power to force a woman to carry a child and give birth is absolutely giving him control over her body. 

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.

[ballsofsteel]

(12-26-2018, 03:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. It's OK to say you were wrong when you made a feeble attempt to correct me about the definition of the word. You don't have to bring "everyone else" into it.

2. A man often looks at a pregnant woman and says 'That's my child".

"A man often looks at a pregnant woman and says 'That's my child".


Hi, You're right. This is what proud rich Republicans say to people when talking about knocking up their wives being they treat their women like chattel.

[*bfine32*]

(12-26-2018, 05:33 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: "A man often looks at a pregnant woman and says 'That's my child".


Hi, You're right. This is what proud rich Republicans say to people when talking about knocking up their wives being they treat their women like chattel.

Is it your suggestion that Democrats are not proud or take ownership of their unborn children? 

[ballsofsteel]

(12-26-2018, 05:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is it your suggestion that Democrats are not proud or take ownership of their unborn children? 

Why would have to say to someone "that is my child"? This implies the woman must sleep around and you have to make it clear that you were the one who planted the seed. A democrat wouldn't humiliate his wife and treat her like a new bmw.

[*bfine32*]

(12-26-2018, 05:49 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Why would have to say to someone "that is my child"? This implies the woman must sleep around and you have to make it clear that you were the one who planted the seed. A democrat wouldn't humiliate his wife and treat her like a new bmw.

It implies nothing more than that person is proud to be the father of the child.

So in your logic every time someone says "That's my child" they are implying their mate is sleeping around. I am amazed daily by the patterns of thought in this forum.

[fredtoast]

(12-26-2018, 03:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No man freely offers he financial support to a woman simply because they have sex.

If he has unprotected sex, then yes he does. But if the child is born the burden will be on both the man and the woman equally.  The woman can not force the man to do something that she will not also have to do.

[fredtoast]

(12-26-2018, 03:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The only reason it doesn't seem "fair' to me is because the mother alone gets to make the choice to kill their child. 

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.