Question For Pro-Choice People

[BmorePat87]

(06-18-2019, 05:26 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: And, since they can't, he's saying that they're ok to kill.

He isn't. At no point did he say anything close to that. You're inferring that, and with very little backing.

Quote:Your arguments weaken so much when you attempt lame insults.

I'm not sure what lame insult I used, but I'll take your word that my argument is weakened. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-15-2019, 01:00 AM)Benton Wrote: https://www.apnews.com/6d15a393192c4bb9a6b2df2202b63931
https://www.foxnews.com/us/murder-conviction-overturned-north-carolina-man-released

https://www.dailyastorian.com/news/local/appeals-court-overturns-murder-convictions-for-seaside-man/article_63de98fa-4c20-11e9-833e-6b76dbceae75.html
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/12/19/steven-mark-chaney-murder-conviction-overturned/

It's incredibly possible for someone later found innocent to be convicted of murder. In Kentucky, we convicted a guy simply because he owned a four wheeler and a hammer and the victims (likely killed by a hammer) had complained about four wheeler riders.

None of these should be on Death Row for their crimes, and not all of them are "innocent", they just got their cases overturned because of a technicality, that is not the same as being cleared and proven innocent.

I have already stated that in order to be on Death row, it needs to be a person that killed/raped multiple people. None of these meet that criteria, so normal jail sentences for them.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-14-2019, 06:00 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: In the last decade? Like 25 or so. 

For this reason alone, I cannot see a reason to support it. When you factor in the fact that it costs more than life in prison, it makes even less sense to support it. 

And their cases/sentences were also done in the last decade not before 2009?
They were proven 100% innocent and did not got off due to technicalities?
Also were any convicted of multiple murders/rapes?

[fredtoast]

(06-17-2019, 08:45 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: He's saying that because they couldn't have an opinion (and especially not one that they could remember), that they're ok to kill.  

If I was wrong, you would have explained what he meant, but, since you can't, I'm obviously not wrong.

You obviously ARE wrong.

What I was pointing out is that a zygote does not even have the mental ability to form an opinion about anything because it does not even have a brain.

[BmorePat87]

(06-18-2019, 07:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And their cases/sentences were also done in the last decade not before 2009?
They were proven 100% innocent or got off due to technicalities?
Also were any convicted of multiple murders/rapes?

Feel free to read up on the cases

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/description-of-innocence-cases

Also, in this country it's proven guilty, not proven innocent. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-18-2019, 07:31 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Feel free to read up on the cases

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/description-of-innocence-cases

Also, in this country it's proven guilty, not proven innocent. 

Thanks, I'll view it tomorrow.

[Vas Deferens]

(06-18-2019, 08:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Thanks, I'll view it tomorrow.

“But in the mean time, I’ll just use this moral juxtaposition as a convenient gateway to imposing my anti-intellectualism on society as a whole”
- Mike MF M

[BFritz21]

(06-18-2019, 07:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You obviously ARE wrong.

What I was pointing out is that a zygote does not even have the mental ability to form an opinion about anything because it does not even have a brain.

So you think they're ok to kill.  

I'm obviously NOT wrong.

Also, a baby forms a brain after 7 weeks, which most women wouldn't even know they're pregnant by then, so, in almost all instances of abortion, you DO think it's ok to kill a being with a brain.

Once again, I'm NOT wrong.

[*Nately120*]

(06-19-2019, 12:42 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: So you think they're ok to kill.  

I'm obviously NOT wrong.

Also, a baby forms a brain after 7 weeks, which most women wouldn't even know they're pregnant by then, so, in almost all instances of abortion, you DO think it's ok to kill a being with a brain.

Once again, I'm NOT wrong.

How long does a fetus have to develop before it's mother can claim it as a dependent for welfare benefits?  Asking for a friend I knocked up.

[*bfine32*]

(06-19-2019, 01:11 AM)Nately120 Wrote: How long does a fetus have to develop before it's mother can claim it as a dependent for welfare benefits?  Asking for a friend I knocked up.

Let your friend know: I think a pregnant woman can qualify for programs such as WIC at any time during pregnancy. 

[*Nately120*]

(06-19-2019, 01:14 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Let your friend know: I think a pregnant woman can qualify for programs such as WIC at any time during pregnancy. 

Yeah we know that, but she's got a real life brain-having human in her so we want more.  

[*bfine32*]

(06-19-2019, 01:16 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Yeah we know that, but she's got a real life brain-having human in her so we want more.  

I get your "witty" question didn't work out as you had hoped, but I'm not sure what more they should provide the unborn other than nutrients that will aid in its development while also nourishing the mother.  

[*Nately120*]

(06-19-2019, 01:20 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I get your "witty" question didn't work out as you had hoped, but I'm not sure what more they should provide the unborn other than nutrients that will aid in its development while also nourishing the mother.  

It isn't even wit, it's my complete cynicism in knowing that people who want to outlaw abortion are going to lament the amount of welfare lifers that suddenly spring into existence as a result.  But hey, we can outlaw abortion and cut back on all this damn socialism and everything will work out great because life is fair and mana will rain from heaven upon us.  

I don't care if we outlaw abortions, but I'm not one who tends to gripe about white people becoming a minority and/or all the lazy people who just want handouts in this country, either.  Open your hearts and open your wallets. The same babies/fetuses that would be getting aborted today are the hoodlums we fantasize about shooting when they invade our homes 15+ years later. Again, total cynic here.


EDIT - Anyways, I should get to bed. I just can't help but see 17 pages on abortion debates and think, don't both sides really sort of want the same thing here and everyone is just trying to dance around it? But let's see, I'm 37 now and my luck and family history are pretty shoddy so even if my fear-mongering about outlawing abortion is true I won't be around to really observe the fall-out.

[BakertheBeast]

The Evangelical Right who spearhead this "ban abortions" nonsense are very pro life and love babies as long as that baby/fetus is in the woman's belly. Once it is born its on its own. Hopefully its born into a family with the money to take care of it. If not, the Right will do everything it can get away with to restrict any public assistance the mother might need. My perception of this topic but I could be mistaken.

[fredtoast]

(06-19-2019, 12:42 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: So you think they're ok to kill.  

I'm obviously NOT wrong.

Also, a baby forms a brain after 7 weeks, which most women wouldn't even know they're pregnant by then, so, in almost all instances of abortion, you DO think it's ok to kill a being with a brain.

Once again, I'm NOT wrong.

A fetus at age 7 weeks has no ability to form a thought.

And this has nothing to do with killing children after they are born. You make no sense at all.

[BFritz21]

(06-19-2019, 12:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: A fetus at age 7 weeks has no ability to form a thought.

And this has nothing to do with killing children after they are born. You make no sense at all.

First you say it just has no brain, but now it's the ability to form a thought.

Then, in typical you fashion, you resort to an insult.

No one is surprised by this.

[Belsnickel]

(06-19-2019, 04:58 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: First you say it just has no brain, but now it's the ability to form a thought.

Then, in typical you fashion, you resort to an insult.

No one is surprised by this.

Fred may have stated something incorrect, but the idea that the unborn cannot form a cognitive thought is entirely accurate, which was the crux of his statement. The cerebral cortex doesn't start functioning until late into the third trimester, and this is the part of the brain responsible for thought. Everything up to that point is "animal brain" type of stuff, reflexive.

[fredtoast]

(06-19-2019, 04:58 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: First you say it just has no brain, but now it's the ability to form a thought.

Then, in typical you fashion, you resort to an insult.

No one is surprised by this.

Sorry for all the confusion.  Let me start over.

A poster claimed that fetus have an opinion on abortion.

I claim they do not because they are not capable of forming an opinion.

None of this has anything to do with me saying it is okay to kill children that are already born.  I was just pointing out how stupid it was to claim that a fetus has an opinion on abortion and you twisted it into a ridiculous straw man argument.

Your interpretation of my comment was 100% wrong.  Get over it.

[*bfine32*]

(06-19-2019, 05:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry for all the confusion.  Let me start over.

A poster claimed that fetus have an opinion on abortion.

I claim they do not because they are not capable of forming an opinion.

None of this has anything to do with me saying it is okay to kill children that are already born.  I was just pointing out how stupid it was to claim that a fetus has an opinion on abortion and you twisted it into a ridiculous straw man argument.

Your interpretation of my comment was 100% wrong.  Get over it.

That poster actually stated the fetus most likely would have an opinion. I know we don't like to use the actual meaning of words around here, but the phrasing does make a difference.

But don't let that stop you from suggesting someone is 100% wrong.

What are your views on your mom not aborting you?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-19-2019, 07:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That poster actually stated the fetus most likely would have an opinion. I know we don't like to use the actual meaning of words around here, but the phrasing does make a difference.

But don't let that stop you from suggesting someone is 100% wrong.

What are your views on your mom not aborting you?

Like when someone refused to acknowledge the difference between psychoticism and psychotic or disturbing and mad just to name the two most recent times I can recall that person refusing to use the actual definition of words or admit the context makes a difference?