Question For Pro-Choice People

[jj22]

I'd be more sympathetic towards the pro lifers if when the baby was born they didn't bend over backwards to cut programs that help the mother after they forced her to have the baby.

Instead they turn their backs on the mother and baby.

Force them to have the baby, but check the voting records of these politicians (and who the pro lifers support). You won't find much they voted for that help these women. If anything at all.

To the OP are you for helping to support the women and baby? Does your voting record reflect that?

Does life according to pro lifer definition begin at conception and end at birth?

[Dill]

(05-13-2019, 04:24 PM)Nately120 Wrote: What are we supposed to do if we see a pregnant woman drinking or smoking?  If we are pro choice I guess we give her a thumbs up and tell her to commit to the process?

What do we do if we are pro-life? 

[CJD]

(05-13-2019, 04:52 PM)Dill Wrote: What do we do if we are pro-life? 

Apparently, we petition our government and legal system to arrest her.

[*Nately120*]

(05-13-2019, 04:52 PM)Dill Wrote: What do we do if we are pro-life? 

Determine if the woman is white and/or married and proceed from there. 

[*Nately120*]

(05-13-2019, 04:54 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Apparently, we petition our government and legal system to arrest her.

The real problem is government regulation.  If the tobacco/alcohol/drug companies had their way they'd never have to let people know that drinking/smoking/etc can harm the development of a fetus.  Those warning labels and threads like this are just a bunch of left-wing communistic BS.

And isn't it also possible that the studies that found the "evidence" that drinking and smoking harms a fetus were conducted by biased parties who were trying to force their healthy lifestyle upon us or hurt job-creating industries?

[Dill]

(05-13-2019, 05:01 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Determine if the woman is white and/or married and proceed from there. 

[BFritz21]

(05-13-2019, 01:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Simple answer.

You can punish a woman for any damage she does (or reckless behavior that could cause damage) to a child that is carried beyond the second trimester.

OK, so limbs are formed by then, so it would be ok for a woman to have a surgery that opens her up and breaks the babies legs and arms or just has them cut-off causing the baby to be born deformed just because it's the woman's body and she can do what she wants?

[*Nately120*]

(05-14-2019, 05:05 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: OK, so limbs are formed by then, so it would be ok for a woman to have a surgery that opens her up and breaks the babies legs and arms or just has them cut-off causing the baby to be born deformed just because it's the woman's body and she can do what she wants?

Yes, and if the mother is Mexican it is ok for Republicans to take the now broken legged and broken armed baby from the mother's womb and throw it into a cage.

[BFritz21]

(05-15-2019, 10:39 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Yes, and if the mother is Mexican it is ok for Republicans to take the now broken legged and broken armed baby from the mother's womb and throw it into a cage.

Way to try and turn it into an immigration joke when you know that that's completely wrong and immoral to do.

If you want to play that game, though, why would you think that's ok for the mother to do to the baby in my question?

[Au165]

(05-14-2019, 05:05 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: OK, so limbs are formed by then, so it would be ok for a woman to have a surgery that opens her up and breaks the babies legs and arms or just has them cut-off causing the baby to be born deformed just because it's the woman's body and she can do what she wants?

I think at that point you probably send her for a psych evaluation. 

[BFritz21]

(05-15-2019, 12:05 PM)Au165 Wrote: I think at that point you probably send her for a psych evaluation. 

Why?  How's that worse than killing it?  Killing it damages its future more than what I suggested.

[CJD]

(05-15-2019, 01:51 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Why?  How's that worse than killing it?  Killing it damages its future more than what I suggested.

Because torture is generally considered worse than murder. For example, why are there laws that allow for the government to execute criminals, but torturing criminals (or suspected criminals) is not legal? 

Why is there so much research and effort into making executions "painless" (although many of those efforts result in failure)?

Why does the Eighth Amendment exist?

[BFritz21]

(05-15-2019, 02:12 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Because torture is generally considered worse than murder. For example, why are there laws that allow for the government to execute criminals, but torturing criminals (or suspected criminals) is not legal? 

Why is there so much research and effort into making executions "painless" (although many of those efforts result in failure)?

Why does the Eighth Amendment exist?

How's that torture?  The baby won't remember the pain.  

[CJD]

(05-15-2019, 05:01 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: How's that torture?  The baby won't remember the pain.  

So did you start this thread to actually discuss things? Or was it just a bad faith "hit" on pro-choice people?

[fredtoast]

(05-14-2019, 05:05 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: OK, so limbs are formed by then, so it would be ok for a woman to have a surgery that opens her up and breaks the babies legs and arms or just has them cut-off causing the baby to be born deformed just because it's the woman's body and she can do what she wants?

WTF are you talking about?


I never said it was okay.  I said the woman could be punished for it.

[fredtoast]

(05-15-2019, 12:05 PM)Au165 Wrote: I think at that point you probably send her for a psych evaluation. 

Yeah, it would take a real sick, evil, twisted person to even come up with that idea.

I wonder where Brad got it from?  

[BFritz21]

(05-15-2019, 05:54 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: So did you start this thread to actually discuss things? Or was it just a bad faith "hit" on pro-choice people?

How is that not a discussion point?  I'd like answers.

(05-15-2019, 05:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: WTF are you talking about?


I never said it was okay.  I said the woman could be punished for it.

And I was pointing out that the limbs were formed before the before the timeframe you listed, so is that ok to do in your eyes?

That's wtf I'm talking about.  

[CJD]

(05-15-2019, 06:18 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: How is that not a discussion point?  I'd like answers.
 

I didn't say it wasn't a discussion point. Just that it's a bad faith discussion point.

See, in order for you to want an answer to that question you would have to pretend like you don't understand that breaking a fetus' legs and arms for no reason isn't "Cruel and Unusual" punishment.

You know?

So, are we discussing things or are you gonna keep making straw man arguments?

[fredtoast]

(05-15-2019, 06:18 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: And I was pointing out that the limbs were formed before the before the timeframe you listed, so is that ok to do in your eyes?
  

How could it be okay in my eyes when I said she should be punished for any damage she does to a child she carried past the second trimester.

I am pretty sure cutting off its limbs would be damage.


**EDIT**  Maybe you just misread my original post.

[BFritz21]

(05-15-2019, 06:34 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I didn't say it wasn't a discussion point. Just that it's a bad faith discussion point.

See, in order for you to want an answer to that question you would have to pretend like you don't understand that breaking a fetus' legs and arms for no reason isn't "Cruel and Unusual" punishment.

You know?

So, are we discussing things or are you gonna keep making straw man arguments?

Cruel and unusual punishment to what?  If you're saying it's just a fetus with no legal rights, then what's it cruel and unusual punishment to?

If you're just calling it a fetus with no legal rights, then how's it different from breaking the legs of a wooden statue?

(05-15-2019, 06:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How could it be okay in my eyes when I said she should be punished for any damage she does to a child she carried past the second trimester.

I am pretty sure cutting off its limbs would be damage.


**EDIT**  Maybe you just misread my original post.

A baby has arms and legs before the second trimester passes, so, you're saying that it would be ok since it is not past the second trimester.

That was the whole point to my question, and I'm pretty sure you just answered it in that you think it's ok since you think it's the mother's choice.