Question For Pro-Choice People

[CJD]

(05-15-2019, 08:28 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: 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?

I can't say that I'm surprised that you chose the latter, but I can say that I'm disappointed.

[BFritz21]

(05-15-2019, 09:41 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I can't say that I'm surprised that you chose the latter, but I can say that I'm disappointed.

Second (or is it third) post in a row where you just post insults with nothing of any substance or relevant to the debate.

Not surprised, but I was hoping to get a real answer.

[CJD]

(05-15-2019, 10:10 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Second (or is it third) post in a row where you just post insults with nothing of any substance or relevant to the debate.

Not surprised, but I was hoping to get a real answer.

I never once insulted you.

A strawman argument is when someone attributes beliefs or values to a person/group of people that misrepresents their view to an extreme degree and makes debate virtually impossible.

For example:
Pro-choice person: I don't want abortion to be illegal because it only adds further stigma to an extremely stressful situation that only 1 gender can possibly be exposed to. The laws, whether intentionally or not, are designed to control women and their bodies and force them to go through a life altering situation rather than undergoing a safe procedure, especially early on in the process. It also encourages unsafe procedures to be done if the safe ones are made illegal. Prior to abortion being legalized many women died, injured themselves or unintentionally neutered themselves through induced termination methods. banning abortion will only increase these unnecessary losses.

Strawmanning Pro-life person: So, you really get off on the idea of breaking a fetus' legs too, I imagine?

In short, what do you want as a "real answer"?

You presented an absurd scenario (breaking a fetus's legs) as a means to try to delegitimize your opponent's argument, rather than try to debate it earnestly.

As close to a real answer I can provide for you is: No, it would not be okay to break a fetus' legs because that's psychotic behavior. A fetus does not need to have full legal rights for bystanders to recognize that a certain behavior regarding them is psychotic.

[BmorePat87]

Questions actually based on laws that were just passed:

Should a state punish a woman who goes to another state to obtain a legal abortion?

Should an 11 year old raped by their cousin be prevented from obtaining an abortion?

Should there only be one abortion clinic legally allowed in a state of 6 million people?


There was a lot of anger over New York when they passed a law that just allowed what Roe v Wade has allowed for 45 years. People including the President characterized it as allowing murdering babies hours before they were born whenever someone wanted to. The extreme mischaracterization even appeared here.

Now we've had multiple states pass extremely restrictive abortion bans that tell victims of rape and abuse that they must live with their rapist/abuser's offspring in them. Does anyone want to defend this?

[Benton]

(05-15-2019, 10:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Questions actually based on laws that were just passed:

Should a state punish a woman who goes to another state to obtain a legal abortion?

Should an 11 year old raped by their cousin be prevented from obtaining an abortion?

Should there only be one abortion clinic legally allowed in a state of 6 million people?


There was a lot of anger over New York when they passed a law that just allowed what Roe v Wade has allowed for 45 years. People including the President characterized it as allowing murdering babies hours before they were born whenever someone wanted to. The extreme mischaracterization even appeared here.

Now we've had multiple states pass extremely restrictive abortion bans that tell victims of rape and abuse that they must live with their rapist/abuser's offspring in them. Does anyone want to defend this?

The Alabama law doesn't penalize the female, just abortion providers. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-15-2019, 10:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Questions actually based on laws that were just passed:

Should a state punish a woman who goes to another state to obtain a legal abortion?

Should an 11 year old raped by their cousin be prevented from obtaining an abortion?

Should there only be one abortion clinic legally allowed in a state of 6 million people?


There was a lot of anger over New York when they passed a law that just allowed what Roe v Wade has allowed for 45 years. People including the President characterized it as allowing murdering babies hours before they were born whenever someone wanted to. The extreme mischaracterization even appeared here.

Now we've had multiple states pass extremely restrictive abortion bans that tell victims of rape and abuse that they must live with their rapist/abuser's offspring in them. Does anyone want to defend this?

No one should be punished for going to another state to have a legal abortion

Any law that doesn't make concessions for cases of rape (regardless of age) is unjust IMO. 

There should be as many clinics as required; now who funds them could become an issue

Now questions from me:

Should a state be able to vote for more strict abortion laws?

Should public funding of abortion clinics be an issue up for vote?

Should the father have a say in the "choice"?

[BmorePat87]

(05-15-2019, 10:59 PM)Benton Wrote: The Alabama law doesn't penalize the female, just abortion providers. 

That was a reference to Georgia's new law.

[BmorePat87]

(05-15-2019, 11:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Should a state be able to vote for more strict abortion laws?

Should public funding of abortion clinics be an issue up for vote?

Should the father have a say in the "choice"?

1. No stricter than Roe v Wade 

2. Yes

3. No

[Benton]

(05-15-2019, 11:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Should a state be able to vote for more strict abortion laws?

Should public funding of abortion clinics be an issue up for vote?

Should the father have a say in the "choice"?

Yes, and no. It depends on the law. Alabama, for instance, is an abortion ban (with a vague statement about allowing it if the mother is in "serious" danger, without defining serious). I'm mostly pro life, but this is why it ends up being a federal issue: because states take it too far.

Yes, and no. It depends on the funding. Some legislation proposed would have banned funding for abortions even when medically necessary. Or, the case could be made for a child who suffers a sexual assault and is a ward of the state as the perpetrator was her only legal guardian. That (to me) isn't the same as funding somebody's abortion because they're too lazy to buy birth control. And, unfortunately, there are too many folks who obscure the difference.

Yes, and no. Consensual, yes. Victims of nonconsensual, no.

[BFritz21]

(05-15-2019, 10:27 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I never once insulted you.

A strawman argument is when someone attributes beliefs or values to a person/group of people that misrepresents their view to an extreme degree and makes debate virtually impossible.

For example:
Pro-choice person: I don't want abortion to be illegal because it only adds further stigma to an extremely stressful situation that only 1 gender can possibly be exposed to. The laws, whether intentionally or not, are designed to control women and their bodies and force them to go through a life altering situation rather than undergoing a safe procedure, especially early on in the process. It also encourages unsafe procedures to be done if the safe ones are made illegal. Prior to abortion being legalized many women died, injured themselves or unintentionally neutered themselves through induced termination methods. banning abortion will only increase these unnecessary losses.

Strawmanning Pro-life person: So, you really get off on the idea of breaking a fetus' legs too, I imagine?

In short, what do you want as a "real answer"?

You presented an absurd scenario (breaking a fetus's legs) as a means to try to delegitimize your opponent's argument, rather than try to debate it earnestly.

As close to a real answer I can provide for you is: No, it would not be okay to break a fetus' legs because that's psychotic behavior. A fetus does not need to have full legal rights for bystanders to recognize that a certain behavior regarding them is psychotic.

Killing a baby isn't psychotic?

Maybe the mom didn't have legs and wanted the baby to be born without legs so it could experience what she did and have people look up to it or experience hardships.

Not a strawman argument.

[BFritz21]

(05-16-2019, 12:23 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Killing a baby isn't psychotic?

Maybe the mom didn't have legs and wanted the baby to be born without legs so it could experience what she did and have people look up to it or experience hardships.

Not a strawman argument.

Seems stupid?

This lesbian couple that was deaf tried to have a deaf baby:

Quote:A deaf lesbian couple who chose to have a deaf child receive a lot of criticism

A deaf lesbian couple in the US deliberately tried to create a deaf child. Sharon Duchesneau and Candy McCullough hoped their child, conceived with the help of a sperm donor, would be deaf like the rest of the family. Their daughter, five year old Jehanne, is also deaf and was conceived with the same donor. News of the couple choosing to have a deaf child has only been revealed with the birth of their son Gauvin.1–4
To increase their chance of having a deaf baby the women sought a deaf sperm donor from a sperm bank but were told that congenital deafness is “precisely the sort of condition” that disqualifies would-be donors. Rather than dismiss the idea they found their own sperm donor by asking a deaf friend who comes from a family with five generations of deafness.1
The women, both professionals in the mental health field, insist that they would still love their child if it could hear: “A hearing baby would be a blessing. A deaf baby would be a special blessing”.1
Like many others in the deaf community, the couple don’t view deafness as a disability. They see deafness as a cultural identity and the sophisticated sign language that enables them to communicate fully with other signers as the defining and unifying feature of their culture.1
Both women were born deaf and want their children to share their culture. They each suffered from being raised to function primarily in the hearing world. Ms Duchesneau experienced “numbing isolation” at school without the benefit of sign language or exposure to other deaf people. She grew up feeling that she “was flawed”. Ms McCullough, the child of deaf parents, was brought up using sign language and attended a hearing high school with an interpreter. She also suffered isolation: “No teenage conversation can survive the intrusion of third-party interpretation”.1

[Benton]

(05-16-2019, 12:32 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Seems stupid?

This lesbian couple that was deaf tried to have a deaf baby:

You're comparing selective breeding and having surgery with the intent to maim a fetus.

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2019, 12:32 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Seems stupid?

This lesbian couple that was deaf tried to have a deaf baby:

Couple things:

I hope the women referenced in your article are patients in the Mental Health field instead of advisers. 

Your scenario is silly. 99.9% of the women that seek abortion don't what their child to suffer. They just put their welfare above that of their unborn child. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2019, 01:02 AM)Benton Wrote: You're comparing selective breeding and having surgery with the intent to maim a fetus.

I thought the article backed up his point quite well. Can desiring (actively working toward) your offspring to lose one of his/her 5 senses  be considered maiming?

[BFritz21]

(05-16-2019, 01:02 AM)Benton Wrote: You're comparing selective breeding and having surgery with the intent to maim a fetus.

Selective breeding?  It's the same: wanting the child to be born with something wrong with it.

And it's about the woman's choice.

(05-16-2019, 01:02 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Couple things:

I hope the women referenced in your article are patients in the Mental Health field instead of advisers. 

Your scenario is silly. 99.9% of the women that seek abortion don't what their child to suffer. They just put their welfare above that of their unborn child. 

It's not about women seeking abortion wanting their child to suffer, it's about the woman having the choice to do what she wants with her baby.

[CJD]

(05-16-2019, 12:23 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Killing a baby isn't psychotic?

Maybe the mom didn't have legs and wanted the baby to be born without legs so it could experience what she did and have people look up to it or experience hardships.

Not a strawman argument.

(Intentionally and maliciously) killing a baby is definitely psychotic.

Terminating a pregnancy is not psychotic.

[Belsnickel]

(05-16-2019, 01:02 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Your scenario is silly. 99.9% of the women that seek abortion don't what their child to suffer. They just put their welfare above that of their unborn child. 

Or they recognize that they cannot provide a good life for the child due to any number of circumstances including, but not limited to, the lack of an adequate social safety net in this country, and they understand that the child services systems in this country are already beyond their capacity. So they choose not to bring a child into the world that will have to suffer throughout their life.

[Benton]

(05-16-2019, 01:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought the article backed up his point quite well. Can desiring (actively working toward) your offspring to lose one of his/her 5 senses  be considered maiming?

No 

[BmorePat87]

(05-16-2019, 01:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought the article backed up his point quite well. Can desiring (actively working toward) your offspring to lose one of his/her 5 senses  be considered maiming?

Not even close.

He challenged the position of a woman's ownership over her body by asking if women should be able to have a surgery that removes the limbs of the fetus. When that was dismissed as an absurd scenario that does not exist, he used the example of a deaf family using a deaf surrogate to increase the likelihood of having a deaf child as proof that this would occur.

The second scenario has nothing to do with a woman's ownership of her body.


While I do not know why anyone would wish that on a child, it certainly isn't anywhere close to having surgery to cut the limbs off a fetus nor does it do anything to challenge the argument against a woman's ownership of her body.

[*Nately120*]

(05-15-2019, 11:12 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: 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?

Who cares what I think?  Surely you don't, so why even ask?