Question For Pro-Choice People

[*bfine32*]

(05-21-2019, 06:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: A machine has no rights.  You can force it to do whatever you want.

But could you legally force another human to breath for you in order to keep you alive?

Good point and question.

My reply would be: Should that person have any responsibility if they freely caused the condition which requires him needing assistance to breath?

[fredtoast]

(05-21-2019, 06:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My reply would be: Should that person have any responsibility if they freely caused the condition which requires him needing assistance to breath?

Sorry, but you lost me this time.

Are you saying a person who did not freely cause himself to need a breathing machine should be able to force another person to breath for him?

[*bfine32*]

(05-21-2019, 06:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry, but you lost me this time.

Are you saying a person who did not freely cause himself to need a breathing machine should be able to force another person to breath for him?

Nope, I said should a person(s) that required him to need a breathing machine be responsible for his welfare? Or should they be allowed to pull the plug?

[BFritz21]

(05-21-2019, 06:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: A fetus can not survive outside of the womb until approximately the end of the second trimester NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO FOR IT.

Baby born at 21 weeks, which is before the end of the second trimester.  She's now three years-old.

Kind of kills your entire argument, huh?

[Belsnickel]

(05-21-2019, 08:09 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Baby born at 21 weeks, which is before the end of the second trimester.  She's now three years-old.

Kind of kills your entire argument, huh?

He maybe shouldn't have been so definite with his statement, because there are always exceptions to things like that. But exceptions are just that. As the final line in that article puts it:

Quote:Ahmad, lead author on a study published in Pediatrics about the girl's development, said the girl's situation shouldn't serve as an example of premature health at 21 or 22 weeks gestation, because more research needs to be done.

This situation was an anomaly, a statistical outlier.

[*bfine32*]

(05-21-2019, 08:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: He maybe shouldn't have been so definite with his statement, because there are always exceptions to things like that. But exceptions are just that. As the final line in that article puts it:


This situation was an anomaly, a statistical outlier.

If you're comfy with it...

[BFritz21]

(05-21-2019, 08:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: He maybe shouldn't have been so definite with his statement, because there are always exceptions to things like that. But exceptions are just that. As the final line in that article puts it:


This situation was an anomaly, a statistical outlier.

Whatever helps you sleep at night............

[Belsnickel]

(05-21-2019, 08:57 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Whatever helps you sleep at night............

I sleep just fine as I work for policies that improve the lives of the citizens of this country, not trying to restrict individual liberties with policies that have shown to be ineffective and dangerous.

[BmorePat87]

https://www.ajc.com/news/national/mississippi-lawmaker-accused-punching-wife-face-for-not-undressing-quickly-enough/zdE3VLzhBVmH68Bsn7eLfL/

One of the sponsors of Mississippi's abortion ban was arrested after punching his wife when she wouldn't undress fast enough when he wanted sex.

His bill didn't allow exceptions for women who had been raped...

[jj22]

Just because people support allowing people to make their own decisions on their life doesn't mean they can't sleep at night for it.

No one says we would make the same decisions.

All we say is God granted people the gift of free will, and who are we to take it from them.

Poor Evangelicals. Going to end up in Hell with the people they are claiming is headed there. If trying to sell Americans that Trump is our moral compass doesn't do it. Surely trying to take away God's greatest gift to man will. Politics have done them in.

Oh well.

[jj22]

(05-22-2019, 03:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://www.ajc.com/news/national/mississippi-lawmaker-accused-punching-wife-face-for-not-undressing-quickly-enough/zdE3VLzhBVmH68Bsn7eLfL/

One of the sponsors of Mississippi's abortion ban was arrested after punching his wife when she wouldn't undress fast enough when he wanted sex.

His bill didn't allow exceptions for women who had been raped...

Maybe he wanted to make sure it wasn't "consensual" or "legitimate" rape? These Republicans have too many excuses for rape. But when they elect a man who brags about sexual assault, do we expect more?

[fredtoast]

(05-21-2019, 06:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope, I said should a person(s) that required him to need a breathing machine be responsible for his welfare? Or should they be allowed to pull the plug?

By "require him to need a breathing machine" do you mean "give birth to him"?

If so, then "yes" a parent should be the one who decides if their child should be kept alive by artificial life support.


Who do you think should make that decision?  The Government? 

[fredtoast]

(05-22-2019, 08:50 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I sleep just fine as I work for policies that improve the lives of the citizens of this country, not trying to restrict individual liberties with policies that have shown to be ineffective and dangerous.

Same here.

[JSR18]

My thought is this:

Women should be able to make decisions about their body's....right up to the point of pregnancy.
She can't/didn't get pregnant by herself.
That makes the fetus/baby 50% someone else's...Therfore,

Both contributors to the making of said baby should have equal say in fetus/baby's outcome...

[BakertheBeast]

I see pro Life people on here say that "life" begins at conception and having an abortion is "murder" for taking that "life". Stupid question. What about animals? Why isn't killing an animal "murder"? Animals have babies and give "life". Is it because humans have the largest brains and can do neat stuff life talk and reason? That is cool but what has that got to do with creating a "life"? Who said killing animals was ok? You have to eat right? A life is a life right? One thing, animals don't have abortions. In many cases we wait till they are born and grow a little before we slaughter them. I guess its ok cause the bible says so.

[CJD]

(05-28-2019, 01:09 AM)JSR18 Wrote: My thought is this:

Women should be able to make decisions about their body's....right up to the point of pregnancy.
She can't/didn't get pregnant by herself.
That makes the fetus/baby 50% someone else's...Therfore,

Both contributors to the making of said baby should have equal say in fetus/baby's outcome...

So if the woman does not want the child and the man does, what happens next?

[CJD]

(05-28-2019, 06:42 AM)BakertheBeast Wrote: I see pro Life people on here say that "life" begins at conception and having an abortion is "murder" for taking that "life". Stupid question. What about animals? Why isn't killing an animal "murder"? Animals have babies and give "life". Is it because humans have the largest brains and can do neat stuff life talk and reason? That is cool but what has that got to do with creating a "life"? Who said killing animals was ok? You have to eat right? A life is a life right? One thing, animals don't have abortions. In many cases we wait till they are born and grow a little before we slaughter them. I guess its ok cause the bible says so.

My best guess is Genesis 1:26 will be cited.

Quote:Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Or Genesis 9:3:

Quote:Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Or both.
Plus, Jesus at animals after he was resurrected, and doing something that Jesus did can never be construed as a bad thing to a Christian.

[BFritz21]

(05-28-2019, 01:09 AM)JSR18 Wrote: My thought is this:

Women should be able to make decisions about their body's....right up to the point of pregnancy.
She can't/didn't get pregnant by herself.
That makes the fetus/baby 50% someone else's...Therfore,

Both contributors to the making of said baby should have equal say in fetus/baby's outcome...

[JSR18]

(05-28-2019, 07:47 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: So if the woman does not want the child and the man does, what happens next?

The woman bears their child and signs over custody to the father...

[BakertheBeast]

(05-28-2019, 07:53 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: My best guess is Genesis 1:26 will be cited.


Or Genesis 9:3:

Or both.
Plus, Jesus at animals after he was resurrected, and doing something that Jesus did can never be construed as a bad thing to a Christian.

Thanks for the info. That explains it. Its still taking a "life" though.