Question For Pro-Choice People

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2019, 02:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Except a father is NOT able to do this.  If the fertilzed egg is removed from the mother and given to the father it has ZERO future

The father does not just want his "child" he wants to be able toforce the mother to carry it for him.  That is the problem.  I have no problem with letting any father who wants it to get the fetus when it is removed from the mother.

What "doesn't sit well" with you is the fact that a man can not be given control over a womans body.

Of course he can. The child just needs to remain unmolested. The father can absolutely provide the child with a future.

Man doesn't need to control the woman's body. The woman just needs to be required to carry a child that she agreed to an act that caused its conception. 

What doesn't sit well is the woman can kill a living being and take away a father's chance to raise his offspring simply because she feels like it and she happens to have a womb. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-12-2019, 08:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course the term conception means very little to you and the assertion the unborn is not a not a human is helpful in soothing cognitive dissonance. What cause these individual living cells to become a human?

I get you and others don't "like" abortion, but at least own what you support. You support the woman's right to terminate her child for simple convenience. The rest: "glob of cells", "individual", "blastocyst", "forcing the woman" the graying of when human life begins.... just makes folks feel better about what they support. 

But the legal argument will still be what it is, right? 

Yes, the legal argument will still be what it is. And I am fine with my position. I have zero issue with my position that a woman should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy for convenience. That's called individual liberty. Outlawing abortion would be an infringement on rights.

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2019, 08:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yes, the legal argument will still be what it is. And I am fine with my position. I have zero issue with my position that a woman should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy for convenience. That's called individual liberty. Outlawing abortion would be an infringement on rights.

The unborn most likely disagree, but they have no voice. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-12-2019, 08:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The unborn most likely disagree, but they have no voice. 

Because they have no rights. And if they did, it would still be an infringement on a woman's liberty.

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2019, 08:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because they have no rights. And if they did, it would still be an infringement on a woman's liberty.

So folks without rights have no voice? Perhaps you're becoming more of a conservative everyday. TRUMP 2020

If the law changes then requiring her to carry the baby to term wouldn't restrict her Liberty as everyone's Liberty in constrained by law. 

[fredtoast]

(06-12-2019, 08:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Man doesn't need to control the woman's body. The woman just needs to be required to carry a child that she agreed to an act that caused its conception. 

That is like saying you are against slavery but in favor of making people work for free for people who own them.

[fredtoast]

(06-12-2019, 08:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If the law changes then requiring her to carry the baby to term wouldn't restrict her Liberty as everyone's Liberty in constrained by law. 

So when slavery was legal the rights of the slaves were not restricted because everyone's Liberty was constrained by law?

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2019, 08:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is like saying you are against slavery but in favor of making people work for free for people who own them.

Well if the person freely agreed to an action and knew that action could result in slavery, then it might be a cause of reaping what you sow. 

It's more like, you freely participated in this act that could cause you to be a slave for about 6 months, but there's an out if you just kill
 your offspring. 

Your anecdote probably describes the man's position in the situation better. Except he can't kill the offspring to avoid slavery and I'm more than good with that. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2019, 08:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So when slavery was legal the rights of the slaves were not restricted because everyone's Liberty was constrained by law?

Why do you keep bringing up the father's lack of any rights or choice?

But according to Matt, your scenario is correct because they had no voice, 

[*bfine32*]

This article pretty much sums up my opinion:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/even-state-abortion-bans-women-071509558.html

Quote:Even after new state abortion bans, women will retain the same choice men have always had.....

it is infuriating that Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio are not including exceptions for rape and incest in their restrictive new abortion laws. It is one thing for a woman to decide to have sex and then later discard the obvious consequence as if a unique human life had no value. It is quite another to be forced into sex and then have an abortion to protect yourself from the life that comes as a result of someone else’s violence.

[JSR18]

(06-10-2019, 07:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No such thing as an innocent human. When we are ensouled we are filled with sin.

 

(06-10-2019, 08:35 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If every person on death row was truly guilty then I'd agree that there is a philosophical difference. Until then, supporting the death penalty does mean supporting the killing of some innocent people. 

(06-10-2019, 10:37 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Nope, that's not even remotely close to what I said. 

He argued there's a philosophical difference between being pro life and pro death penalty because abortion kills the innocent and the death penalty kills the guilty. I pointed out that some innocent people are killed by the death penalty, so until none are, he couldn't use that argument.

At no point did my post even hint at justifying abortion.

OK. Wrong choice of words. Babies/fetus' are inculpable. They don't have a voice. They can't choose whether they want to be aborted or not.

Criminals who commit death penalty eligible crimes have the ability to decide whether to commit that crime and put their life in other peoples hands or continue on the straight and narrow.

Like I said, apples and oranges...

[Belsnickel]

(06-12-2019, 08:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So folks without rights have no voice? Perhaps you're becoming more of a conservative everyday. TRUMP 2020

There is no such thing as "folks without rights" as all people have innate human rights. The unborn are not people; they have not reached personhood.

(06-12-2019, 08:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If the law changes then requiring her to carry the baby to term wouldn't restrict her Liberty as everyone's Liberty in constrained by law. 

So it wouldn't restrict her liberty because her liberty is already restricted?

The closest comparison to this level of infringement of rights is imprisoning an innocent person based on circumstantial evidence. This isn't even getting into the sex discrimination arguments.

[BmorePat87]

(06-13-2019, 12:42 AM)JSR18 Wrote:  


OK. Wrong choice of words. Babies/fetus' are inculpable. They don't have a voice. They can't choose whether they want to be aborted or not.

Criminals who commit death penalty eligible crimes have the ability to decide whether to commit that crime and put their life in other peoples hands or continue on the straight and narrow.

Like I said, apples and oranges...

Again, innocent people are sometimes sentenced to death. Can't use that argument to justify being pro life and pro death penalty.

[jj22]

13 pages and still no "Pro Lifers" willing to advocate for programs to help the mothers and babies once they've forced them to have them.

"shocking".

Not really.

#LifeBeginsAtConceptionAndEndsAtBirth they want us to believe.

[CJD]

(06-12-2019, 09:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This article pretty much sums up my opinion:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/even-state-abortion-bans-women-071509558.html

The "it's only okay to murder a baby if it wasn't entirely your fault for creating it" opinion is a relatively popular one.

[CJD]

(06-13-2019, 09:39 AM)jj22 Wrote: 13 pages and still no "Pro Lifers" willing to advocate for programs to help the mothers and babies once they've forced them to have them.

"shocking".

Not really.

#LifeBeginsAtConceptionAndEndsAtBirth  they want us to believe.

Well, it actually falls perfectly in line with the sentiment.

"It's your fault you got pregnant, so we are going to force you to have that child as a punishment for your irresponsibility in sex. We won't help you pay for anything associated with the baby though because then you won't learn your lesson."

[*bfine32*]

(06-13-2019, 08:23 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is no such thing as "folks without rights" as all people have innate human rights. The unborn are not people; they have not reached personhood.


So it wouldn't restrict her liberty because her liberty is already restricted?

The closest comparison to this level of infringement of rights is imprisoning an innocent person based on circumstantial evidence. This isn't even getting into the sex discrimination arguments.

All men are created equal...

Does she currently have the Liberty to kill her 10 year old or have we restricted that liberty?

[*bfine32*]

(06-13-2019, 09:39 AM)jj22 Wrote: 13 pages and still no "Pro Lifers" willing to advocate for programs to help the mothers and babies once they've forced them to have them.

"shocking".

Not really.

#LifeBeginsAtConceptionAndEndsAtBirth  they want us to believe.

Perhaps you've failed to read/ignored my stance.

"shocking"

Not really.

I have repeatedly stated if the Father was to invoke his parental rights he must show he is financially and mentally able to rear the child.  

[*bfine32*]

(06-13-2019, 08:58 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Again, innocent people are sometimes sentenced to death. Can't use that argument to justify being pro life and pro death penalty.

Unless you consider those sentenced to die have had their day in court, have been judged by a jury of their peers, and sentenced by a judge learned in the law.

IF we consider those simple facts then you can absolutely justify the stance and realize the two are apples to oranges.

Now if we just pulled folks off the street and killed them because they inconvenienced us, then it would be apples to apples and highlights the atrocity.

[Belsnickel]

(06-13-2019, 01:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: All men are created equal...

Does she currently have the Liberty to kill her 10 year old or have we restricted that liberty?

I'm not tracking how either of these statements is a response to my post.