Rubio: Life begins at conception

[*bfine32*]

(08-08-2015, 03:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I find it interesting that some of the people in this thread who are the most vehemently anti-abortion were also upset when a judge forced a teenage girl to get life saving cancer treatment against the objections of the teen and her mother.  Essentially, if you're saying the state should force women to carry unwanted zygotes and fetuses because we have a duty as a society to "defend children" then you by definition also have to be in favor of the state forcing children to receive medical care against their parent's objections, religious or otherwise.

Ruh roh.

I believe the government should intervene in any case where the parent is putting a child in danger.

Of course in the example you used I would be curious to know exactly what "cancer treatment" was being force.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-08-2015, 03:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I believe the government should intervene in any case where the parent is putting a child in danger.

So you agree that vaccinations should be mandatory.  Good to see you coming around.

[BmorePat87]

(08-08-2015, 03:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I believe the government should intervene in any case where the parent is putting a child in danger.

Of course in the example you used I would be curious to know exactly what "cancer treatment" was being force.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/connecticut-teen-curable-cancer-must-continue-chemo-court-n282421

[*bfine32*]

(08-08-2015, 03:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So you agree that vaccinations should be mandatory.  Good to see you coming around.

I'm not sure I was never on the other side of the fence on this. I am a huge proponent of immunization.

[*bfine32*]

(08-08-2015, 03:49 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/connecticut-teen-curable-cancer-must-continue-chemo-court-n282421

Ah, chemotherapy is a cruel treatment and I could see where a parent could struggle with this. My mother-in-law lived with us toward the end of her battle with cancer and most days she was fine except for the days she had her "treatment". I would have to carry her in from the car and up to bed.

WTS, I really don't see the association between this and abortion, unless there is another possible outcome other than death when an unborn child undergoes an abortion.

[Belsnickel]

(08-08-2015, 11:20 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: This is the second time that you've asked me this exact question, and the second time that I'm answering it plainly.  No...we should not be allowed to strip someone of their liberty even though they have committed no crime.  This is an exact reason why I'm against abortion.

And you're making the same argument that people made for the bakery that didn't want to bake cakes for certain people.  Of course, that bakery should not be allowed to strip its customers of their liberty, but at the same time, to a degree, you're stripping the bakery owners of their liberty by not allowing them to discriminate.  Well, supposedly.

No one should be allowed to end the pursuit of happiness of another human.  This goes for not being allowed to discriminate against gays because you're a Christian, and not being allowed to murder a fetus because you don't want to be responsible for a fetus.  Of course someone is going to cry that their liberty is being violated, but when they're violating someone else's liberty, their argument is thrown out.

Actually, I'm against federal discrimination laws and I don't see the discriminatory business practices as a violation of liberty. I see it as being a jagoff, but that's about it. I will be the first to say that I do not agree with the public accommodation requirements in federal statutes because I see it as an abuse of federal authority. That being said, it is the law and so should be followed. I'm for less government intrusion in our lives all around, particularly on the federal level.

Now, if you choose to pursue happiness by opening a business then you must follow the regulations set forward on the local, state, and federal levels. That is your choice to open a business and so you abide by the regulations. In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, the person chose to have sex, but as evidenced by the word "unwanted" they did not choose to get pregnant.

[Belsnickel]

(08-08-2015, 12:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Should a kidnapper be held accountable for murder if it was not what he wanted?

Perhaps you could better explain your analogy cause it really seems irrelevant any other way. Unless you are asking should the child be tried for murder if the mother dies while trying to abort it.

Should YOU be tried for murder if you kill your kidnapper during your escape? That was the question.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-08-2015, 07:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So the government should be given the power to strip someone of their liberty even though they have committed no crime?

They strip away the liberty to murder someone already. This would be on line with civilized law. Though I'm not sure the right to cold blooded murder is covered anywhere.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-08-2015, 11:42 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: If you're looking to be consistent with your logic, they would be. 

And if you're still being consistent with your logic that we should grant the federal government the power to dictate what parents can or can't do with their body to save children, it is safe to say that if a child were to need an organ donation, say a kidney, the federal government has the power to open up the mother (or father, if applicable) and take the organ necessary for the child to survive. 




Your argument is also an argument for organ harvesting, ironic.

Yeah I am in support of not allowing parents the ability to murder their children and not be punished. In the womb and out of the womb.

Children have the right to not be murdered. Same as us.

[*bfine32*]

(08-08-2015, 04:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Should YOU be tried for murder if you kill your kidnapper during your escape? That was the question.

So the analogy does ask the same questions as: should the unborn child be tried for murder if the mother dies during the abortion attempt.

The answer to both is no.

[Belsnickel]

(08-08-2015, 05:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So the analogy does ask the same questions as: should the unborn child be tried for murder if the mother dies during the abortion attempt.

The answer to both is no.

No, it does not. The embryo/fetus is denying the pregnant woman her liberty. It would be the kidnapper in the analogy.

[*bfine32*]

(08-08-2015, 06:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, it does not. The embryo/fetus is denying the pregnant woman her liberty. It would be the kidnapper in the analogy.

So you are saying the unborn child "kidnapped" the woman; therefore, killing it is OK?

Earlier I stated that the silliest argument against making abortion illegal is because folks suggest then folks that break the law would be put in danger. I now stand corrected, there is a sillier argument.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-08-2015, 05:10 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yeah I am in support of not allowing parents the ability to murder their children and not be punished.    In the womb and out of the womb.    

Children have the right to not be murdered.   Same as us.

So then children should be forced by the state to get medical treatment over the parents objections, religious or otherwise.  Also, vaccinations should be mandatory.  At least you're moving in the right direction on some issues.

[Belsnickel]

(08-08-2015, 06:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you are saying the unborn child "kidnapped" the woman; therefore, killing it is OK?

Earlier I stated that the silliest argument against making abortion illegal is because folks suggest then folks that break the law would be put in danger. I now stand corrected, there is a sillier argument.

In an unwanted pregnancy, the embryo/fetus is denying the pregnant woman her liberty. In a kidnapping, the kidnapper is denying their victim their liberty. The methods are different, the denial of rights is the same.

[Brownshoe]

(08-08-2015, 11:05 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: But you have someone who is being denied their liberty by something (someone) against their wishes, and the government is stripping the person of their liberty by not permitting it to be ended. If they have not had an abortion then they have not committed a crime (in the theoretical world where abortion is a crime) so the government is stripping someone of their liberties that has not committed a crime.

If you escape a kidnapper and they are killed in the struggle, should you be tried for murder?


Nope. I think in the case of an abortion, if you believe the fetus/embryo has rights/is a person, then if an abortion happens, rights are violated. If an abortion is illegal, rights are being violated. Therefore, the decision should not be in the hands of the government because the government should never be in the position to put one person's unalienable rights above another person's.


See above. So we should be able to strip someone of their liberty though they have committed no crime? If they have not had an abortion int he world where abortions are illegal, then no crime is committed, yet their liberty is being stripped by the government as a result because they are now being forced to have something literally living off of them that they did not give permission for.

What are you even talking about? This is some top notch babble If I say so myself. The government is denying me my "liberty" to go on a mass murder spree, and you know what I agree with them being able to take that "liberty" away. You make a statement saying if someone escapes from a kidnapper and the kidnapper is killed in the process that makes no sense to me, because the kidnapper did something wrong by committing a crime, and the fetus did nothing and it's innocent.

[Brownshoe]

(08-08-2015, 07:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In an unwanted pregnancy, the embryo/fetus is denying the pregnant woman her liberty. In a kidnapping, the kidnapper is denying their victim their liberty. The methods are different, the denial of rights is the same.

How could the fetus be kidnapping the mother if she chose to have sex without protection. That's like me signing up for the army and then saying I was kidnapped by them, because I think it's too tough. Unless the woman was raped then she should have taken a morning after pill, or got an abortion before the fetus was formed. Even if she was raped the child committed no crime, and is innocent so no punishment (being killed) should be allowed to someone who didn't do anything.

Once the fetus has a beating heart it's alive. That is a living human being and should be treated as a separate individual

[Belsnickel]

(08-08-2015, 07:17 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: How could the fetus be kidnapping the mother if she chose to have sex without protection. That's like me signing up for the army and then saying I was kidnapped by them, because I think it's too tough. Unless the woman was raped then she should have taken a morning after pill, or got an abortion before the fetus was formed. Even if it was a rape the child committed no crime, and is innocent so no punishment (being killed) should be allowed to someone who didn't do anything.

So having sex gives consent for a pregnancy? Do you know how many abductees go willingly with their captors? It's the majority. That doesn't mean they consent to being held against their will after the fact.

There is no way you can convince me that the government should have a say in this matter. And apparently you feel they should. That's just the end of it there.

[Brownshoe]

(08-08-2015, 07:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So having sex gives consent for a pregnancy? Do you know how many abductees go willingly with their captors? It's the majority. That doesn't mean they consent to being held against their will after the fact.

There is no way you can convince me that the government should have a say in this matter. And apparently you feel they should. That's just the end of it there.

Do you know why those many abductees go willingly with their captors? because they don't think they will be kidnapped. Everyone knows if you have sex without protection you could get pregnant. Everyone. If a friend comes over and says "hey lets go to (some random place)" and you get in the car with him, and he kidnaps you; you don't think he's going to kidnap you, but he did. Your analogies suck.

[Brownshoe]

(08-08-2015, 07:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So having sex gives consent for a pregnancy? Do you know how many abductees go willingly with their captors? It's the majority. That doesn't mean they consent to being held against their will after the fact.

There is no way you can convince me that the government should have a say in this matter. And apparently you feel they should. That's just the end of it there.

Do you think it's right to murder someone just because they are a burden to you? because that's what abortion is.

[Belsnickel]

(08-08-2015, 07:25 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Do you know why those many abductees go willingly with their captors? because they don't think they will be kidnapped. Everyone knows if you have sex without protection you could get pregnant. Everyone. If a friend comes over and says "hey lets go to (some random place)" and you get in the car with him, and he kidnaps you; you don't think he's going to kidnap you, but he did. Your analogies suck.

You see them as bad analogies, I do not. I'm not saying it isn't stupid to have unprotected sex and you aren't putting yourself at risk. But it's stupid to meet someone from over the internet as well, that would be going willingly and is a big source of abductions these days. Everyone knows it is a possibility to get pregnant from sex, most of the time when it happens the woman was thinking "it won't happen to me." The same thought with abductions.

(08-08-2015, 07:28 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Do you think it's right to murder someone just because they are a burden to you? because that's what abortion is.

I consider a denial of liberty more than just a burden, but that's me.