Rubio: Life begins at conception

[*bfine32*]

I cannot believe what I am reading. There are those here actually blaming the child. You cannot make this stuff up.

[Belsnickel]

(08-08-2015, 08:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I cannot believe what I am reading. There are those here actually blaming the child. You cannot make this stuff up.

People unwittingly and passively cause things all of the time.

[Brownshoe]

(08-08-2015, 08:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Which is actually my initial point, all the way back to the beginning. That the government should not be putting the rights of one over the rights of another, and making abortion illegal does that. I admit that the embryo/fetus does not actively deny the liberty, but it is the cause of it. In the world where abortion is illegal a woman's liberty becomes immediately restricted upon gaining an unwanted pregnancy.

Anyway, this is just going to continue going round and round with no end in sight and I'm pretty bored with it. Have a good evening.

They have a deadline to terminate it though. Once the fetus has a beating heart it's alive and should be afforded the same rights as any other human being. That's about 8 weeks after conception. So if you don't have anything done by then it's your own fault for having your liberties restricted, because you let those clump of cells turn into a living thing. So there would be no pregnancies that the mother wouldn't be able to stop. Because the mother waited until the clump of cells turned into life then she is willingly giving up her liberties at that point.

[*bfine32*]

(08-08-2015, 08:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: People unwittingly and passively cause things all of the time.

At least you are now recognizing that the unborn child is a person.

[Brownshoe]

(08-08-2015, 08:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Which is actually my initial point, all the way back to the beginning. That the government should not be putting the rights of one over the rights of another, and making abortion illegal does that.

Making abortion legal does that too. It puts the rights of the mother of the rights of the living person inside of her.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(08-08-2015, 08:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: The group that usually want to ban all abortions also wants:  1) No sex education 2) No easy access to birth control in any form 3) No social services for children of poor parents.

I'm for early and expanded sex education, and universal free birth control.  I also believe that if you're born into a horrible situation, society should take the responsibility of helping that situation get better via education and welfare programs.

And I'm for the near complete ban of abortion.

But I agree with you...too often people feel that a child should be born into a bad situation with no relief from that situation while the mother has small amounts of sex education and limited to no access to birth control.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(08-08-2015, 08:12 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: What denying liberty is, is taking a life of a human being because it's a burden to someone else. The liberty of life is the most important liberty that anyone has.

I hope you at least made a mic-dropping motion when you said this.

[Belsnickel]

(08-08-2015, 08:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: At least you are now recognizing that the unborn child is a person.

I never denied it was. Merely said that was irrelevant to my argument. I've never stated my actual position on personhood for an embryo/fetus because of the irrelevance. And lastly, my statement wasn't calling it a person, merely pointing out that something can be caused unwittingly and passively.

(08-08-2015, 08:56 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Making abortion legal does that too. It puts the rights of the mother of the rights of the living person inside of her.

But leaving the decision to those involved leaves the government out of deciding one over the other. The decision to abort for the vast majority of women that choose to do so is a very difficult one and the potential child is thought about in that process (no matter how much people like to claim it isn't) over and over. It is not a decision that is taken lightly and one that is best left in the hands of those involved rather than a third party making a blanket ruling.

[*bfine32*]

(08-08-2015, 09:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I never denied it was. Merely said that was irrelevant to my argument. I've never stated my actual position on personhood for an embryo/fetus because of the irrelevance. And lastly, my statement wasn't calling it a person, merely pointing out that something can be caused unwittingly and passively.

So whether or not the unborn child is considered a person is irreverent to you?

My apologies to all of those that suggested abortion shouldn't be illegal because it will put the criminal in harm's way. This is unbelievable.

[Belsnickel]

(08-08-2015, 09:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is unbelievable.

Only if you don't comprehend my actual position.

Have a good night.

[Brownshoe]

(08-08-2015, 09:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I never denied it was. Merely said that was irrelevant to my argument. I've never stated my actual position on personhood for an embryo/fetus because of the irrelevance. And lastly, my statement wasn't calling it a person, merely pointing out that something can be caused unwittingly and passively.


But leaving the decision to those involved leaves the government out of deciding one over the other. The decision to abort for the vast majority of women that choose to do so is a very difficult one and the potential child is thought about in that process (no matter how much people like to claim it isn't) over and over. It is not a decision that is taken lightly and one that is best left in the hands of those involved rather than a third party making a blanket ruling.

The government was made to protect people from other people. Meaning it's protecting the life of the fetus from the mother. No person should have the right to be able to kill another person just because it's a burden to them.

[*bfine32*]

(08-08-2015, 09:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Only if you don't comprehend my actual position.

Have a good night.

Unfortunately you have made your position quite clear and it is appalling.

You have compared the unborn child to a kidnapper that is deserving of being murdered because it took someone's liberty and whether or not it is considered a person is irrelevant to you. Regardless how twisted you try to make it; the unborn child did nothing wrong and does not deserve to die so that the mother can be unburdened.

Night.

[fredtoast]

I think the courts have it right so far. If a fetus can not survive outside pof the womb then it is not an individual. Instead it is still just part of the mothers body. That is why they limit aborion to before the third trimester.

It is a very complicated issue, but that seems like the right decision to me. I don't see any way you can give individualrights to a thing that can not live as an individual.

No matter how muct care or support is provided to a fetus outside it usually can not survive outside of the womb until the third trimester. Since it is impossible for it to live even with the most modern machines to assist it then it really can't be viewd as an individual worthy of rights greater than that of the host mother.

There are still lots of issues to argue about regarding late term abortions, but as far as a fetus having individual rigths greater than those of its host mother I don't think it is proper to give individual rights to something that is impossible to be kept alive as an individual seperate from the mother.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-08-2015, 06:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

Not wanting someone murdered is a far cry from their parents making medical decisions on their behalf. They still get to live whether they have vaccinations or not.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-08-2015, 10:01 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Not wanting someone murdered is a far cry from their parents making medical decisions on their behalf.    They still get to live whether they have vaccinations or not.

Incorrect.  You place your child's life in danger by not getting them vaccinated.  You should not be allowed to do so by your own troll logic.  You condemn your child to death by not allowing them to receive necessary medical care because of your personal or religious beliefs.  By your own troll logic this should not be allowed.


Quite simply you and people like you only care about "children" when they're in the womb.  After that they're the parents problem to deal with as they see fit.  Your viewpoint is as myopic as it is contradictory and inane.  But please keep making "points", it makes the job of intelligent rational people that much easier.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-08-2015, 10:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Incorrect.  You place your child's life in danger by not getting them vaccinated.  You should not be allowed to do so by your own troll logic.  You condemn your child to death by not allowing them to receive necessary medical care because of your personal or religious beliefs.  By your own troll logic this should not be allowed.


Quite simply you and people like you only care about "children" when they're in the womb.  After that they're the parents problem to deal with as they see fit.  Your viewpoint is as myopic as it is contradictory and inane.  But please keep making "points", it makes the job of intelligent rational people that much easier.

Where do you find this nonsense?

My kids are vaccinated but we made sure our doctors weren't using any cost cutting methods.  

Sorry I can't be like you and so quickly to trust random needles being stuck into my kids.  Using whatever cost cutting methods they can to save a buck.    Before my kids are injected with anything we know what they are using and how they are providing.  

every parent has the right to decide this, they don't have the right to flat out murder their child.    Not getting a vaccine will not kill you.

I can see since your down to name calling and changing the topic that your admitting we are correct on abortions.

Glad your coming around, there is hope for you yet.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-08-2015, 09:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Unfortunately you have made your position quite clear and it is appalling.

You have compared the unborn child to a kidnapper that is deserving of being murdered because it took someone's liberty and whether or not it is considered a person is irrelevant to you. Regardless how twisted you try to make it; the unborn child did nothing wrong and does not deserve to die so that the mother can be unburdened.

Night.

Yes that analogy was just odd.

[StLucieBengal]

Been reading the thread and it's nice to see so many standing for the life of the innocents.

That's a hard position to take on these boards at times but it says a lot about character when your willing to stand up for those who can't stand for themselves.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-08-2015, 10:17 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: every parent has the right to decide this, they don't have the right to flat out murder their child.    Not getting a vaccine will not kill you.

Sure it can, hence the reason for them being created in the first place.

Quote:I can see since your down to name calling and changing the topic that your admitting we are correct on abortions.

 

Pointing out the logical extension of your fallacious logic on the subject of child endangerment is not changing the subject, it's directly addressing it.  Seeing as you're a moral coward who avoids addressing direct questions I can understand your confusion.

Quote:Glad your coming around,  there is hope for you yet.

Ahh, the Pee Wee Herman, "I know you are but what am I" retort.  I expect better from someone who's dedicated such a large portion of their lives to trolling various football message boards.

[BmorePat87]

Does anyone here believe that they do not have ownership of their own body?