The Abortion Question

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-28-2015, 08:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Then there is no reason to not close the window where you can have an abortion.    If education works the. Let's close the window.

Your "sentence" is an example education isn't 100% effective.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-28-2015, 08:35 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: The phrase "anti-abortion" is more synonymous with "pro-life" than "pro-choice" is with "pro-abortion".

Did that make sense to you?

[BFritz21]

(09-28-2015, 11:46 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Haven't read through all of these posts, so forgive me if this has been said.

Life begins and is no longer just a glob of cells when it begins growing and evolving.

Growth and evolution inside a womb means that it is something alive, does it not?

People might say "but it can't breathe or live on its own."  Neither could I for two weeks.  Actually, it would be a little under three months if you considered the entire coma, but I was just talking about breathing on my own.

When something is growing and developing, it's no longer a group of cells that can just be killed off like it's not human.

Is no one going to address that point of growth and development making it more than just a glob of cells?

[Blutarsky]

(09-28-2015, 08:44 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Did that make sense to you?

Absolutely. What word did not you understand?

Pro choice is pro abortion but the two have nothing to do with each other.
Call it what it is...Pro-Abortion. Get it?

[Blutarsky]

(09-28-2015, 08:51 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Is no one going to address that point of growth and development making it more than just a glob of cells?

Maybe its because you said sounds too ambiguous...Life begins and is no longer just a glob of cells when it begins growing and evolving.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-28-2015, 08:51 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Is no one going to address that point of growth and development making it more than just a glob of cells?

You didn't read through all the posts.  It's been addressed.  You will need to read through all the posts.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-28-2015, 09:31 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: Absolutely. What word did not you understand?

The analogy part.

http://www.studyguidezone.com/solvinganalogies.htm

[BmorePat87]

(09-28-2015, 08:28 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Sure but that doesn't give me the right to murder someone.

Does someone have the right to use your body to survive if you do not want them to?

[*bfine32*]

(09-28-2015, 10:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Does someone have the right to use your body to survive if you do not want them to?

If you are the reason they need it to survive and it causes you no harm: absolutely.

Do you disagree?

[BmorePat87]

(09-28-2015, 10:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you are the reason they need it to survive and it causes you no harm: absolutely.

Do you disagree?

Absolutely.

[*bfine32*]

(09-28-2015, 10:17 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Absolutely.

Kinda warped but to each their own.

I just don't see the logic behind I am the reason you are totally dependent, but you have no right to depend on me.

[BmorePat87]

(09-28-2015, 10:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Kinda warped but to each their own.

I just don't see the logic behind I am the reason you are totally dependent, but you have no right to depend on me.

For someone who thinks an imaginary friend is good enough logic for denying rights to whole classes of people, I figured you could understand the pretty simple philosophical concept of self ownership.

You're also sounding like a liberal with your argument that people have a right to the fruit of other's bodies. Might want to tone down the rhetoric or you'll be mistake for a Bernie fan.

[*bfine32*]

(09-28-2015, 10:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: For someone who thinks an imaginary friend is good enough logic for denying rights to whole classes of people, I figured you could understand the pretty simple philosophical concept of self ownership.

You're also sounding like a liberal with your argument that people have a right to the fruit of other's bodies. Might want to tone down the rhetoric or you'll be mistake for a Bernie fan.

Never advocated denying rights to anyone, not sure where you get that.

As to the rest: pretty sure you're ignoring the I am the reason you are totally dependent aspect.  I totally agree you have no right to my stuff if I am not the cause for you needing it. Nothing really socialist about it. 

I will keep in mind your view on necessary dependency.

At least go back to the embryo has no rights stance. 

[Blutarsky]

(09-28-2015, 10:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're also sounding like a liberal with your argument that people have a right to the fruit of other's bodies. Might want to tone down the rhetoric or you'll be mistake for a Bernie fan.

Correct me if I haven't been following correctly.

You're referring to "other's bodies" as the fetus correct?  Then what about the old  "a woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body" rhetoric, as if the fetus was not another human but rather some sort of parasite?

Do you then agree with this meme?

[Naranja Tigre]

The pro life crowd is pretty well resolved as to when a human is a human.

The pro choice crowd seems to be all over the place on the issue.

I think that says a lot.

[BmorePat87]

(09-28-2015, 11:30 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: Correct me if I haven't been following correctly.

You're referring to "other's bodies" as the fetus correct?  Then what about the old  "a woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body" rhetoric, as if the fetus was not another human but rather some sort of parasite?

Do you then agree with this meme?

"Fruit of other's bodies" being anything produced using someone's body, so someone suggesting they had a right to your body or the results of your labor. Clearly the meme is nonsensical as the fetus, prior to fetal viability, is completely dependent on the woman's body to survive and does not have any rights. It's a fetus. Regardless of the last part about it not having rights, it's your choice whether or not you host something in your body. Hence why it's an issue of the woman's body. 

Even you have to see the silliness in suggesting that the woman's body isn't a part of the equation.

(09-28-2015, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Never advocated denying rights to anyone, not sure where you get that.

As to the rest: pretty sure you're ignoring the I am the reason you are totally dependent aspect.  I totally agree you have no right to my stuff if I am not the cause for you needing it. Nothing really socialist about it. 

I will keep in mind your view on necessary dependency. 

At least go back to the embryo has no rights stance. 

You've argued against gay marriage in the past and have cited your religion. That aside, philosophically, the cause of dependency is irrelevant. If I am responsible for you losing your job, I am not obligated to help you survive. You can perceive the existence of a duty, but it does not exist in nature. Should someone? Sure, I honestly do not like the idea of an abortion... but I understand the issue with arguing that someone no longer owns their body because a mass of cells that doesn't possess any rights has a claim to it.. 

[Belsnickel]

This headline crossed my path this morning, thought this would be a good place for it. PP has a better rep than the GOP.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/planned-parenthood-is-more-popular-than-the-gop-polls-show/ar-AAeUbGT?li=AA54ur&ocid=edgsp

Pew's post on this poll: http://www.people-press.org/2015/09/28/majority-says-any-budget-deal-must-include-planned-parenthood-funding

[*PhilHos*]

(09-28-2015, 04:35 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Well, boogers, turds and menstrual tissue are also "separate entities", but I doubt you want to get involved in what women should do with theirs.

When boogers, turds, and menstrual tissue are capable of becoming a human being, then maybe I will get involved.

(09-28-2015, 05:51 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Actually, it's both.  A fetus is separate entity and a part of the woman's body.  (A fetus has lungs, yet can't breath on its own.)

It's as much a part of a woman's body has a tapeworm is. :snark:

In any event, the point being, as a separate entity, abortion is not about women doing things to their own bodies.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-28-2015, 10:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Does someone have the right to use your body to survive if you do not want them to?

Yes, if you're the reason they're using your body to survive in the first place.

[GMDino]

(09-29-2015, 07:47 AM)PhilHos Wrote: When boogers, turds, and menstrual tissue are capable of becoming a human being, then maybe I will get involved.


It's as much a part of a woman's body has a tapeworm is. :snark:

In any event, the point being, as a separate entity, abortion is not about women doing things to their own bodies.

That's exactly what is about.

Unless yo believe that a woman is just an incubator that has no autonomy.

No one LIKES that the fetus must be removed / killed.  But to say its not about a woman's control over her own body is absurd.