![]() |
Question For Pro-Choice People - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: Question For Pro-Choice People (/Thread-Question-For-Pro-Choice-People) |
RE: Question For Pro-Choice People - fredtoast - 05-16-2019 (05-15-2019, 08:28 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: A baby has arms and legs before the second trimester passes, so, you're saying that it would be ok since it is not past the second trimester. You said the baby was born. That means it was carried past the second trimester. That means i think she should be punished for it. Learn to read. RE: Question For Pro-Choice People - bfine32 - 05-16-2019 (05-16-2019, 09:05 AM)Benton Wrote: No (05-16-2019, 09:07 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Not even close.Seems in both instances it's the mother's desire to handicap the child because she wants to. RE: Question For Pro-Choice People - bfine32 - 05-16-2019 (05-16-2019, 08:34 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Or they recognize that they cannot provide a good life for the child due to any number of circumstances including, but not limited to, the lack of an adequate social safety net in this country, and they understand that the child services systems in this country are already beyond their capacity. So they choose not to bring a child into the world that will have to suffer throughout their life. Yeah, probably best just to kill it. You go with yours and I'll go with the vast majority of abortions are performed because the mother places her welfare other that of her unborn child. RE: Question For Pro-Choice People - GMDino - 05-16-2019 I think a bunch of people would never talk to a woman who had to make the awful decision to have an abortion and then tell them to their face that they are going to hell and should be in jail for murder. Not as a group yelling at a single woman, but one on one...face to face. Because it's easy to have an opinion, its hard to deal with how it actually affects real people. But they "know" they are "right" because...well we all know it's religious but they will find some science to back it up, I'm sure. So go find someone who had an abortion. Talk to them about how they made their choices and then yell at them about how they killed their baby and should be in jail and will burn in hell for all eternity...or stop pretending your opinion matters to them. RE: Question For Pro-Choice People - BmorePat87 - 05-16-2019 (05-16-2019, 01:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems in both instances it's the mother's desire to handicap the child because she wants to. That common thread has nothing to do with the context in which the cutting off limbs scenario was introduced. Choosing a mate based on their genetic traits is in no way connected to whether or not one has the right to cut the limbs off a fetus. RE: Question For Pro-Choice People - Benton - 05-16-2019 (05-16-2019, 01:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems in both instances it's the mother's desire to handicap the child because she wants to. This slippery slope style of argument is absurd. One of the most common themes in choosing a mate is often related to someone's genetic predisposition to be like them. You can divide that up by race, height, what you're determining as a handicap, weight, etc. You shouldn't, though. That's the flip side of the same logic people use to abort babies with autism, mental retardation, etc. I understand the religious displeasure with medically induced pregnancies (just a couple weeks ago my pastor for mother's day made multiple references to how test tube babies aren't really people, that you can't be a person without a mother and the Father), but using science to have a child more like you is not the same as surgically maiming children. Good grief. RE: Question For Pro-Choice People - treee - 05-16-2019 Here is an interesting piece i came across earlier today that I wanted to share: Quote: RE: Question For Pro-Choice People - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 05-16-2019 (05-16-2019, 02:32 PM)Benton Wrote: This slippery slope style of argument is absurd. One of the most common themes in choosing a mate is often related to someone's genetic predisposition to be like them. You can divide that up by race, height, what you're determining as a handicap, weight, etc. You shouldn't, though. That's the flip side of the same logic people use to abort babies with autism, mental retardation, etc. Where did the pastor think test tube babies come from? RE: Question For Pro-Choice People - bfine32 - 05-16-2019 (05-16-2019, 02:21 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That common thread has nothing to do with the context in which the cutting off limbs scenario was introduced. Choosing a mate based on their genetic traits is in no way connected to whether or not one has the right to cut the limbs off a fetus. (05-16-2019, 02:32 PM)Benton Wrote: This slippery slope style of argument is absurd. One of the most common themes in choosing a mate is often related to someone's genetic predisposition to be like them. You can divide that up by race, height, what you're determining as a handicap, weight, etc. You shouldn't, though. That's the flip side of the same logic people use to abort babies with autism, mental retardation, etc.Sure, we'll just disagree. Of course one is going to consider one "worse" and personally I'll take limbs over hearing. But IMO both are striving to disable their child. They ladies said they wanted to have a disabled child. There's reasons there are laws to disallow relatives to marry and as far as I know it has to do with the medical harm it may cause the child. I have nothing against medically induced pregnancies, but what if the mom has no arms? Should she be allowed to put a substance in the test tube that can block the development of limbs? IMO both are perverse. "I'm disabled, so I want my child to be." RE: Question For Pro-Choice People - BFritz21 - 05-16-2019 (05-16-2019, 12:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You said the baby was born. That means it was carried past the second trimester. That means i think she should be punished for it. I said open the mom up and break the babies legs or deform it any other way. If it's still in the mother, how is it already born? Learn to read. Talk about your all-time backfires. RE: Question For Pro-Choice People - jj22 - 05-16-2019 (05-13-2019, 04:45 PM)jj22 Wrote: I'd be more sympathetic towards the pro lifers if when the baby was born they didn't bend over backwards to cut programs that help the mother after they forced her to have the baby. "Shame" I got no answer. I haven't heard any pro lifers championing helping the baby and mother once it's born. That would go a long ways to helping us understand your "defense" of the baby. Crickets from them when asked who would help the mother and child once the baby is born, and would/have they support(ed) those social programs that do. Can't even muster up pretend support of them on a message board. I guess it's true what they say. According to pro lifers, life and rights of the baby begins at conception and ends at birth. RE: Question For Pro-Choice People - fredtoast - 05-16-2019 (05-16-2019, 04:26 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I said open the mom up and break the babies legs or deform it any other way. If it's still in the mother, how is it already born? (05-14-2019, 05:05 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: OK, so limbs are formed by then, so it would be ok for a woman to have a surgery that opens her up and breaks the babies legs and arms or just has them cut-off causing the baby to be born deformed just because it's the woman's body and she can do what she wants? Yeah, Let's talk about all time back fires. You said the child was born. That means it was carried past the second trimester. That means I think the mother should be punished. Why don't you just admit that you misread my original post? You just keep looking worse and worse the more you keep doubling down on being wrong. RE: Question For Pro-Choice People - BFritz21 - 05-16-2019 (05-16-2019, 04:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yeah, Let's talk about all time back fires. I said the baby WOUD BE BORN deformed, meaning IT'S NOT BORN YET, and I made it clear in my original post that it was doing that while the baby was in the mother. Yeah, all-time back fire #2. Let's talk. RE: Question For Pro-Choice People - Lucidus - 05-16-2019 (05-13-2019, 02:57 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: People that say it's ok for a woman to have an abortion because it's her choice and her body, so you have no problem with a woman drinking heavily during pregnancy, even though alcohol can seriously affect the unborn child's development, particularly its brain? It also causes other birth defects. I am pro-choice because I feel it's wrong to strip the mother of their autonomy. However, I would be dishonest if I said I wasn't at all conflicted on the subject of abortion. I personally don't think pregnant women should drink or smoke, but as long as smoking and drinking remain legal, I also feel it should be her decision to make, even if I feel it's a bad one. RE: Question For Pro-Choice People - fredtoast - 05-16-2019 (05-16-2019, 05:02 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I said the baby WOUD BE BORN deformed, meaning IT'S NOT BORN YET, and I made it clear in my original post that it was doing that while the baby was in the mother. The question you asked indicated that the child would be carried past the second trimester and be born. That is the question I answered. You still do not understand what I wrote in my original post, so I am going to explain in as simple terms as I can. The mother should be punished for any damage (or reckless behavior that could cause damage) to a child she carries past the second trimester. If she has the fetus dismembered and then has it aborted before the end of the second trimester it is okay. If she carries the child to term and it is born LIKE IN YOUR QUESTION then she should be punished. RE: Question For Pro-Choice People - BmorePat87 - 05-16-2019 (05-16-2019, 03:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure, we'll just disagree. Of course one is going to consider one "worse" and personally I'll take limbs over hearing. But IMO both are striving to disable their child. They ladies said they wanted to have a disabled child. There's reasons there are laws to disallow relatives to marry and as far as I know it has to do with the medical harm it may cause the child. Are you purposefully choosing to ignore the context? If so, please let me know so that I don't waste my time responding. If not, I'm going to suggest that you go back to the start before responding, because this isn't a matter of "which is worse" it's a matter of "are the two examples comparable in the context of a woman's right to ownership of her body?" (a woman's ownership of her body is the issue that was being debated). RE: Question For Pro-Choice People - Benton - 05-16-2019 (05-16-2019, 03:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: . Should she be allowed to put a substance in the test tube that can block the development of limbs? In this instance, it was semen put in a test tube. So, no, it's not the same as surgical maiming. RE: Question For Pro-Choice People - Bengalzona - 05-16-2019 (05-13-2019, 02:57 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: People that say it's ok for a woman to have an abortion because it's her choice and her body, so you have no problem with a woman drinking heavily during pregnancy, even though alcohol can seriously affect the unborn child's development, particularly its brain? It also causes other birth defects. I think a woman who is not forced to carry a child, but does so because she chooses to, is far less likely to engage in any of those behaviors. That is a woman who cares about the baby she is carrying and is invested in seeing it born healthy. RE: Question For Pro-Choice People - BFritz21 - 05-16-2019 (05-16-2019, 05:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The question you asked indicated that the child would be carried past the second trimester and be born. That is the question I answered.That's hypocritical because you said it's her body. Killing the child before term damages it more than dismembering it would. (05-16-2019, 05:48 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I think a woman who is not forced to carry a child, but does so because she chooses to, is far less likely to engage in any of those behaviors. That is a woman who cares about the baby she is carrying and is invested in seeing it born healthy. Unlikely, but possible. RE: Question For Pro-Choice People - fredtoast - 05-16-2019 (05-16-2019, 06:02 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: That's hypocritical because you said it's her body. Killing the child before term damages it more than dismembering it would. There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about what I am saying. Apparently you just lack the ability to understand a very simple concept. I honestly don't know how to make it any more simple. Child not carried past end of second trimester....no punishment for killing or damage done. Child carried past end of second trimester....punishment for killing (except to protect the life of the mother) or any damage done. If you still don't get it I give up. |