+- 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: Rubio: Life begins at conception (/Thread-Rubio-Life-begins-at-conception)
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - Brownshoe - 08-08-2015
(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?
Personally I think that abortion is wrong after the fetus has a beating heart (~8 weeks). I think that people shouldn't have the right to take the life of their unborn child. That to me should be a crime, because like it or not at that point in time that fetus is alive. You are murdering it, and that's the 100% truth. To me killing that fetus is the equivalent of killing a person in a coma who is hooked up to life support and is going to recover in a few months, because the hospital/family finds it a burden.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - PhilHos - 08-08-2015
(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?
So you're in favor of banning abortion. Good.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - Johnny Cupcakes - 08-08-2015
(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?
No. The government should be given the power of stopping someone from stripping someone else of their liberty even though they have committed no crime.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - Belsnickel - 08-08-2015
(08-08-2015, 08:16 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Personally I think that abortion is wrong after the fetus has a beating heart (~8 weeks). I think that people shouldn't have the right to take the life of their unborn child. That to me should be a crime, because like it or not at that point in time that fetus is alive. You are murdering it, and that's the 100% truth. To me killing that fetus is the equivalent of killing a person in a coma who is hooked up to life support and is going to recover in a few months, because the hospital/family finds it a burden.
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?
(08-08-2015, 09:55 AM)PhilHos Wrote: So you're in favor of banning abortion. Good.
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.
(08-08-2015, 10:58 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: No. The government should be given the power of stopping someone from stripping someone else of their liberty even though they have committed no crime.
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.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - bfine32 - 08-08-2015
(08-08-2015, 11:05 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: they are now being forced to have something literally living off of them that they did not give permission for.
Are you talking about rape?
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - Belsnickel - 08-08-2015
(08-08-2015, 11:07 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Are you talking about rape?
Nope, any unwanted pregnancy.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - bfine32 - 08-08-2015
(08-08-2015, 11:12 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Nope, any unwanted pregnancy.
Well then that sorta makes your "should a kidnapper be held accountable for murder" analogy quite silly. The kidnapper did not want to kill his victim (it was an unwanted killing), so why should he be held accountable for the results of his actions?
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - Johnny Cupcakes - 08-08-2015
(08-08-2015, 11:05 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.
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.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - BmorePat87 - 08-08-2015
(08-08-2015, 12:43 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Countries with low to zero standards can't be compared. It's as absurd as counting them in pollution stats like that climate change people do to make it look like we are actually hurting the enviornment.
So you don't have any numbers to back up your claim?
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - PhilHos - 08-08-2015
(08-08-2015, 11:05 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.
What?! That's the one of the main reasons we HAVE a government! There are going to be times one person's "rights" may conflict with another's and there should be as unbiased and impartial decision makers making the decision about what is the best possible solution. It certainly shouldn't be left up to the conflicting individuals.
Using this logic, the government shouldn't have made the decision to get rid of slavery.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - CKwi88 - 08-08-2015
(08-08-2015, 12:58 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Why wouldn't they?
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.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - Belsnickel - 08-08-2015
(08-08-2015, 11:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Well then that sorta makes your "should a kidnapper be held accountable for murder" analogy quite silly. The kidnapper did not want to kill his victim (it was an unwanted killing), so why should he be held accountable for the results of his actions?
I think you misread that part...
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - Belsnickel - 08-08-2015
(08-08-2015, 11:31 AM)PhilHos Wrote: What?! That's the one of the main reasons we HAVE a government! There are going to be times one person's "rights" may conflict with another's and there should be as unbiased and impartial decision makers making the decision about what is the best possible solution. It certainly shouldn't be left up to the conflicting individuals.
Using this logic, the government shouldn't have made the decision to get rid of slavery.
Your slavery remark helped my point. Let's see if I can remember how until I vet home and not use my phone for this.
Okay, here goes. In the case of slavery, the right to pursue happiness or the right to property is not dependent upon the right of liberty of the slaves. They can still find other avenues. However, the slave's liberty is entirely dependent upon them being freed from their ownership. So we are only looking at one side's rights being violated there. In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, the mother's liberty is entirely dependent upon the life of the embryo/fetus, and the life of the embryo/fetus is entirely dependent on the liberty of the pregnant woman.
Does that make sense? It makes sense in my head.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - Johnny Cupcakes - 08-08-2015
I think that most people agree that abortion is not a preferable situation. The disconnect between the sides is about whether or not you consider a fetus, embryo, or even a grouping of fertilized cells as life. I happen to consider that life, and human life to be more precise. I won't say that a grouping of cells constitutes a cognitive human, because I'm not a moron, but if left unchecked, those cells will more often than not become a breathing, functioning, human being. For this reason, I cannot morally justify abortion.
I understand that this may be stripping away the right to govern their own body of an adult female, but I don't recognize those rights when they come at the expense of another.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - bfine32 - 08-08-2015
(08-08-2015, 12:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think you misread that part...
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.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - Mike M (the other one) - 08-08-2015
(08-07-2015, 05:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Science does not say that a lump of undifferentiated cells is a human.
Just like science does not say that an acorn is an oak tree.
This is just a lie.
It doesn't?
The oak acorn is by nature oak since it has oak DNA. Likewise, a fully developed oak tree is also by nature oak since it has oak DNA. The difference is that one is fully developed, and the other is not. The same goes with the life in the womb of the mother as compared to a full-grown adult. A zygote is not an adult, but both have the nature of a human. It's all part of the life cycle which you continue to try to dispute.
http://texastreeid.tamu.edu/content/howTreesGrow/#lifecycle
As with all living things, trees have a life cycle – from conception (seed), to birth (sprout), to infancy (seedling), to juvenile (sapling), to adult (mature), to elderly (decline), and finally to death (snag/rotting log). Because trees are renewable, the cycle begins again either artificially through planting or naturally with regeneration of new seeds.
Humans Life Cycle Video for Kids - Science for Kids
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdprpVCIhu0
The human life cycle begins at fertilization, when an egg cell inside a woman and a sperm cell from a man fuse to form a one-celled zygote . Over the next few days, the single, large cell divides many times to form a hollow ball of smaller cells. On the sixth day after fertilization, this hollow ball burrows into the wall of the mother's uterus, or womb. The cells then form three layers that fold and bend into the more complex shape of an early embryo. Gradually, the cells begin to become different from one another, forming, for example, the nervous system and the circulatory system.
Read more: http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html#ixzz3iEpz8C3x
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - Rotobeast - 08-08-2015
I am just appalled at the loss of life, with abortion.
I mean.... just think of all the Super Soldiers (totally not suggesting slavery) we could have, if women were paid to carry to term and then handed the babies over for training. It surely then would be a life not wasted.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - RICHMONDBENGAL_07 - 08-08-2015
(08-08-2015, 01:41 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I am just appalled at the loss of life, with abortion.
I mean....m just think of all the Super Soldiers (totally no suggesting slavery) we could have, if women were paid to carry to term and then handed the babies over for training. It surely then would be a life not wasted.
:sparta:
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 08-08-2015
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.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - BmorePat87 - 08-08-2015
(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.
and then oppose government benefits when the mothers cannot afford to take care of the kid... because they just had the baby to get a welfare check...