(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.

(08-08-2015, 07:39 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: This should just get copied and pasted to all of these kinda threads 

(08-08-2015, 07:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.


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

(08-08-2015, 07:46 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Ah I get it. You're one of those guys who don't like consequences. If someone does something stupid then they should have to deal with the consequences, so let's just kill someone who had no say in it. Like it or not people have to deal with their choices. If someone chooses to have sex without protection it was their choice to bring a LIFE into this world. You can't just kill someone just because they are a burden to them. Because that's what it is if you want to admit it or not. The fetus isn't taking anyone's liberties it's just living.

(08-08-2015, 07:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I always find this argument interesting. As if deciding to terminate a pregnancy is somehow avoiding consequences. Then we hear the same side talking of the emotional toll abortions can have. Not to mention the monetary costs, and of course the potential physical ones as well. But no, it's avoiding any consequences to have an abortion.

And yes, an unwanted pregnancy is a denial of liberties. Rationalize it however you want, doesn't change what it is.

And for the record, I find abortion morally reprehensible. I wish there was no need for it in this world and would love nothing more than to see it abolished. I feel aborting an unwanted pregnancy is a cop out and should never be done just for that reason. I just do not feel it is the place of our government to do so and there are many steps we should take to decrease the needs for abortions that would do better for our country and protect out citizenry more than banning abortion.

(08-08-2015, 07:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I always find this argument interesting. As if deciding to terminate a pregnancy is somehow avoiding consequences. Then we hear the same side talking of the emotional toll abortions can have. Not to mention the monetary costs, and of course the potential physical ones as well. But no, it's avoiding any consequences to have an abortion.

And yes, an unwanted pregnancy is a denial of liberties. Rationalize it however you want, doesn't change what it is.

And for the record, I find abortion morally reprehensible. I wish there was no need for it in this world and would love nothing more than to see it abolished. I feel aborting an unwanted pregnancy is a cop out and should never be done just for that reason. I just do not feel it is the place of our government to do so and there are many steps we should take to decrease the needs for abortions that would do better for our country and protect out citizenry more than banning abortion.

(08-08-2015, 07:56 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: How are fetus imposing on the rights of the mothers? If they aren't then they are not taking away any liberties. At that point when their not taking any liberties it's a burden.

(08-08-2015, 08:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You mean apart from stealing nutrients, restricting movement, and all of the fun things that go along with pregnancy that the woman does not want? You consider it nothing more than a burden, but the liberty of bodily integrity is one of the most key human unalienable rights. An unwanted pregnancy and the prohibition of ending it violates those rights.

(08-08-2015, 08:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: I agree with your stance on abortion.  I ave said, repeatedly, that it is a horrible, horrible decision and if a woman has made that decision I cannot imagine the anguish she went through and will go through in the future.

I too wish there was no such thing.

However...

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.

They want "personal responsibility" they say.  Unless its taking the personal responsibility to be on birth control or to decide on an abortion.

And the even sadder part is I don't think 3/4 of those politicians who oppose really care except it helps get them votes.  Period.

(08-08-2015, 08:12 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Sorry but stealing nutrients, restricting movement, and "all of the fun things that go along with pregnancy" isn't taking away any rights. You are legally able to do everything that you could do before. Thus making it a burden. So murdering people because their a burden is fine with you.

I think you just don't understand what liberties mean.

What is denying liberty 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.

Quote:1.2 The power or scope to act as one pleases:

Quote:1.1 The state of not being imprisoned or enslaved:

Quote:1.1Cause (someone) to lose their freedom of choice or action:

(08-08-2015, 08:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/liberty


You were saying?

(08-08-2015, 08:17 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: And how is that denying you to do what you please? denying and restricting are two different things. The mother isn't being imprisoned or enslaved when it has a fetus inside them. Their able to do everything that they used to be able to do except it's harder for them to do it. That's what a burden is.

(08-08-2015, 08:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Read on, after I edited...

(08-08-2015, 08:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Also, if abortion is illegal, then what do you think would happen if a pregnant woman drank or smoke while they were knowingly pregnant? We already have those politicians trying to start criminal investigations from miscarriages as it is.

(08-08-2015, 08:24 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: That's a whole different subject. This is about abortion, and the burden of child bearing.

(08-08-2015, 08:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Right then, so the embryo/fetus is not restricting liberties to you. So if abortion is made illegal and a woman drinks, smokes, pops pills, etc., and a miscarriage occurs, she has done no wrong because she still had freedom of choice. Yes?

(08-08-2015, 08:31 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Like I said it's a different subject. We are talking about abortion and the burden of child bearing. But because you insist... Do you think it should be legal for a parent to put their child in danger if it's restricting them from doing something?

(08-08-2015, 08:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No. There is a difference in there in that an embryo is wholly dependent, for breathing and a beating heart, on the host. A child born is not dependent in that capacity and there are other avenues (finding a babysitter, for instance) to attain the liberty.

So, will you answer my question? It's the same subject. My questions are based upon the idea of abortion being made illegal and thus a woman with an unwanted pregnancy having her liberties restricted.

(08-08-2015, 08:41 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: There is no difference between a child and a fetus with a beating heart. It's still a living human being. Just because the child is more dependent on the mother doesn't mean that it's any less of a human. What's the difference between a person in a coma on life support that will recover in a few months and a fetus?

The mother is not having her liberties restricted by the fetus. If it was illegal to drink or smoke or do what ever that would be a denial of liberty by the government, because it's putting another individuals life over petty escapes and vices.

(08-08-2015, 08:41 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: The mother is not having her liberties restricted by the fetus. If it was illegal to drink or smoke or do what ever that would be a denial of liberty by the government, because it's putting another individuals life over petty escapes and vices.