Rubio: Life begins at conception

[BmorePat87]

(08-09-2015, 02:04 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: No one has the right to use your body without your permission. 

I'll move you on to the next question.

(08-09-2015, 01:57 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So we agree that no one has the right to use your body without your permission. 

If you donate a kidney to me to keep me alive, do I have the right to start taking more organs to keep myself alive? You granted consent for the kidney.

What if you take me in off the streets and feed me. Can you evict me despite initially granting consent, or do I now have the right to the fruits of your labor so that I may live?

[BmorePat87]

(08-09-2015, 02:07 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: No I don't think they should prevent an adult from making medical decision regarding their body. Too bad that's off topic too. Man you seem to not be able to stay on topic, because abortion obviously is about the body of the fetus not the woman.

Any pregnancy related medical decision has nothing to do with a woman's body?

I think I see the issue here...

[GMDino]

(08-09-2015, 11:20 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Thanks, I'm sure most are unaware of court rulings on this matter and your drawn out post was most necessary. Roe v. Wade you say? I'll have to look into that.

There was a time when the slave was recognized as less than human in this country. I'm sure there was a population that asserted this is how it should be and that folks that disagree with the status quo should just accept it. I. for one, am glad folks just didn't shut their mouths to this injustice.

The Republican party freed the slaves, it appears they may be required again to save the unborn children.

I'm not sure "most" are aware.  I think "most" just argue from a personal "feels" perspective with zero idea what the court actually ruled.

This was not a call for people to stop being against abortions.  I am anti-abortion.  

However I did know you would the first to be dismissive, change the subject, and come up with a response that did nothing to forward the discussion but only to further divide into "them" vs "us".

I supposes when you are proven wrong...again...you'll stop posting.  I can't wait.

[*bfine32*]

(08-09-2015, 11:21 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Not sure what was confusing for you. I thanked for you answering my question after avoiding it at first and then posed two more asked you to answer them instead of avoiding them... Which you now did.

Once again: What?

You posed the question in post 160 and I gave a direct answer in post 162.

I guess I'm not sure what you are looking for. My bad.

[BmorePat87]

(08-09-2015, 07:35 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Considering the analogy,  if that person is there 6 weeks +, you would have to follow a lengthy eviction process. If it were a family member (following analogy) that were dependent on your  care, it is likely an eviction would not be granted.
Should that person prove to be a physical threat, however,  the story would be different.  Thanks for the analogy.

And in this scenario, the eviction process becomes much harder once we reach 20 weeks or so, right? Should it prove to be a threat to your health, however, the story would be different. 

I'm glad you see where I am going with this. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-09-2015, 11:26 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'm not sure "most" are aware.  I think "most" just argue from a personal "feels" perspective with zero idea what the court actually ruled.

This was not a call for people to stop being against abortions.  I am anti-abortion.  

However I did know you would the first to be dismissive, change the subject, and come up with a response that did nothing to forward the discussion but only to further divide into "them" vs "us".

I supposes when you are proven wrong...again...you'll stop posting.  I can't wait.

Pretty sure the OP makes it a Republican v. Democrat thing.

Not sure what I dismissed.

I "supposes" you should focus on the thread and not the poster.

[Brownshoe]

(08-09-2015, 11:26 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Any pregnancy related medical decision has nothing to do with a woman's body?

I think I see the issue here...

When abortion is about killing the fetus, yeah it's not about the womans body obviously. It's about the fetus, because you're killing it.

[BmorePat87]

(08-09-2015, 11:27 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Once again: What?

You posed the question in post 160 and I gave a direct answer in post 162.

I guess I'm not sure what you are looking for. My bad.

What did you erase from the middle of my post when you quoted it a few hours ago?

Here's a hint: Maybe the two additional questions I referenced in the post you just quoted...

[BmorePat87]

(08-09-2015, 11:32 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: When abortion is about killing the fetus, yeah it's not about the womans body obviously. It's about the fetus, because you're killing it.

I see the fundamental issue you have here. You do not believe women own their own bodies once they are pregnant. 

I'll reference you to the two questions I just posed to you a few posts back.

[GMDino]

(08-09-2015, 11:31 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Pretty sure the OP makes it a Republican v. Democrat thing.

Not sure what I dismissed.

I "supposes" you should focus on the thread and not the poster.

Oh!  You think i'm "focused" on you?

No, no no little troll.  I know exactly what you will do and post.  You do what trolls do.

I was just pointing out that anyone who wanted to get away from the diverseness (which you encourage) would want more information.

Not you.  You will be out there fighting the good fight for "Nuh uh" and "Am not"!

And the next time you are shown to be completely wrong you will shut up.  That probably explains why you like this kind of issue.  There is not definitive answer and you can pretend you care about something other than the arguing and nitpicking.

That's why discussions over "when life begins" and "is there a god" or "the creation story is being shown to be EXACTLY like science" are fun for your type.  

Well, maybe not that last one.  Are you still trying to convince people that everyone else read it wrong? 

[*bfine32*]

(08-09-2015, 11:34 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: What did you erase from the middle of my post when you quoted it a few hours ago?

Here's a hint: Maybe the two additional questions I referenced in the post you just quoted...

Yeah, because you were not kind enough to answer the question I posed to you before that (post 166). Not answering questions and only continuing to ask them is in bad form.

Do you have the right to kill someone if they need you help?

[*bfine32*]

(08-09-2015, 11:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: Oh!  You think i'm "focused" on you?

No, no no little troll.  I know exactly what you will do and post.  You do what trolls do.

Not you.  You will be out there fighting the good fight for "Nuh uh" and "Am not"!

And the next time you are shown to be completely wrong you will shut up.  That probably explains why you like this kind of issue.  There is not definitive answer and you can pretend you care about something other than the arguing and nitpicking.
Are you still trying to convince people that everyone else read it wrong? 

Obviously my mistake.

[Brownshoe]

(08-09-2015, 11:36 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I see the fundamental issue you have here. You do not believe women own their own bodies once they are pregnant. 

I'll reference you to the two questions I just posed to you a few posts back.

I never said that, and now you're putting words in my mouth. I do believe that women own their own bodies once they become pregnant. They don't own the fetus, because it's another living being, and I don't believe that you are able to own another human being.

[BmorePat87]

(08-09-2015, 11:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, because you were not kind enough to answer the question I posed to you before that (post 166). Not answering questions and only continuing to ask them is in bad form.

Do you have the right to kill someone if they need you help?

Sorry, since the first sentence answered a question I did not ask, I stopped reading.

So your question is: Do I have the right to kill someone if they need my help?

I do not have the right to kill anyone unless they are infringing upon my right to ownership of my body (which is part of my right to life) without my consent. 

Their right to life cannot be contingent on limiting mine. If someone is dependent on my body to live, I can terminate that agreement at anytime that I wish. 

[Belsnickel]

(08-09-2015, 10:50 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I will give you credit for not minding looking foolish in order to give your ridiculous analogy and stance merit. An unborn child is in no way corollary to a criminal. I am quite surprised that you continue with this assertion that the unborn child is somehow to blame for its existence. It amazes me how the mind can twist itself to support ones position.

You stated that having sex, an action that ended up leading to pregnancy was giving consent, yes? Then if a woman is abducted by someone she met online, because she met and went with them willingly, then she gave consent. Just using that same logic. You give consent for one bit and you give consent for the entirety and it cannot be revoked.

[*bfine32*]

(08-09-2015, 11:42 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Sorry, since the first sentence answered a question I did not ask, I stopped reading.

So your question is: Do I have the right to kill someone if they need my help?

I do not have the right to kill anyone unless they are infringing upon my right to ownership of my body (which is part of my right to life) without my consent. 

Their right to life cannot be contingent on limiting mine. If someone is dependent on my body to live, I can terminate that agreement at anytime that I wish. 

Yeah, I hate it when someone doesn't give you a straight answer.

Don't you?

[GMDino]

(08-09-2015, 11:40 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Obviously my mistake.

Obviously as in the post you quoted I responding to...wait for it...you and your response to me that had little to do with the OP.

I did respond to your attempt to derail any real info from a discussion over feeling though before that.

(I highlighted them for you this time so you know who I am talking to.)


Wanna get back on topic or do you want to keep down another trail in an attempt to seem like its a win?

[*bfine32*]

(08-09-2015, 11:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You stated that having sex, an action that ended up leading to pregnancy was giving consent, yes? Then if a woman is abducted by someone she met online, because she met and went with them willingly, then she gave consent. Just using that same logic. You give consent for one bit and you give consent for the entirety and it cannot be revoked.

I think the issue that you are failing to see in your little analogies is that in every one you provide the person is committing a crime. The unborn child is not committing a crime, no matter how hard you try to draw that conclusion.

You analogies would make a little more sense if you focused on the person that got her pregnant and that person demand you keep the child. Blaming anything on the unborn child is silly.

[Brownshoe]

(08-09-2015, 11:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You stated that having sex, an action that ended up leading to pregnancy was giving consent, yes? Then if a woman is abducted by someone she met online, because she met and went with them willingly, then she gave consent. Just using that same logic. You give consent for one bit and you give consent for the entirety and it cannot be revoked.

consent cannot be revoked when you allowed the fetus to have life. You have no right to kill the fetus, because it's a living human being. It's for the simple fact that you are now infringing on the fetus right to live at that point. Human life is more important than the temporary comfort of another human.

[GMDino]

(08-09-2015, 11:53 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: consent cannot be revoked when you allowed the fetus to have life. You have no right to kill the fetus, because it's a living human being. It's for the simple fact that you are now infringing on the fetus right to live at that point. Human life is more important than the temporary comfort of another human.

No.  Not according to the law.

http://bengalsboard.net/Thread-Rubio-Life-begins-at-conception?pid=40848#pid40848

And really there is not an agreement on it that at all.

You are arguing what you FEEL and BELIEVE.