Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by lechnerd, May 15, 2019 at 7:04 AM.
yes but when does life begin
really helpful, thanks for that
WHEN IS IT MURDER?
another logic trap sprung by logic master riner
It isn't easier. The Republican Party opposition to birth control is only minimally less vocal than its opposition to abortion.
no, he said why are we assuming we have to wait until birth and not 25 weeks in?
I like that you think I'm setting logic traps. I'm just discussing the topic here. ? go fuck yourself maybe?
You're not discussing anything. You're playing a never ending what if game. You never give an actual opinion, you just ask "Well what if...?" over and over and over.
you may fool some others with your disingenuous bullshit but not me.
Yes you have stated this multiple times and you keep ignoring the stats around late term abortions. People aren't having those out of convenience, they are incredibly low in numbers, and they are often horribly traumatic experiences.
If people want to reduce abortions a number of ways to do it have been cited via better sex ed and free birth control. Unfortunately you and the rest of these moron think not having sex is the only answer when scientifically we have all sorts of other options on the table, with the primary reason being "god".
So either pick having less abortions via practical means or stop legislating your morality around sex on people who don't subscribe to it.
Show riner's posting history to any of the morons who think dan or anyone else was banned for being a conservative
I explained why I asked that question, to a person who actually answered it. it's not never ending, it's one question.
Aren't you the one who threw: WHAT IF this were your daughter??? at me?
Several pages pages behind but you need to look up some statistics about death row inmates and early childhood trauma. Something like 80% of death row inmates were neglected children or worse came from abusive homes. This law is only going to make that worse. Again it all goes back to “we want to kid to be born but we don’t give a shit what happens to them afterwards.”.
Sorry if this was already brought up, again I’m behind here.
I gave a real life situation. One that literally occurred. Not some "CAN YOU KILL A NEWBORN???" bullshit.
? Ok. I'm not sure where bringing later term abortions into this started, but it was never my intent.
I mean...I have literally said 4 or 5 times that combinations of birth control are effective, though never 100%, ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Right??? Where in the actual fuck are you getting that I'm opposed to birth control and only think abstinence is the only answer?
I thought you brought up 25 weeks. Ok, so use 5 week. There are people who legitimately consider a 5 week old fetus as a life, the same way you think a baby is a life, and should be protected, no matter how that baby was conceived.
right, a real life situation that stated with "WHAT IF..."
Why are you throwing these never-ending what if's at me, bro?
Cool. Let those people make decisions based on their beliefs. Don't project them onto me.
I've agreed, it's an effective means of controlling a less than desirable population. It probably has an overall good on society. But, if it's a life, it still deserves to be protected. In that way, if (IF) the fetus is a life, it's no different than saying we should kill all children under 1 year old if they are in a bad home, their parents are on drugs or poor or whatever markers we are looking for.
Our society has deemed taking an innocent life as a decision you are not allowed to make.
I couldn't stand to read more of your posts but you are clearly advocating for low income people to not have sex if they can't afford contraception, which is not free today.
god damn it, you keep moving the goal posts here. Your previous posts said nothing about low income families not able to afford contraception, it was all about religious people thinking god didn't want people to use contraception, so that's what I responded to.
I addressed this already. BUT, yes, the ONLY 100% effective way to not get pregnant is to not have sex. And that applies to all income levels.
While that’s one way to look at it, I think a more constructive manner would be to say if the government wants to force a woman to carry to term then that same government can’t turn a blind eye to the needs of both the mother and the child postpartum. Including the state removing the child from an unsafe household at an EARLIER age than most people are comfortable with. It takes a lot to get a kid out from under an unfit parent and while wildly unpopular it really shouldn’t be. It’s a lot more effective to correct a child then mend a man.
Alabama, and to a slightly smaller extent Georgia, Ohio, and any other heartbeat bill state aren’t looking at the totality of the situation. They’re forcing unfit parents to be parents then slow playing the fix because nobody wants to separate a kid from their parents unless it’s the last option.
I’ll get off my soap box now. I have a lawn to mow.
Riner is a libertarian atheist but only ever argues evangelical Christian republican talking points.
I feel so bad for riner’s ? key. That thing has got to be worn out.
Casting out Dan created a stupid vacuum on the board and now riner is trying his best to fill the void.
exactly, like when I talk about how people should use contraception. Right out of the Christian republican playbook!
This is just a typical Thursday for riner
Explain how I've moved the goal posts? It was literally my first post in this thread. And your response was they shouldn't have sex if they can't afford it.
Try to at least be consistent here.
still waiting for the mythical libertarian where the 'socially liberal' prevails to reveal him/herself
This guy’s “I’m too smart to participate in the conversation” excuse always cracks me up.
Below was your post that I responded to. You are clearly harping on the fact that the religious right is opposed to birth control, that "me and the rest of these morons" think not having sex is the only answer despite all sorts of other answers on the table, because "god", and legislating morality.
Honestly bro, I'm responding to 14 people in this thread, it's not easy keeping track of what everyone said. I read your post and responded to what you said in that post, and it was focused around god, morality, and not being open to other answers beyond abstinence. I dunno. Sorry?
Dude I work with made another good point - Imagine the Baylor scandal happening in Alabama or Georgia and the fallout or lack thereof from it.
If you believe life begins at conception, this is a very simple issue.
A person's right to live is not dependent on how they were received.
A person shouldnt be sentenced to death because of the sins of North Korea.
And a person shouldnt be sentenced to death because someone else seems their quality of life to not be up to some arbitrary standard.
People have a right to life.
"My body, my choice" is true until the choice we make with our body infringes on the rights of someone else. We find that we, in fact, do legislate what we can and cannot do with our bodies along these lines. For example I cannot do whatever I want with my trigger finger, my fist, or my micropeen because of the infringement on other people's rights with those body parts.
If you believe otherwise, it becomes a very foggy situation
You then have to come up with a standard, or some threshold, for when a life becomes a life. Like sentience for example. But then you have to deal with the rights of some poor fuck in a coma. Does that bastard have a right to life, or should it be legal to kill him?
Or viability. But viability depends on the medical technology available to the unborn child. The better the technology, the younger the age of viability. Given "perfect" technology, what is the earliest phase of development a person could he considered viable? Conception? Moreover, how can the rights of a person change depending on his geographic location (depending on the medical technology in that location). Imagine a person who has reached the age of viability in the United States, then travels to Nepal or Bangledesh, where he is not old enough to be considered viable yet, then back to the United States. Are we to believe he was a person, then not, then a person again?
"But it's just a clump of cells" is the claim to make the case that the embryo or fetus isn't yet a human. But making this case is merely making the case that it isnt human because it doesnt look like me. Dare I say, it doesnt look like me, maybe it's only 3/5 of me.
Ultimately, I was taught in science class...
...that a new human life begins at conception, where 23 chromosomes from the male, which in and of themselves are not a life (therefore jerking it into a sock is not an abortion), join with 23 chromosomes from the female (which again, are not a life in and of themselves either). And from the point of their joining, they form a new and chromosomally unique life distinct from the father and mother. And from that point forward (conception) the new human needs the same thing as any other human being at any other phase of development: nutrition and protection.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say with a lot of this shit. WTF does North Korea have to do with anything? Bullshit that you were taught in science class that life begins at conception.
Does the fetus have the right not to have the carrying woman smoke two packs per day, drink repeatedly to excess, eat potentially harmful foods, and engage in dangerous physical activities?
Just curious how far the rights of the fetus extend. Is it life but not quality of life?
Pretty shitty of the fetus to infringe on the rights of the mother like that.
It’s the embryo’s choice.
The NAP fails again.
Should we make it illegal for pregnant women to lead unhealthy lifestyles? Perhaps a Fount of Life type of program should be instituted.
(Not a libertarian but,) I’m all for abortion, contraceptives, body autonomy, etc.
Listen, StuMondo , I have my own reservations about elective abortions because of my stance on the inalienable right to live, which extends to my position on capital punishment. However, when we go down these routes to flesh out logic and morality, we find ourselves in tangled nets.
The above is why I default to the real world instead of the hypothetical, idealistic world that lives solely in our minds. The areas that enforce the most stringent anti-abortion laws are Central and South America. Yes, they report very few on-the-book abortions. However, when off-the-book and usually very dangerous abortions are also weighed, their overall percentages do not differ much from those in the USA after Roe v. Wade.
Criminalizing abortion is a very poor fix. It's a simple fix. It's a political fix. We should be working instead on addressing the root causes that lead to women considering an abortion in the first place: expansion of inexpensive healthcare for everyone, expansion of inexpensive/free birth control, expansion of welfare programs, mandatory paid maternal leave, and a complete overhaul of the law enforcement system that too often removes income-earners from households.
Criminalizing abortion will just lead to unsafe abortions.
Can I get life insurance at conception?
Mom is arrested at 12 weeks. Can an attorney file on behalf of the fetus that is being illegally held in jail?
Mom gets pregnant in November. Can she claim the child as a dependent on that year's taxes?
I need answers.
He clearly went to a religios school.
Is a birthday + 9 months?
This is an excellent post.
My thought after I wrote that but it would seriously make my point stronger.
People like StuMondo need to ask themselves a question: Am I pro-life or am I just pro-birth? There is a difference, and it's a massive one. If all you care about is that another baby is spat out onto the world, then, great, go ahead and proudly wear that big gold-cross necklace for everyone to see. But if you care about that baby in a month when the single mother removes the third bottle of formula from the conveyor belt, then you best take a position that actually amounts to something beyond a mere label in your Twitter profile.
The “life begins at conception” folks never want to address what that means for IVF either.