how about because it's UNBORN for starters
⮞ Texas Abortion Ban Stays In Effect With Help From SCOTUS ⮜
- Thread starter DreamRyderX
- Start date
chris155au
Active member
That's the point. A woman CANNOT terminate her
own pregnancy. Do you think that a woman CAN?
I agree.
People shouldn't be forced to use contraceptives.
chris155au
Active member
Is it a life?
chris155au
Active member
It's SIMPLE: I don't have a right to your labour, and you don't have a right to mine!
repeating yourself doesn't make it any less rubbish. If you and I agree on an exchange of services for cash or otherwise, it's no one else's business.
certainly not at 6 weeks it's not
she can actually ... women have been doing it for centuries ... it's just not as safe as the other options.
Shellandshilo1956
Active member
And, what evidence supports this belief? I mean, if you are asking women to knowingly bring to term, a physically and mentally handicapped children. Risk dying while giving birth. Or, to give birth to a child conceived from rape, incest, drugs, trickery, or from an immature judgement, then surely you must have some evidence to convince expected mothers NOT to abort their fetus?
Oh! that's right you don't give a shit about them as people do you? You are not going to do anything to help or support them are you? Even if you are wrong, "Cést la vie" right? You clearly don't give a shit about the child, to even conceive of this counter-intuitive gamble.
It reminds of the religious argument to have "Intelligent Design" taught in our science classes. The argument was, "Let's just teach ID as science, until we can prove that it isn't.". Both beliefs commit the same Argument from Ignorance and Special Pleading fallacies!
Please stop asking these silly questions, and think for yourself? They are not asking for clarity. They are just annoying and distracting. I'm sure if you try hard enough, even you can see why an unwanted child(for whatever reason), would be a constant reminder for why it is unwanted. Here's a hint. I you had a large scar on your face from an accident, wouldn't that scar be a constant reminder of the accident?
Again more silliness. You've heard of "abortion pills" haven't you? So YES a woman can abort her own pregnancy. Even if no pills were available, the old wire clothe hangar was also effective, although very dangerous. There were many other backyard methods used by women to induce a miscarriage. Please do the research.
How about from incest? What if the expected mother is only a 10yo? What if the expected mother is mentally or physically handicapped? What if the expected mother's life was in jeopardy if she gave birth? What if the expected mother was tricked or conned? What if the fetus is going to be deformed or not expected to live long outside of the womb? And, what about it being HER choice to make?
This is just more gibberish using absolutes.
So you really have no idea what the ice cream analogy was referring to? Maybe you should ask someone else what this analogy was referring to? Clearly your depth of understanding is a little shallow.
Nor should young girls be forced to bear a child that they don't want!!!
chris155au
Active member
Well we don't allow BORN physically and mentally handicapped children to be killed.
No more than to convince mothers not to kill their BORN kids.
Of course. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be a constant reminder,
I'm just saying that the more significant factor would be the difficulty of actually looking after such a child - rather than the mere reminder.
I should have said: a woman cannot safely, surgically terminate her own pregnancy. So if surgical elective abortion was banned, but the pills were still available, would women have lost the right to their body? I'm guessing that you wouldn't be happy with such a system. And even with pills, the woman didn't make them, so she's still not terminating her own pregnancy without the involvement of others.
Why would an exemption be made for consensual incest?
Adoption. It's not as if anyone is forcing them to look after the kid.
I make an exemption if it's to save the woman's life. That's the mainstream pro-life position.
Not sure what you mean.
If it is expected to lead to suffering then abort.
Why should it be her choice?
chris155au
Active member
I should have said: a woman cannot safely, surgically terminate her own pregnancy
chris155au
Active member
Okay, we can work with that. So what should happen after 6 weeks?
chris155au
Active member
You might want to think about that for a minute. ANY service?
Shellandshilo1956
Active member
Chris do you even know what an abortion is? It is NOT after the baby is born. 87% of all abortions are obtained, and occur within the first 3 months of pregnancy(1st trimester). I have never heard of a new-BORN that was aborted. So, why do you keep highlighting "born", and implying that embryos are "kids" or "children"?
Again you are changing the goal posts. Stick only to the comments you've made. There were 2 points that you chose to ignore, or didn't understand. One, the reason WHY a mother would choose to have an abortion in the first place, is to avoid THE RESPONSIBILITY OF RAISING AN UNWANTED CHILD.
TWO, the woman may not want to be constantly reminded of the events before getting pregnant. She might not want to be reminded of, if she HAD chosen to have an abortion, living with the child's handicaps, the father who abandoned her, the financial and physical hardship, and the life she could have had. Every time she sees the child.
Even having an abortion can be emotionally debilitating to many young women. Do you think that many young women also feel that they have killed their child? Abortion is NOT an easy decision to make, especially for first-time pregnant women. SO LET THEM MAKE THE DECISION!! They have to live with it, NOT YOU!!
You know that you are just digging a deeper hole for yourself. I will agree that surgical abortions are safer and better than medical abortions. I really think that whether a woman can terminate her pregnancy by herself, or with some medical assistance, is a rather moot and inconsequential point at best.
Wow, you just slipped in the word, "consensual" did we? Because in most US States, Incest is a prohibited/illegal act. It is defined under the fornication and adultery statutes. In some states consenting "adult" siblings are allow to fornicate. But NO state allows their marriage. I was really talking about young kids experimenting after they reach puberty. Not adult siblings(they have other serious issues).
I really think that you should think about what you are saying here. Please try and look at the answer from a woman's perspective. People might think that you are just being insensitive and chauvinistic.
Good. Then you are not a total pro-life fanatic.
Think about it, or call a friend.
IT IS HER BODY, NOT YOURS!!! IT IS HER LIFE, NOT YOURS!!! SHE MUST LIVE WITH HER DECISIONS, NOT YOU!!!
Pity the mothers so desperate they go to a backyard abortionist and bleed to death. How can she go to a hospital for treatment—she would be tried for procuring or attempting to procure an abortion.
This is about power over females. Not ProLife or other bullshit. You will NOT abort MY baby, says the male who does not do the pregnancy–childbirth.
Hopefully the morning–after pill is available in Texas.
This is about power over females. Not ProLife or other bullshit. You will NOT abort MY baby, says the male who does not do the pregnancy–childbirth.
Hopefully the morning–after pill is available in Texas.
not with rethuglicans around, no. And THAT is the problem.
pretty much, yes.
chris155au
Active member
It has nothing to do with bodily rights though.
chris155au
Active member
Exactly, "pretty much." However, I cannot pay you to murder someone.
chris155au
Active member
I know that. I'm simply saying that we don't allow BORN physically and mentally handicapped children to be killed. So why should we allow the UNBORN to be killed?
Yes, and this is what they look like at the latest:
Image of a 12 week old miscarried fetus. Related story here:
It's MOST telling that you're talking in terms of embryos and not embryos AND fetuses.
Many parents have used that excuse to kill their born kids.
Life wasn't supposed to be easy.
It is mostly a moot point. I only use it against the argument that an elective abortion ban would take away a woman's right to her body. But perhaps you don't make this argument, in which case just disregard my point about a woman not being able to perform safe abortion surgery on herself.
Yeah, which doesn't mean that incest is strictly non-consensual.
Saying that adoption is an option is insensitive and chauvinistic?
Shellandshilo1956
Active member
Yes, YOU telling women that they should carry a child that they don't want to term. And, if later they then don't want the child, they could put their "born" child up for abortion. If you can't see how this can be seen as being insensitive, callous, and chauvinistic, then I guess being insensitive, callous and chauvinistic is completely normal for you.
Chris you are just personalizing. We don't do anything. We don't go through the pregnancy. We don't go through childbirth. We don't raise the child. We just sit on our asses moralizing. The woman has complete autonomy over her own reproductive system, NOT WE! It is the woman who decides to terminate her own embryo(up to 10th week) or fetus(10th week), NOT WE! But if the woman DOES choose to bear a BORN child, she can't kill it. That would be illegal, right?
Whether you want to call it "killing" "terminating" or "murdering", unless you plan on raising 700K unwanted UNBORN children, then MYOB. How about starting a campaign to legally force MEN to have responsible sex? To take a pill, wear a condom, or have a vasectomy? I didn't think so. Let's not only penalize the woman for having sex like men do, but lets take away her right to control her own reproductive system. Some might call this attitude insensitive and chauvinistic. I certainly would.
Can't get anymore callous and insensitive than that.
NO parent uses any excuse to kill their BORN children. That would be a criminal act. But if you mean a woman's decision to terminate the pregnancy of her UNBORN child, then that is HER decision. Even her partner can't make that decision for her. So again, MYOB.
The point IS moot and irrelevant. I was not making an argument at all. You were just wrong in stating that a woman would need assistance in inducing a miscarriage. Now you are again changing the goal posts.
The point is, that it is illegal, consensual of not. It is the same as for statutory rape. If the women is under a certain age, it doesn't matter if sex is consensual or not. It is still illegal. Now, if you ask me, "well what if it was legal?". then you are changing the goal posts again.
Look, a child is not mentally equip to understand and control the changes happening to her body. She may be vulnerable and easily coerced into having sex. And, NOT mature enough to understand the consequences of being pregnant and becoming a mother. There are no such legal or social consequences for men.