And pro-lifers will say that abortion is murder, which is what the whole abortion debate is about. That was my point.
This is an error in fact on their parts.
But abortion is not murder. It is rather a fact that a prohibition of abortion would amount to the reduction of individual rights and an overstepping of the government. That pro-lifers are too ignorant to realize this does not make them less hypocritical.
Cool story, bro.
You're the guy who says that sex doesn't cause pregnancy. What's worse, when asked what does cause pregnancy, IIRC, in response you ask the question, "Is anything ever truly caused?"
I wouldn't call that a smart appraisal of the issue.
Snip
It doesn't, any more than driving in motor vehicles causes traffic collisions. I've had sex thousands of times, and not once has a pregnancy resulted. How could that be, if sex caused pregnancy?You're the guy who says that sex doesn't cause pregnancy.
I'll tell you quite plainly that implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterine wall causes pregnancy. I think you are confused about my arguments.What's worse, when asked what does cause pregnancy, IIRC, in response you ask the question, "Is anything ever truly caused?"
In the fair amount of time I've spent refuting your nonsense, I can confidently say that your claims fall more than a little flat.I wouldn't call that a smart appraisal of the issue.
And they will still be wrong.And pro-lifers will say that abortion is murder
No, it isn't....which is what the whole abortion debate is about.
And it is false.That was my point.
And they will still be wrong.
No, it isn't.
And it is false.
Ignore list - protecting us from cartoon ponies and associated idiocy since at least 2006.I hold multiple master's degrees in biological sciences, am an ABD PhD candidate in evolutionary anthropology, have published peer-reviewed scientific research, and make a lot of money performing scientific analyses for the federal government. Who, pray tell, are you, to talk down to me?
The foundation of a democracy is that everyone's opinion is to be considered. The purpose of a public forum is to share opinions. That's why I toss my two cents into the ring.
You can either attempt to explain your position better or post more pictures of cartoon ponies. If you can't explain it to me, it's not because I'm too stupid to understand.
I think abortion probably is murder. However, since the fetus cannot survive outside the womb, forcing a woman to carry it becomes the only way to save it, which removes her freedom to control her own body, and that's effectively slavery. There's really no answer to this conundrum.And pro-lifers will say that abortion is murder, which is what the whole abortion debate is about. That was my point.
And pro-lifers will say that abortion is murder, which is what the whole abortion debate is about. That was my point.
Murder is the intentional and unlawful killing of a person. Abortion is not unlawful, and a fetus is not a person. Therefore, abortion is not murder. This is very, very simple.I think abortion probably is murder.
There is no conundrum. You have simply made an error in fact. You are correct, however, that rendering a woman an involuntary incubator is tantamount to slavery, and utterly dehumanizing.However, since the fetus cannot survive outside the womb, forcing a woman to carry it becomes the only way to save it, which removes her freedom to control her own body, and that's effectively slavery. There's really no answer to this conundrum.
What the fuck planet are you from?I would say that if it wasn't becoming more "cool" to abort babies...
What the fuck planet are you from?
It doesn't, any more than driving in motor vehicles causes traffic collisions. I've had sex thousands of times, and not once has a pregnancy resulted. How could that be, if sex caused pregnancy?
I'll tell you quite plainly that implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterine wall causes pregnancy.
What causes pregnancy?
Your response:
What causes a fertilized ovum?
I can't believe I'm stooping to this level of idiocy again. It's very telling of the precariousness of the moral position of pro-choicers when their ultimate defense rests on the claim that sex doesn't cause pregnancy.
I voted yes, but I'm not socially liberal, because I don't support forcing my values on other people, I don't support Amnesty, I'm anti-hate crime legislation, and I'm pro-life, and I have a hard time seeing how life could come from non-life.
While you could describe me as an Antifederalist theocon, you could also describe me as paleolibertarian, which is a theologically conservative anti-materialistic anarchocapitalist.
There is no conundrum. You have simply made an error in fact. You are correct, however, that rendering a woman an involuntary incubator is tantamount to slavery, and utterly dehumanizing.
you csall yourself an anarchist but you think the government controls a woman's uterus ?
btw, that is the issue, not when life begins. It is when does the state's rights supercede the woman's rights.
I disagree. The disconnect between most pro-lifers and pro-choicers is that pro-lifers believe a fetus is no different than a living child.
Not really. The issue is the conflict between the woman's rights and whatever right's the unborn has.
What pro-lifers believe is, the woman has no rights, to such an extreme they see the woman has nothing but a vessel in which the superior being resides.
of course if the baby is a girl, someday she'll become inferior again when she gets pregnant.
I think abortion probably is murder. However, since the fetus cannot survive outside the womb, forcing a woman to carry it becomes the only way to save it, which removes her freedom to control her own body, and that's effectively slavery. There's really no answer to this conundrum.
However, definitely slavery trumps probably murder in my book. Same with a father's rights to an unborn child versus a mother's control over her own body. Sometimes something that is definitely a good thing simply cannot be done without also doing something that is definitely a bad thing, and I'd rather the government not do a bad thing just to do a good thing.
You've put it very well. It is a hard thing to deal with, and the Court came up with a reasonable compromise, giving a woman control over her body for a reasonable time while agreeing there's a limit on that right. Which is why there's restrictions on later term abortions.
A fetus is certainly genetically a person, from day one. At different times and places a man has had the right to kill his wife or his slave; that these acts were legal does not make them any less murder, at least morally.Murder is the intentional and unlawful killing of a person. Abortion is not unlawful, and a fetus is not a person. Therefore, abortion is not murder. This is very, very simple.
There is no conundrum. You have simply made an error in fact. You are correct, however, that rendering a woman an involuntary incubator is tantamount to slavery, and utterly dehumanizing.
Agreed. While as law the Roe v. Wade decision is garbage, the compromise itself is probably the best that could be framed.You've put it very well. It is a hard thing to deal with, and the Court came up with a reasonable compromise, giving a woman control over her body for a reasonable time while agreeing there's a limit on that right. Which is why there's restrictions on later term abortions.
A fetus is certainly genetically a person, from day one. At different times and places a man has had the right to kill his wife or his slave; that these acts were legal does not make them any less murder, at least morally.
Agreed. While as law the Roe v. Wade decision is garbage, the compromise itself is probably the best that could be framed.