Issues other than abortion

[goout]

Sbee0:

The heart of the abortion argument is the fundamental error that an unborn child is not a human being, just part of the woman’s body like any other cells, thus there are no moral qualms about removing if they so desire, for any reason at all.

Per your dazzling usual, you are incorrect. Like, wildly.

First, it’s not the “pro-abortion” argument. It’s the “pro-choice” argument. You should probably get that straight as simply a matter of fact… We’re trying to empower the woman, not abortion.

No, you are empowering power. Not women. Your are actually killing small women, and giving absolute power to those who are able to claim it.
You are right alongside some very tough customers from the past.

So tell us, what kind of thought process goes from killing small children, half of whom are women, to a cheap appeal to women’s health.

We need to know, what kind of mental gymnastics are you going through?

 

[Vonsalza]

No, you are empowering power. Not women.

Power does not exist apart from those that would it. I am e.powering women.

So tell us, what kind of thought process goes from killing small children, half of whom are women, to a cheap appeal to women’s health.

They’re not people in the same way that adult woman is. Their theoretical “desire” (despite having no real capacity for such a thing) does not overrule a persons desire concerning their own body.

We need to know, what kind of mental gymnastics are you going through?

Nothing too complex. Think of a land lord kicking out a tenant they don’t want.

 

[goout]

goout:

You are on a par with the flat earthers and 6 day creationists.

By claiming that a woman has a right to bodily autonomy? If you say so…

Your philosophy is hideous and should be rejected by anyone with a shred of moral sense.

For 100s of years women were generally treated as property. Forcing women to undergo pregnancy against their will returns them to that abominable state.

Let us be clear. Most pro-choice folks I know what to give the women her free choice, but then labor to make life as attractive a choice as possible. We will not force her hand.

You have zero case. Zero.
In the first place, a woman chooses pregnancy. So much for the forced slavery argument. Bye. (cue the rape exception, go ahead, but that will be too complex a moral argument for you) .
So a person chooses pregnancy, and is a slave to it.
Ok.

Prochoicers want to give women choices? Which women? Living women? Powerful women.

You philosophy is hideous and barbaric.You should repent.

 

[goout]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Yes, human life is expensive. Human life asks for common responsibility.
Can’t have that, we can’t invaders taking up our resources.
We have CHOICES!

 

[Vonsalza]

You have zero case. Zero.

Gently, virtually the whole of the developed, educated world agrees with me. Including roughly half the world’s Catholics.

Prochoicers want to give women choices? Which women? Living women? Powerful women.

No adjective required. Just “women”.

You philosophy is hideous and barbaric.You should repent.

Well, at least you give me choice here. Hopefully no forced baptisms

 

[yankeesouth]

Of course being Pro Life is not just about saving lives of innocent human beings. Obviously it is the most important because ending abortion is about saving innocent human lives but there are four other Catholic non negotiables euthanasia, marriage, etc.

Actually now there are six non negotiables unfortunately since the liberals have now added support for infanticide to their political ideology.

 

[Vonsalza]

And I think if Catholics want to pursue those as a matter of personal and religious ideologies, I think it’s absolutely amazing. I think they should absolutely have the right to do that.

The problem gets created when you want to change secular Law to force me to live under your Catholic Norms. That’s a huge problem for anyone that’s not a dogmatic Catholic.

 

[Brendan_64]

Doesn’t matter. You dont get to choose for mama when it’s too high or not high enough.

And does that also apply to born children? Does mama still get to choose when its too high or not high enough?

 

[Vonsalza]

Nope. For probably the 11th or 12 time at least in this forum, the conflict of agency ends when the child is born and thus no longer bodily dependent on the mother.

At that point she can simply request the hospital keep it if she wants.

 

[Brendan_64]

…now added support for infanticide to their political ideology.

Which is a logical development based on the arguments based on ‘personhood’, supremacy of the autonomy of the woman, and one human being given the power of life or death over another.

But why stop there? What about women whose lives are significantly ‘hindered’ as a result of children who are older than this?

 

[Vonsalza]

Indeed those slippery slopes can keep right on slipping all the way to Infinity can’t they?

Infanticide is illegal in the United States, everywhere in the United States. As such it’s an irrelevant objection.

 

[MamaJewel]

Let us be clear. Most pro-choice folks I know what to give the women her free choice, but then labor to make life as attractive a choice as possible. We will not force her hand.

Amen!

For many pro-choicers, this labor includes establishing a social safety net so the woman can exercise her right to bodily autonomy and hopefully experience a positive pregnancy outcome, if that is what she chooses.

And recognizing that a positive pregnancy outcome results in a new person with many needs, pro-choicers also work to establish social safety nets that don’t hinder the woman’s ability, (along with the other parent if he/she is present), to raise that new person from infancy to adulthood.

 

[Victoria33]

No, I’m pro choice specifically because I respect enormously the bodily autonomy of the woman involved.

That’s obvious, it seems you also okay the taking of another life.

 

[MamaJewel]

Professor Singer of Princeton has already proposed that legal personhood not be bestowed automatically on newborns, but rather be delayed for several months, giving new parents a chance to change their mind about having and raising a child.

The academia that support Professor Singer’s position are certainly in the minority.

While some cultures allow for this, or have allowed for it in the past, the court system in the US would likely rule against such measures since citizenship begins at birth and the State has a vested interest in protecting its citizens. I think the consensus would be that the parents approach the court and request termination of their parental rights, making the child a ward of the state.

 

[Victoria33]

Indeed those slippery slopes can keep right on slipping all the way to Infinity can’t they?

Infanticide is illegal in the United States, everywhere in the United States. As such it’s an irrelevant objection.

You must not have seen the Virginia Governor make his little speech, Northam.

 

[goout]

Nope. For probably the 11th or 12 time at least in this forum, the conflict of agency ends when the child is born and thus no longer bodily dependent on the mother.

At that point she can simply request the hospital keep it if she wants.

Repetition is not glue. It will not fill the holes in your logic.

You admit the child is dependent on the resources of others (just like the expectant mother), and should be cared for.

So again, your argument holds no moral water whatsoever. On the one hand, it admits that a dependent ought to be cared for, and on the other hand when it’s dependent on the mother, she can do away with it.

Your argument is nothing but a Nietzschean power play.

 

[MamaJewel]

Ironic that you would post such a pic! Lebensborn…where abortion is outlawed except for disability and women were forced to give birth to a pure Aryan race.

Human rights of bodily autonomy and integrity today are a direct result by what occurred in WWII.

 

[goout]

And infanticide is the next unavoidable step, because ignorance breeds ignorance.
If one human being is denied, all are denied, and no one has intrinsic value.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’ve been completely clear that the fetus is dependent on the mother in a bodily way.

This ends at birth. The mother is no longer physically imperiled by the child.

At that point, if she doesn’t want it, she can’t just kill it. Bodily separation made it a separate person apart from its mothers body. She should just surrender the child at the local PD or FD.

 

[goout]

I’ve been completely clear that the fetus is dependent on the mother in a bodily way.

This ends ar birth. The mother is no longer physically imperiled by the child.

At thatpoint, if she doesn’twant it, she can’t just kill it. Bodily separation made it a separate person apart from its mothers body. She should just surrender the child at the local PD or FD.

Makes zero sense. And is amoral. It loses sight of the good of human life, which is the fundamental human right, without which your silly right to bodily autonomy is a belch in a windstorm.