Issues other than abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter YourNameHere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vonsalza said:
40.png
HopkinsReb:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Because their right to life doesn’t trump her right to not want to be pregnant.
Click to expand...
Ah, here we go. You admit that there is a right to life, but that you think that right trivial.
Click to expand...
Not at all. It’s just not as important as a mother’s right to not have to carry a baby she doesn’t want and face the permanent change pregnancy brings.
Click to expand...
Stop truncating the arguments against your points. It’s dishonest.

If you accept that the fetus has any right to life at all, you concede that the fetus is a person. Therefore, you are defending genocide. Or would you like to walk back your statement?
 
Last edited:
HopkinsReb said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
40.png
HopkinsReb:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Because their right to life doesn’t trump her right to not want to be pregnant.
Click to expand...
Ah, here we go. You admit that there is a right to life, but that you think that right trivial.
Click to expand...
Not at all. It’s just not as important as a mother’s right to not have to carry a baby she doesn’t want and face the permanent change pregnancy brings.
Click to expand...
Stop truncating the arguments against your points. It’s dishonest.

If you accept that the fetus has any right to life at all, you concede that the fetus is a person. Therefore, you are defending genocide.
Click to expand...
I concede it’s a person. I just don’t think its personhood, at that stage, overrides its mother’s.
 
Ah, so you admit that you are defending genocide.

At this point, none of your other arguments are worth entertaining. Someone who is explicitly defending mass murder, and admits to doing the same, is not worth arguing with.
 
Vonsalza said:
I can tell you from thrice personal experience that they start breathing with their own lungs, eating with their own mouths and pooping and peeing into diapers instead of into the mother’s uterus.
Click to expand...
Are breathing and eating on ones own what determines personhood? If not they are irrelevant to the definition.
 
Ender said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
I can tell you from thrice personal experience that they start breathing with their own lungs, eating with their own mouths and pooping and peeing into diapers instead of into the mother’s uterus.
Click to expand...
Are breathing and eating on ones own what determines personhood? If not they are irrelevant to the definition.
Click to expand...
Personhood is a progression. Birth is a critical step that completely separates you, biologically, from your mother.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
40.png
HopkinsReb:
40.png
lagerald24:
Why don’t you think the baby deserves personhood?
Click to expand...
Oh, we just learned that the baby is a person, but it’s okay to kill that person because reasons.
Click to expand...
Same reasons there’re no investigation for stillbirths and miscarriages.
Click to expand...
This is an absolutely ridiculous claim that is used to deflect from the fact that you’re advocating genocide.
 
HopkinsReb said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
40.png
HopkinsReb:
40.png
lagerald24:
Why don’t you think the baby deserves personhood?
Click to expand...
Oh, we just learned that the baby is a person, but it’s okay to kill that person because reasons.
Click to expand...
Same reasons there’re no investigation for stillbirths and miscarriages.
Click to expand...
This is an absolutely ridiculous claim that is used to deflect from the fact that you’re advocating genocide.
Click to expand...
No, it’s proof that people in-utero aren’t considered “full persons”.
 
I just don’t understand why it is a mother’s right to kill her unborn child. If the child is indeed a human being, it deserves human rights and equality and isn’t everyone these days big about equality?
 
Vonsalza said:
No, it’s proof that people in-utero aren’t considered “full persons”.
Click to expand...
When someone dies of natural causes, there’s no police investigation. My dad died of cancer, and we didn’t call the police. Because he didn’t have a murderer. Sometimes people die.

Miscarriages are natural tragedies. Abortions are not natural. They are part of the genocide which you are defending.
 
Last edited:
lagerald24 said:
I just don’t understand why it is a mother’s right to kill her unborn child. If the child is indeed a human being, it deserves human rights and equality and isn’t everyone these days big about equality?
Click to expand...
Because while in the womb, it’s biologically a part of the mother and thus under her will, since she has control over her body.
 
HopkinsReb said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
No, it’s proof that people in-utero aren’t considered “full persons”.
Click to expand...
When someone dies of natural causes, there’s no police investigation. My dad died of cancer, and we didn’t call the police. Because he didn’t have a murderer. Sometimes people die.

Miscarriages are natural tragedies. Abortions are not natural. They are part of the genocide which you are defending.
Click to expand...
Your dad’s cancer death, while tragic, was obvious.

The cause of miscarriage is anything but. Maybe the woman wanted to have a home-abortion and told everyone it was a miscarriage. It ought to be looked into if it’s a full-blown person due protection of law.
 
What if the unborn baby isn’t part of the woman’s body? What if it really is a distinct organism?
 
lagerald24 said:
What if the unborn baby isn’t part of the woman’s body? What if it really is a distinct organism?
Click to expand...
If it can be safely separated from the woman’s body very shortly after conception, I’m all for outlawing abortion.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top