Issues other than abortion

[VanitasVanitatum]

Easy they’re constraints against the liberty of other people.

This means that the issue is about whether the fetus is a person and not liberty. And theft is not a constraint against liberty and I can also add passive discrimination.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Easy they’re constraints against the liberty of other people.

This means that the issue is about whether the fetus is a person and not liberty. And theft is not a constraint against liberty and I can also add passive discrimination.

The fetus is part of its mother biologically ergo it is part of her person. So she can do whatever she wants with her own body

 

[Victoria33]

Because birth is the moment at which a child becomes truly separate from its mother.

That’s your view, those are your beliefs. An opinion, that’s all to be weighed against what other people say.

And by the way, I note, no answer here:

So, you think that even late term abortions should not be illegal?

This is why that governor like Northam are taking us to infanticide. Why should the umbilical cord be the definition here? Why not if a family member lives under your house for 18 years?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Because birth is the moment at which a child becomes truly separate from its mother.

That’s your view, those are your beliefs. An opinion, that’s all to be weighed against what other people say.

And by the way, I note, no answer here:

So, you think that even late term abortions should not be illegal?

This is why that governor like Northam are taking us to infanticide. Why should the umbilical cord be the definition here? Why not if a family member lives under your house for 18 years?

No it is not an opinion that a fetus becomes biologically separate from its mother. After birth it breathes with its own lungs and eats with its own mouth. Prior to that it uses its mother as a host.

After birth it doesn’t necessarily need its mother. Anyone can take care of it.

 

[Victoria33]

No it is not an opinion that a fetus becomes biologically separate from its mother. After birth it breathes with its own lungs and eats with its own mouth. Prior to that it uses its mother as a host.

After birth it doesn’t necessarily need its mother. Anyone can take care of it.

We know that, you’ve already said that, if we are just rehashing the conversation already said, there is no reason to go on and I"m getting that message that I’m posting too much. But we see, you were given questions, we did not get answers, we got conveniences over the sake of life. All I need to say in this thread.

 

[Vonsalza]

Really my position is easily summed up with this:
The rights of The Unborn do not supersede the rights of the women that carry them.

 

[Elf01]

I’m having a hard time understanding what it is you’re saying here, but the principle remains the same. When inside moms body, they’re part of mom. She gets to decide what happens to her body.

I’m not referring to a pregnancy. The twins in my example are born and at least the one who will survive is capable of making medical decisions.

She wants to separate immediately but her twin will die if they do.

 

[Victoria33]

Don’t let anyone be taken in by a typical pro-choicer when all they have mostly is just repetitious arguments, that in itself does not seem strong. Also, a lot of the “stats” seem quite questionable. One might also remember, this sounds like feminism but feminism has strong pro-lifers like Susan B. Anthony.

Also again, Planned Parenthood has very racist roots and the rate of some minorities getting abortions is up to 3-5 times the rates of white children. Again, this has become a well-worn feminist argument and its basically repeating the same thing over and over again.

The same reasons they use could be applied to children living in the home, it’s arbitrary, science, such as the silent scream movie tell us there is life there but they care to hold out there rights as more important.

It’s not seeing human beings as human beings, have we ever seen that in history? Yes, we have and with rationales as well.

 

[Brendan_64]

No, progression. Huge jump at birth. Before if you suddenly died, there’d be no investigation, more than likely. After? Your death warrants looking into.

At 18 you can participate in state elections and the military and smoke and own a rifle.

At 21 you can own a handgun and drink booze.

At 25 you can run for congress.

At 35 you can run for prez.

Progression.

So personhood is defined by the state, it is not something inherent in the human being? Do teenagers become in the UK develop personhood quicker than their counterparts in the USA because they can legally drink at age 18? Or do people in the USA have more personhood the people in the UK because they can legally own guns? Does the state bestow personhood on human beings because it allows them to do certain things under the law?

Having ‘personhood’ defined by the state and its laws is a very scary prospect. Germany between 1935 and 1945 had laws regarding hierachies of persons.

 

[Vonsalza]

So personhood is defined by the state, it is not something inherent in the human being?

It’s the state that enforces it.

But if you think that something else does it, I think that’s great. Just leave the laws alone and you can elect to be as pro-life as you want to be as individuals and praise God for it.

Just don’t tell MY wife what she can do with her uterus.

Do teenagers become in the UK develop personhood quicker than their counterparts in the USA because they can legally drink at age 18?

In the eyes of their respective state? Yes.

Having ‘personhood’ defined by the state and its laws is a very scary prospect. Germany between 1935 and 1945 had laws regarding hierachies of persons.

Sure. Long live democracy, right?

 

[graciew]

Would you be strong enough to grant that “ burden” time? At the end of the day, it is time what what one is asking for.
Time for that human being to be strong enough to face the ” outer world”.
Have you ever needed time to heal, time to process, time to grow, time to pray, time to calm down, time with your loved ones, time to adjust, time to adapt…?
A child in the womb needs time… same as we all…
Yes… it can be hard as that time in between when we do not know, but it passes. Everything passes…
And we are not alone. We know Who is with us, everyday until the end of the ages…

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The fetus is part of its mother biologically ergo it is part of her person. So she can do whatever she wants with her own body

They are still separate and are individuals biologically even if they connected.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Really I don’t understand why you repeat things like

Just leave the laws alone and you can elect to be as pro-life as you want to be as individuals and praise God for it.

as if that fixes anything and nobody has taken it seriously even up till now.

 

[blackforest]

Sure. That sounds awful.

But I would lump it with the right to override a woman’s right to not have a baby she doesn’t want to have.

. . . Overriding by violently crushing bones and organs inside of a narrow cannula.

Not sufficiently as the objection still stands.

Actually, you bear the burden of rejoinder here.

Quite right. The fear of poverty is.
As I’ve said here and elsewhere, the statistical face of abortion is a tired, broke mother in her 30s that already has kids.

You’re talking in circles here. You said that the relevant difference between ok-to-kill and no-OK was the embryo or fetus living in side of his/her mother because pregnancy was risky.

If you’re just talking about psycho-social circumstances, then you’re giving the green light for infanticide or killing older children.

And similarly I suppose your perspective depends on how seriously you take the right of a woman to have control over her body.

Her own, absolutely. Not another human being’s.

I agree. I think the primary basis on which the GOP attracts its non-wealthy voters is largely a dog-and-pony show.

I agree but honestly feel the same way about the Democrats . . .

But I don’t think that precludes making choice illegal - it precludes promoting that support.

I can shake hands with you here. What would you suggest?

It’s very defensible. It’s about a woman’s control over her body, which should be absolute.

Her body. Not somebody else’s.

 

[blackforest]

Of course it is. Personhood is about entitlements to rights. You get more as you grow older. When you get too old, you lose some.

But we’re discussing the right to life. You’re not speaking about it as “progressive,” as in it’s more wrong to kill someone who’s 21 years old than 11 years old. You speak more of this right appearing out of thin air at - poof! - the moment the umbilical cord is clipped.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

The fetus is part of its mother biologically ergo it is part of her person. So she can do whatever she wants with her own body

They are still separate and are individuals biologically even if they connected.

If that’s true then safely remove the fetus very shortly after conception and then I’ll be happy with banning abortion

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

If that’s true then safely remove the fetus very shortly after conception and then I’ll be happy with banning abortion

That’s a separate issue, since they are physically connected and even if it was possible to remove the embryo safely and have it live, is it possible for the woman to be aware and have the means to get it out. They do contain different DNA so they are not the same.

 

[Vonsalza]

Really I don’t understand why you repeat things like

Vonsalza:

Just leave the laws alone and you can elect to be as pro-life as you want to be as individuals and praise God for it.

as if that fixes anything and nobody has taken it seriously even up till now.

What I mean by those statements is that if you’re being judged by some power higher than the law then leave the law all alone and we’ll all submit to the Judgment of your God. In the meantime let folks have the freedom to choose.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

If that’s true then safely remove the fetus very shortly after conception and then I’ll be happy with banning abortion

That’s a separate issue, since they are physically connected and even if it was possible to remove the embryo safely and have it live, I have a hard time believing that the woman would be aware and have the means to get it out. They do contain different DNA so they are not the same.

Whether they contain different DNA or not is immaterial. That fetuses inside of and part of that Mother’s body. Ergo it is subject to her choice

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

That fetuses inside of and part of that Mother’s body.

Then the fetus should also get a say since the women could be seen as being part of it.