Issues other than abortion

[Vonsalza]

• free medical care during pregnancy, delivery, and until the child is 18.

• guaranteed leave for 6 months after having a baby. Your job is guaranteed.

• free pre-school day care

• subsidy for each child paid each month (Canada, for example, pays $6,500 a year—in monthly installments—until age 6; then it’s $5,500 until age 18)

Whoa whoa whoa. Supporting all this would make someone much more comprehensively pro life! Do you honestly expect conservatives to codify and * GULP * pay for all this somehow???

Nonsense.

By the way, nice to see you on the forums.

 

[Vonsalza]

What gives a person a right to life? Passing through the magic birth canal? Is the right to life determined by the mother’s personal opinion or objective reality? Oh, I forgot, no objective truth…

The right to life is encumbered by a mother’s right to control her body. When it is born, that encumbrance no longer exists and the baby is protected by law.

So yes. The “magic birth canal” seems to be where the line is drawn.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Very well said. Good to see that you are understanding.

I understand your position. But this equivalence is a false one.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

What gives a person a right to life? Passing through the magic birth canal? Is the right to life determined by the mother’s personal opinion or objective reality? Oh, I forgot, no objective truth…

“objective reality”? Or do you mean “My opinion…”?

This is the key question: what gives a person (loaded term) a right to life? Of course if you phrases it that way (or if you asked “Are you in favor of killing babies?”) then everyone would say, “Of course a person has a right to life.” The question is “What is a person?” And there we disagree. And there seems to be–here, in the US, in the world–no trend towards consensus.

 

[lagerald24]

I think killing innocent people is wrong because it IS wrong. Not my opinion…

 

[Vonsalza]

I think killing innocent people is wrong because it IS wrong. Not my opinion…

Sure. What you’re ignoring is that it’s also wrong to make women do things with their bodies against their will.

The problem isn’t as simple as you want it to be. No major problem is.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

By the way, nice to see you on the forums.

I couldn’t stand idly by and watch an innocent human being attacked for defending freedom of conscience!

 

[lagerald24]

But the fetus is not her body, it’s a separate human life with rights. I have a question, why can a woman have her fetus dismembered by a doctor but she can’t take an illegal drug that will harm her infant, by say, causing this baby to be born without arms or legs? If the baby is really part of the woman’s body, why can’t the woman have absolute control over what happens to this child? I mean, choice right?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I think killing innocent people is wrong because it IS wrong. Not my opinion…

Hang on a minute! Please read what you wrote: “I think…” Sorry to break this to you, but “I think” does not = “objective reality.”

And I think “killing innocent people” is wrong too. I think we all agree. But what is a “person”? Where you see a “person” I see three cells. You say you are right because you know what objective “truth” is. Me too. Sadly, we’ll have to wait until we’re dead to see what the referee (God) says.

But the fetus is not her body, it’s a separate human life with rights.

Again, that’s your opinion. Exactly how “separate” is it when it is a single cell? And what “rights” are you talking about? Not legal rights, because those are limited at best.

why can a woman have her fetus dismembered by a doctor but she can’t take an illegal drug that will harm her infant, by say, causing this baby to be born without arms or legs? If the baby is really part of the woman’s body, why can’t the woman have absolute control over what happens to this child? I mean, choice right?

I give you full marks for a point I’ve never seen raised before. My personal (yes, my opinion, not objective facts) is that an abortion benefits the pregnant woman in some way. Taking a drug that will harm the fetus (let’s agree not to call it an “infant” or “baby”, OK?) doesn’t help anyone–mother or fetus. It just hurts. So it would be wrong.

 

[Vonsalza]

But the fetus is not her body, it’s a separate human life with rights.

If she doesn’t want it inside her body, then she should be free to get it out.

Her body is her body, after all. We don’t disagree on that, right?

I have a question, why can a woman have her fetus dismembered by a doctor but she can’t take an illegal drug that will harm her infant, by say, causing this baby to be born without arms or legs?

In America, she can. Various drugs have warning labels on them to help would-be mothers avoid any unintended harm befalling the unborn. But no one rolls around in black vans to make sure women aren’t taking Tylenol in the wrong trimester or eating shellfish.

If the baby is really part of the woman’s body, why can’t the woman have absolute control over what happens to this child? I mean, choice right?

She should and does, by and large. At least, AFAIK.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Any government with the ability to ban an abortion has the ability to order one.

I think this is one of the best comments so far, and sadly it has not been discussed. Think China, if you like–forced abortions.

Think “emergency powers”–the idea was to allow the president to act quickly in the face of a crisis (natural disaster, attack by enemies, country imposing tariffs on US). No one (?) thought “oh, oh, this allows the president to have authoritarian powers to by-pass the Congress…” And here we are.

Some did make the point earlier that on the one hand, pro-life people turn to the law to help their cause, but on the other hand, they blame the law for legalizing abortion. Why not take the government totally out of the equation–a Rand Paul-type solution. It’s not the government’s business.

 

[lagerald24]

Okay, but from the moment of conception, the unborn human being has all of his or her genetic material that he or she will have throughout all their life. It is a distinct, living organism that is a human.

Where you see a “person” I see three cells.

Hey! That’s cool! And it’s exactly what every human being should look like at this stage of their life!

Sadly, we’ll have to wait until we’re dead to see what the referee (God) says.

So either there is no obj. truth or we can’t know it. Are you obj. sure about that?

Taking a drug that will harm the fetus (let’s agree not to call it an “infant” or “baby”, OK?) doesn’t help anyone–mother or fetus. It just hurts. So it would be wrong.

Okay, but what about a drug that makes the woman feel good but is harmful to the fetus? How about alcohol?

If she doesn’t want it inside her body, then she should be free to get it out.

Sad to see life trivialized in this way but then again, I’m just another super-radical pro-lifer to you…

Her body is her body, after all. We don’t disagree on that, right?

Yeah, and the unborn human being has its own personal genetic material. Science says that it is a separate organism from the mother. And, having human parents, this organism is (surprise!) a human. And isn’t it wrong to kill innocent human beings?

If the baby is really part of the woman’s body, why can’t the woman have absolute control over what happens to this child? I mean, choice right?

Ouch! Life much?

 

[goout]

Vonsalza:

By the way, nice to see you on the forums.

I couldn’t stand idly by and watch an innocent human being attacked for defending freedom of conscience!

Ironic. You can advocate standing idly by while millions of human beings are taken out but can’t stomach pointed debate?

How do you justify that? Seems like a luxury.

 

[goout]

If she doesn’t want it inside her body, then she should be free to get it out.

Her body is her body, after all. We don’t disagree on that, right?

Are there any limits to what a person can do with their bodies?

Can I run your grandmother over at the crosswalk because I am going to the bank and she is in my way?
Now wait before you spit that answer out…
my body is my body. I should be free to…whatever.

Oh? It’s cause the baby is inside the mother…ok I see.
And the baby is a parasite squatting on my personal property, er self.
So real estate comes before humanity. Location location location.

 

[goout]

I really had to force myself to read your comments again. Sometime the shock value just goes over the top and doesn’t sink in.
And thank you for reminding us that a lot of work needs to be done to combat barbarism.

 

[Vonsalza]

Are there any limits to what a person can do with their bodies?

Absolutely! When it affects the body of another.

Over yourself, you are the king. Over others? Not at all.

Oh? It’s cause the baby is inside the mother…ok I see.

Sure. Inside the mother - attached to her, taking its sustenance directly from her, permanently changing her body and fully lacking agency. It is part of her.

 

[Vonsalza]

And thank you for reminding us that a lot of work needs to be done to combat barbarism.

Truly. Particularly the barbarism of telling women what they must do with their own bodies.

 

[Vonsalza]

Sad to see life trivialized in this way but then again, I’m just another super-radical pro-lifer to you…

Not the case at all. I used to be one of you. Ardently.

But then I came to understand what it’s like for a woman - as much as a man can, anyway.

The idea of being forced to do something permanent to your own body is horrifying to me. But that is a developing human life.

Due to the lack of objective solution, the only right answer is that each person should be left to their own devices on the issue. Be pro-choice and pray for life.

Science says that it is a separate organism from the mother.

I had the notion that they were attached at the placenta, containing genetic material of both mother and fetus, fetus feeding off the mother.

Not very separate…

 

[goout]

goout:

And thank you for reminding us that a lot of work needs to be done to combat barbarism.

Truly. Particularly the barbarism of telling women what they must do with their own bodies.

That’s a false and twisted logic.
The point of laws is the good of human beings. That’s morality and human rights 101.
Laws are enacted to allow humanity flourish and protect the rights of human beings.
No one has a right to absolute autonomy at the expense of other human beings.

The only justification for your position is to deny the humanity of other human beings.
Do you want to be on that side?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

goout:

And thank you for reminding us that a lot of work needs to be done to combat barbarism.

Truly. Particularly the barbarism of telling women what they must do with their own bodies.

No that’s false.
The point of laws is the good of human beings. That’s morality and human rights 101.

Sure. And the control over your own self and the right to determine what is good for your self should be a bedrock principle.