FoxHastings said: ↑ That's your "argument" ? Good idea for you since you haven't proved anyone wrong .
I don't have to the immortality of abortion is self evident. It's just that lying to oneself about hard realities is the easiest thing on the planet to do.
Evangelical literalists, according to a friend, are agents of Satan. I don't know if that is true, but I surely believe they are not agents of God. As such, their pronouncements mean very little to me.
. That sentence doesn't make sense....don't you believe in punctuation either? I guess you'd be the expert on that
That is a flat out mischaracterization of the issues. Beyond the undeniable example of Alabama politicians' zeal to force 12-year old rape victims to serve a nine month sentence to bear a rapist's child, it's like saying "Your major injuries sustained in an automotive accident are your responsibility, because you assumed the risk of being hit by an irresponsible drunk driver when you decided to cross a street. No one is forcing politicians to seize control of wombs at the instant of conceptions, and to allege otherwise is a flat out lie.
Sorry i don't know how i screwed that all up. If i don't have the right to impose my morality then you don't have the right to impose your immorality.
Nope it's a direct comparison. Having sex is how you make a baby whether you want o e or not. And fist fighting is how you break your nose.
No it isn’t. Which is why I pointed out it’s invalid. Having sex is one way to make a baby. The overwhelming vast majority of sex that takes place is for the express purpose of pleasure only. Not to get pregnant. Which is why consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy. Invalid comparison .
NOPE, you only risk breaking your nose. Consent to fight is not consent to have your nose broken and if you do you have the right to seek medical care for your broken nose.
FoxHastings said: ↑ NOPE, you only risk breaking your nose. Consent to fight is not consent to have your nose broken and if you do you have the right to seek medical care for your broken nose. Click to expand... If you mean the consequences belong to you , you are correct. The consequences belong to the person who took the risk NOT THE GOVERNMENT NOR ANY NOSY BUSYBODY who walks by.. Are you also saying that is someone risks a fight they have NO RIGHT TO MEDICAL CARE???? Are you saying that is someone risks driving a car and has an accident and sustains injuries they should be DENIED MEDICAL CARE ??? Yes, sometimes they are...if the woman agrees to sustain a fetuses life for 9 months. Just because sex MIGHT result in a baby doesn't mean the woman has to accept those results. Now, can you address Post # 160 ?
I voted 'I don't care one way or another'. At great risk to further infuriating myself, I once more intend to endeavor in this fruitless, yet emotionally charged discussion. Some background is needed: I am a Humanist, this means that all of my thoughts, political actions(insofar as I can take said action) is geared towards the development, prosperity and growth of the Human Race. Previously, it is on this notion that I decried against abortion, as murder. This might sound pro-life, and it is in the sense of being "pro-life", but I'm one of those that is pro-choice as well. While I find the choice to be abhorrent, it is not illegal(even if one argues that it should be, it isn't now.) and therefore any criminal or corrosive ideas of restricting that right, is the same wrong as criminally or corrosively trying to restrict any other right. But a deeper argument IMO had to be held, if I concur with the status quo. So I asked myself: Is there a way I can fit Abortion into my Humanist creed? There is, it's one that I previously rejected years ago but I've come to accept now: Eugenics. Social Darwinism was inherently correct, though not on a basis of race or gender, but by economic equilibrium. Simply put, the statistics on a baby born into poverty are staggering. Instead of producing humans to grow into our world, we're producing future criminals or homeless people. Or perhaps at best, some of them might rise to the middle class but no further. If holding off on pregnancy for 2-5 years, might ensure that the baby has a full and healthy life with two adult parents cohabiting the home, then isn't abortion a furthering of human progress? One might counter that abstinence/protection serve the same function without needing an abortion, and I agree. But as Foxhastings would point out: Sometimes you don't take the 72 hour pill in time. Sometimes you're not even aware that it's not a "safe day". Given the choices, what would you do? Bring a child into poverty? Or delay childbirth for a few years, knowing you can always get pregnant again when you're ready? None of this touches my greatest objection to abortion, that being that the woman's autonomy does not enable for the father to make the same choice. Though they share the same responsibility(unless rape/incest) in her getting knocked up, he himself doesn't have the same opt-out clause that she does. It's the greatest imperfection about this dilemma that I've still yet to solve. But I've found a way to become more pro choice in my Humanist view of being pro-eugenics, even if it means my abhorrence towards the end of life is somewhat compromised.
There are no babies but don't let the FACTS stand in the way of you immorally trying to impose SLAVERY on actual women who have rights.
Ironic PROJECTION on your part duly noted for the record. She is WITHIN the Law of the Land whereas you are advocating violations of the rights of half the nation.
Wrong again! It is possible for a woman to be artificially impregnated which requires her CONSENT to that impregnation. When a women is using contraceptives while engaging in sex she is NOT consenting to be impregnated even if the contraceptive fails. A significant percentage of abortions are the result of FAILED contraception.
