Birth Control: Sharing the responsibility

stupid justifies murder in the womb because it might be a burden.

 

Only religiously bent zealotry describes an abortion as "murder"....that old ploy just doesn't cut it...never did.

Here's the stupid thing you previously said, http://www.politicalforum.com/index...responsibility.568260/page-10#post-1071514506

Own up to that, then we can move on.

 

When YOU justify murder in the womb because children can be a "burden"....I merely suggested why don't you extend that to 18 year olds and beyond to those that live off the toil of their parents when they are perfectly capable of supporting themselves? It is you rationale to the value of human life that is incredibly stupid here. You address your narcissistic reasoning that lifes "burdens " should be eliminated....then we can move on.

 

When YOU justify murder in the womb because children can be a "burden"....I merely suggested why don't you extend that to 18 year olds and beyond to those that live off the toil of their parents when they are perfectly capable of supporting themselves? It is your rationale to the value of human life that is incredibly stupid here. You address your narcissistic reasoning that lifes "burdens " should be eliminated....then we can move on.

 

.

Since murder is the illegal termination of a life, and abortion is legal, one can not justify what isn't there. Not all homicide is murder, and not all killing is homicide.

The problem is that you are only looking at the value of one life, but two are in play. If you found yourself waking up, hooked to a machine that I was also hooked up to, that is keeping me alive, do you have the right to unhook yourself from the machine, even though it would kill me?

 

My life would have been a lot happier if I could have killed my 3 teenage children. Where's my freedom? And my mother, my Ex, etc....

 

Now you are addressing the small amount of abortions where the mother's life is endangered. I am pro-life. I am just as pro life for her as I am for the unborn. She comes first. We do all we can to save life and since she if fully developed, she is the priority. We still try to save that baby in the womb if possible.

 

So you double down on the sheer stupidity of comparing an 18 yr. old
young adult living with their parents to a woman being forced through various means by the state to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, and then find the means to care for that unwanted child to 18 yrs of age.

GMAFB! you'll just parrot this stupidity ad nausea....but that won't make it any less irrational. Go sell this silliness to your fellow "lifers", because that dog of yours just won't fly.

 

Anything of worth to add to the discussion of the OP?

 

You failed to answer the question asked. Answer that first and then we can address your (probably unintentional) strawman response.

 

So then you double down on the narcissistic "Stupidity" of assuming ANY CHILD is unwanted. Were you unwanted? Guess you could have been aborted, but someone saw fit to let you live so that you could spread your narcissistic view point. You already have your life.

 

I answered your question with an explanation. Now I'll make it easy for you. You as far as I can see, are an innocent life. You, with the exception of your outlook on the unborn, are a threat to no one. No, I do not have a right to kill you. Plain and simple. Now, you realize your "strawmen" reference is simply a word used to discount another's viewpoint often taken by the left. Stand up now and address my answer.

 

So by this, I have a right to your body as a resource to continue my lift, whether you have permission or not. This says to me, subject to your further explanation, that life trumps rights, and that one's body is subject to the needs of others first, sans potential life threatening conditions to one's body.

I am not addressing only life threatening conditions, but any condition in which one entity use the bodily resources of another entity. That use for not necessarily have to be life threatening.

 

You have a fractured reasoning here, for the progressive thinker you are. What you said above can be applied to socialism as well. One entity uses the property rights of another entity.....it does not have to be life threatening. The former entity is prime target for execution.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by fractured. My reasoning is consistent. Consent is necessary, and bodily autonomy trumps another's right to life.

In socialism there's supposedly no personal property rights, so I am not sure how is comparable to bodily autonomy.

 

Simple because the producers carry the load for the non-producers.

 

Bodily autonomy is the right of the individual to determine for themselves whether or not something stays in their body. I fail to see how having this choice equates to socialism.

 

Bodily autonomy is a "natural right". The right to own and maintain property is also a natural right as the Founders put forth. To equate the two IS an American Principle. Our difference is this...... I believe the unborn has a right to what you call "bodily autonomy". You see them as less than human. I will compare it to how Africans were viewed during the days of slavery.

 

Show me where I have ever declared that a ZEF has no right of bodily autonomy. Others might have, but not I.

The thing is though, bodily autonomy prioritizes the giver over the receiver. If I have a kidney that you need to live, right up to the moment that I go under for the surgery, my bodily autonomy allows me to withdraw my permission at any time, even if doing so will kill you.

The same principle exists in a pregnancy. The ZEF takes from the mother, not gives, therefore the mother's bodily autonomy supercedes that of the ZEF. The mother can withdraw permission at any time, for any reason. The ZEF's bodily autonomy would supercede others' when it is not in those others' body. One does not have to see another as less than human to recognize which one's bodily autonomy supercedes the other's.

 

I would say the mother can withdraw her support only if her life is endangered, not for convenience. She engaged in a sex act with little thought to the results. Her rights end when a new life begins. Society should hold the male contributor equally responsible. Perhaps this whole thing became quite an issue when the culture decided to view the sex act as mere recreation rather than something of deep consequences and responsibilities. .

 

Then by this logic, you cannot refuse blood or organs to sustain another life, unless yours is endangered, for such would only be for your convenience.

And this is the lie or delusion you repeat, despite the lack of truth, or more accurately the whole truth. While it cannot be denied that some think little of the end result, more do, as they engage in birth control that fails. And in some cases, such as surgical procedures, the little thought comes from the extremely low probability. I have had a vasectomy and my one wife a tubal ligation. The other has gone through menopause. Are you going to claim that if they get pregnant, possible and not unheard of unlikely as it may be, they they gave little thought to the consequences of sex, and should be forced to give birth despite the fact they are both past their half century mark? Older women have safely given birth after all.

By what basis? Don't bother with religious since our laws are secular and other religions disagree with yours to boot most likely.

News flash. He is held equally responsible. We have laws holding him equally responsible.

Another news flash. Sex has long been viewed as recreational. Why do you think prostitution is often called the oldest profession? Because sex has been recreational as well as procreational since before recorded history.

 

The intent to do so is there....but dead beat Dads do not pay their Court ordered obligatory to large amounts before, if any, enforcement, is provided. It is disgusting. Daughters often raise their children with very little or no support from the scum that impregnated them. Public work camps should be provided for fathers who do not assist in the raising of these children. Mentor/fathers ina volunteer capacity can fill the emotional void of fatherless children.

The culture today does view it as largely recreational. There is little restraint and it all centers on self fulfillment....nothing more. Outside of the bonds of stable marriages, we are little better than animals. You can say....well that is the way it is, and I say "that is the society you wish to live in, not mine."
In your prostitution analysis, why do you believe it is restricted by and large to certain areas? Is it prudish in your opinion?.....or is it evidence that at one time we had a moral sense in society? So modern society seems to say, well whose morals are moral? Since no one can define them....anything goes.
So I and others take a stand. Not just for the unborn, but for the sake of the culture. Unfortunately we have to live together. It is when your amoral stances infringe upon the lives of others, we have a grave conflict and don't expect that to end any time soon. Your attitudes are reflected in advertising, TV, internet, media, and many places. Ours are taught to our children and children's children through teaching, examples as well as media and Church attendance. It's just the nature of the World.

 

Seems you can't honestly debate the issue put in front of you, so you try to dodge with these daft scenarios in hopes that no one sees your folly.
I don't know what planet you're on, but I and the OP are discussing women who need/want an abortion but can't get it because religious fanatics/zealots want to impose their beliefs. So a proposal is put out that affects the men who impregnate these women...and all hell breaks loose.

Oh, and get a dictionary and look up the words you bandy about....as I am discussing what OTHER people want, which is a CHOICE that I don't want to interfere with as an American who believes in the Constitutional right to freedom of and from religion.....nothing "narcissistic" about that.

 

Religious fascism and it's convoluted logic is a fascinating thing to behold. Every so often the leadership of these jokers gets busted for sodomy of little boys, raping little girls and sexual harrassment of women in their congregation. But God bless em if their knees don't hit that bench, those hands are in the air and their eyes wide shut as they cough up the tithe.
read your Constitution....Americans have freedom of and from religion. Since no one is forcing the women in your family or you to have an abortion, then MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.
The price you pay for living in a free society is knowing that others exist without following your particular rules. Grow up.

 

Individual liberty is not the issue here. Abortion always boils down to a simple disagreement over when human life begins. To try and claim a woman has a "right" to abort without considering what she is aborting is dishonest.

Let's get real here. If it is about "rights" then we need to decide if we consider an unborn human as having any rights. I would say an innocent human's right to LIVE should be considered above all else.