Total Ban on Abortion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Emberguard

Senior Ingame Moderator
If you find this to be a catch 22, that would be concerning. As this clearly acknowledges the value of the embryos, they do not have the same value as a living person. That should be the take away.
It's not concerning for it to be a catch 22 when its obviously designed to be either catch 22 or trap in a debate


If there is something happening inside those organs the woman does not want to be happening they are not working as SHE intends them to and should be given the right to correct that if she chooses
I know I already replied to this before but thought popped into my head

Have you looked at all the warning labels on products? Like peanuts have "warning contains peanuts". Chainsaws warn not to put hands and genitals into moving saw. Clothes say not to put next to heaters.

The labels are there because people use things against the products design and when they do they get hurt or die.

She might not intend for her body to function, but it's working precisely the way it was designed to.
 

Alskah

Active Member
I've not called you any names, I've simply pointed out how ridiculous your arguments have become, and the common dodge of throwing a label onto an argument you can't argue against, then using that name to dismiss the argument.

Just like your thread quoted above, you don't addressed anything I've said, you just throw out more absurd hypotheticals. What if, what if, what if? Now you're all, "Waaah, you're name calling." Then you use the other classic dodge, "I'm not arguing for me, I'm arguing for others, I'd never kill my baby, I'm just on here defending other women's right to kill their babies. It's not for my convenience, I'm not irresponsible." Look I get it, you fight for the back door because, "What if?"

Then you want to try to make it about your selflessness, so saintly, "Who am I to dictate?" Easy, the same way we dictate that murder and rape are wrong. You understand the morality of it, you draw a line and take a stand. My position is, "Abortion is wrong." Your's is, "Yeah, but what if?"

You fell for the lie. I did too ... but only for a while.
I'm glad you've at least caught on that I quit addressing your posts. And there's a reason for that. It's not d/t how insightful they are, I assure you. You twist every comment made to suit whatever incoherent/disorganized point you're trying to make at that moment. I am unable to have a discussion with a person like that. And I'll be reverting back to that stance at this time.
 

Emberguard

Senior Ingame Moderator
This is something that I came across that I thought was really interesting and insightful : You are running into a fertility clinic that is on fire. You are able to get into a room and you see a 5 year old child cowering in the corner, next to a freezer that contains 10,000 human embryos. You can save one and only one. The child or the embryos. Which do you save?
Just a thought, if the fires that bad you'll only be able to save one.... What's the chances the fire would have already rendered the embryos dead from the rising temperature?

And if you take the embryos out of the freezer do you know how to keep them viable once you save them or did you just kill both the 10k and the 5-year dead?

The scenario was obviously designed the same as if there was an elderly and a child in danger. How do you pick which one to save? It's fine for situations where everyone's lives are in absolute danger to decide which is the best to save. However saving one over the other in a life or death situation doesn't excuse killing one when their life was never in danger.
 

Alskah

Active Member
Personally I would not consider this an example of a catch 22. A catch 22 would be 2 children in the given example... Would there be a confliction on which to choose in the originally described situation? I don't think there would be any hesitation for any person. The child every time. And I don't consider it a trap. There are many examples of given situations through this whole thread. I saw this and really felt like it made an interesting point.
 
No other human is given the right to command control over another humans body or their organs. Notice how were not all rounded up and hooked up to dialysis machines or forced to give kidneys to strangers. This law doesn't give embryos equal rights it gives them more rights than women. If a fertilized egg is life then what is 9 months of pregnancy? A joy ride? Pregnancy is that woman allowing her body to create that life, this law is forcing that woman to create that life against her will. When you take emotion out of it embryos are parasitic organisms kept growing by it's host, the woman. This can be a wonderful thing when it is wanted and a horrible thing when it's not. No one on this earth has any knowledge of the 'hows' the 'whys' of souls and when and if such things even exist. We do know for certain women exist and many of them are telling you they do not want to grow a being inside of them.

We can talk until were blue in the face about forced mother hood but it doesn't even need to get that far. If it is a complete human life it would be able to survive without being attached to another human life. Remove it and see how it fares... Doesn't work? That's because it requires a human life (the woman) to give it life and it should always be her choice if she is willing to sacrifice her body to make it possible. Unlike that embryo, she is an actual human and her's is an actual human life.

If embryos are life what happens to IVF? Not all embryos can be implanted so does this make not implanting a non suitable one in a host a crime or is it only a crime when it's already taken to a host? How about frozen embryos, these are all the same 'human lives' if a couple doesn't use them do they and all the fertility doctors go to jail or again just the woman for refusing to act as it's host?

We have thousands of pregnant women in jail right now. If these embryos are human life how are they to be jailed based on the crimes of it's host? That would go against all of our current laws.

Stopping unwanted pregnancy would be as easy having all males required by law to have a vasectomy at puberty. They are typically reversible, have far less side effects than woman's hormonal birth control with a higher degree of success, pain and recovery time is far less than giving birth. Think it's crazy to have the government, (or better if the government was mainly women) trying to legislate testicles, forcing men to do things with their reproductive organs against their will to punish their sexuality? I agree, I just happen to think it shouldn't be happening to women either.
First of all, what about people with disabilities that need other people to take care of them. You could consider them parasitic, since they take money away from the guardian or whatever. Plus, there is a difference between forcing all boys to get a vasectomy and banning abortions. 1, abortions stop life from occurring , so banning them=more human life. Second of all, again adoption means that a woman doesn't have to take care of the baby after it is born. I have a very problematic moral issue with your statement that embryos are parasitic. What is they point when a baby isn't? Is it still when it's breastfeeding? How about until the child moves out of the house? This is a serious dilemma with your statement
 

Alskah

Active Member
I take it the example is meant to assume those embryos are fertilized?
It doesn't specify, but I would imagine fertilized embryos. But the scenario specifies that you are able to save one or the other. So which ever is chosen, the child or embryos, will survive.
 

Hootengoben

Well-Known Member
I've paid for two abortions, and helped countless women through the hardship, including walking them through a picket line.
I know in my heart I've saved more lives than I've lost.
A woman's right to agency should not even be a discussion in this country, and it's not up for discussion now.
As long as I live and breath, a woman won't lose her rights. Period.
I'm not here trying to change the minds of a few men, I don't need to. I have the power.
A few red states want to flaunt to their base? Go for it. It won't stick.
You. Will. Never. Take. My. Rights. Away.
 
Children don't live inside women's bodies. Were talking about embryos, the potential for life. So you are either raising embryos up to a status above women or lower women's lives beneath those of a potential life. If we can all easily accept a full fledged person has gone brain dead and now only exists as a body, not a living person despite a machine keeping it's heart beating why can we not accept that embryos also at a stage of development they would classify as brain dead https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/chapters/the-ethical-brain.html are also not a living person?

The difference being embryos have a potential to become a living person, the brain dead former person will never be so again. It is that potential for life people are so focused on but the well being of the supposed should never take president over the wellbeing of the indisputable.
The problem is it normally is not her life at stake. Her convenience is not equal to her well-being.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
I'm glad you've at least caught on that I quit addressing your posts. And there's a reason for that. It's not d/t how insightful they are, I assure you. You twist every comment made to suit whatever incoherent/disorganized point you're trying to make at that moment. I am unable to have a discussion with a person like that. And I'll be reverting back to that stance at this time.
Works for me. I feel the same way. You're just making it up as you go, hoping some of it sticks. How's that working out?
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
I've paid for two abortions, and helped countless women through the hardship, including walking them through a picket line.
While I can't agree with your stance, I can agree with and admire your compassion to help to those in need.
You. Will. Never. Take. My. Rights. Away.
You'll still have the right to vote for your masters, but I do believe Roe v Wade will be overturned in the next 20 years. If it is, the issue of abortion returns to the individual States. If overturned, it'll have nothing to do with abortion, it will have to do with Roe v Wade being a bad judicial ruling. Then it will be up to the people of each state to decide what they want to do.

The Alabama law may be the thing that makes it happen. Sooner or later it goes to the Supreme Court, who knows how it'll play out when it does?
 

Hootengoben

Well-Known Member
While I can't agree with your stance, I can agree with and admire your compassion to help to those in need.
And while I can't agree with you in principal, it is comforting to find that you have an open heart and an intelligible opinion.
Life is precious, and I would gladly give mine to save another. I have the feeling that if you had seen what I've seen, you might feel the same way.
Safe, legal and rare is the goal. Education and compassion are the keys to the latter, but safe and legal are important components.
I have a girlfriend that's a product of rape, and she's vehemently anti-abortion. Her mom is her hero, and I understand.
My heart breaks because it doesn't always work out like that
 

Hootengoben

Well-Known Member
abortion is murder that is that
The name checks out.
Another redneck that likes to think they can control women.
Got no womb and no education, but you've got an opinion.
Good for you little man. You just keep on driving that General Lee till you hit the ocean
 

yee yee boy

Active Member
The name checks out.
Another redneck that likes to think they can control women.
Got no womb and no education, but you've got an opinion.
Good for you little man. You just keep on driving that General Lee till you hit the ocean
if its not killing babies then what is it, did that baby make u have sex?
 

Stephen Longshanks

Well-Known Member
you've missed the boat on this debate, just hang it up and move on to one of the numerous other threads you've started.
While @yee yee boy is wrong on many things, he is not wrong on this. The "pro-choice" (a label that is completely disingenuous, by the way) crowd has absolutely no basis in fact on which to claim that abortion is not killing a baby. They like to claim that if abortions are made illegal again then women will sometimes die from illegal abortions, but they ignore (or worse yet, try to argue away) the fact that every single time there is an abortion, a baby dies. The only possible moral justification for an abortion is if the mother's life (not "mental health") is in direct danger and the only way to save it is an abortion. Rape and incest are situations where there may be grounds for compromise, too, but to allow abortions as a "choice" that someone can make just because they now decide it is inconvenient to have a child should be morally repugnant to anyone with a heart and a brain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.