Mississippi voters have a chance to eliminate women's rights

[SpectacularSpectacular]

Telling a woman what to do with her own body means a person is against women's rights.

By that logic, telling a woman she can't have meth, attempt suicide, or do prostitution is also against her rights too.

If you do meth, you will be sent to rehab.

If you try to kill yourself, you will be considered a danger to self and locked up somewhere you cant kill yourself

If you do prostitution, you will be locked up.

There should be an age restriction of abortion. In two or three months, the child begins having mental activity. If women have to get abortions, they are retarded. There are things such as birth control, condoms, whatever those things that block the fallopian tubes are called all designed to keep people from getting pregnant. Women should have to live with their bad decisions.

You are about 3-4 months off. True 'brain activity', as opposed to the random firing of neural pathways during formation, does not appear untill around the 20-24th week.

Stop reading all that crazy pseudo-science 'study' publications(no doubt published by religous orginizations). Brain activity at the 8th week? I mean...really.

Honestly that is so ridiculous, read up on biology - specifically: embryology, embryogenesis, and morphogenesis...Top that off with some study into theraputic-ES cell cloning, to really grasp what exactly makes stem cells remarkable enough to result in neural development. Maybe toss in some gene expression(more specifically those regarding regulatory genes) research for good measure; then reread your statement and bask in the glory that was your ignorgance.

Or cut some corners and read through the thread, since four or more people have posted info on neural development.

[Keronians]

Bolded the part I disagree with. If I understand Constitutional law properly, one of the roles of the government is to protect life, which is considered one of the 'natural' rights that riddles American philosophy (I speak from an American perspective, mind you). Because of this, if a fetus is a person at any given time, they are legally entitled to the right to life, as is anyone who is considered 'alive' and is not convicted of a crime where the death penalty is considered a reasonable punishment. This is a common argument that comes from pro-lifers, but if a fetus is in fact a person by legal definition, then abortion is, in fact, murder. However, I have no real knowledge of where life starts from a scientific perspective, so I cannot safely determine when a person start to 'live'. The definition of when a person starts 'living' is the core of the abortion debate, IMO. Does a person start 'living' at birth, or does it start earlier? If it starts earlier, when does a person begin 'living'? Because I both believe that this is the center of the issue and I can't determine by myself where 'life' starts (without doing more research on the subject), I'm ultimately neutral on the debate on a personal level. If the scientific community has ruled on when 'life' begins, I'd like to know, and from there I can further shape my perspective.

Theoretically, if life DID start at conception, then the right of a woman to abort a fetus wouldn't supersede the right of the fetus to live. Of course, there's the argument that aborting fetuses that will come out with severe genetic defects will save agony in the long run. But then again, couldn't the same be said about the already-born with genetic defects (meaning that in the name of 'saving people from suffering' we could put an end to their lives)? Once again, this goes back to the question of when 'life' starts. This entire subject is really a mine-field, and one I don't often like to tread upon.

Nope.

Because see, the fetus' right to life does not supersede the woman's right to bodily integrity. See, say you woke one morning and you were attached by an elaborate medical device to someone else. This other person depends on your body to continue living. You have every right to detach yourself from the machine. Just because someone requires your resources to live, does not mean that they are entitled to take them from you.

EDIT: What this comes back to, is that the purpose of abortion is not to destroy the fetus. The purpose is to remove it from the woman's body. That the former happens is merely a side-effect.

Was I responsible for this person's requirement for my resources, and is this permanent or temporary?

[Geniasis]

Nope.

Because see, the fetus' right to life does not supersede the woman's right to bodily integrity. See, say you woke one morning and you were attached by an elaborate medical device to someone else. This other person depends on your body to continue living. You have every right to detach yourself from the machine. Just because someone requires your resources to live, does not mean that they are entitled to take them from you.

EDIT: What this comes back to, is that the purpose of abortion is not to destroy the fetus. The purpose is to remove it from the woman's body. That the former happens is merely a side-effect.

Was I responsible for this person's requirement for my resources, and is this permanent or temporary?

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Your second question is irrelevant because regardless of whether it is for life or for 9 months, the other entity is not entitled to use your body.

[Nazi Flower Power]

I brought it up because it ties into the abortion laws of many countries in an interesting way. In the UK for example, they're based off when the foetus is viable - which, obviously, depends on the advance of technology. So if, as seems likely, we eventually develop full artificial wombs, so the baby is never fully "dependent", does this mean abortion would have to be illegal?

Nothing has to be illegal.

If it was outlawed in that situation, it would not be a violation of women's rights.

[Keronians]

Was I responsible for this person's requirement for my resources, and is this permanent or temporary?

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Your second question is irrelevant because regardless of whether it is for life or for 9 months, the other entity is not entitled to use your body.

Why, exactly, not?

And before you come up with "you went skiing and broke your leg", whether you consented or not is irrelevant because that has no bearing on whether or not you get treated because treating you does not require killing another person.

And my second question is most certainly relevant. If it's temporary, I was responsible for the person's injuries, there is no other way to obtain treatment for the person, and allowing the person to use my resources won't harm my ability to function in society, while simultaneuously not having extremely detrimental effects on my physical or mental health, then I'd be inclined to say that yes.

[Keronians]

I brought it up because it ties into the abortion laws of many countries in an interesting way. In the UK for example, they're based off when the foetus is viable - which, obviously, depends on the advance of technology. So if, as seems likely, we eventually develop full artificial wombs, so the baby is never fully "dependent", does this mean abortion would have to be illegal?

Nothing has to be illegal.

If it was outlawed in that situation, it would not be a violation of women's rights.

In the UK, the limit could be reduced to 20 weeks, because it is debated whether or not, with modern technology, foetii at 20 weeks can survive outside the womb.

[Nazi Flower Power]

All I can say is: GO MISSISSIPPI!

"GO MISSISSIPPI" like "Go get out of the Union and don't let the door hit you on your way out"? YEAH!!! GO!!!

What pro-abortion people don't realize is that they went through the fetal stage themselves, and could have just as easily been killed like millions of people around the world are killed each year.

I wouldn't give a crap if I was aborted because I wouldn't know anything about it. Fetus' brains are not developed enough to understand what is happening.

[Dyakovo]

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Your second question is irrelevant because regardless of whether it is for life or for 9 months, the other entity is not entitled to use your body.

Why, exactly, not?

And before you come up with "you went skiing and broke your leg", whether you consented or not is irrelevant because that has no bearing on whether or not you get treated because treating you does not require killing another person.

And my second question is most certainly relevant. If it's temporary, I was responsible for the person's injuries, there is no other way to obtain treatment for the person, and allowing the person to use my resources won't harm my ability to function in society, while simultaneuously not having extremely detrimental effects on my physical or mental health, then I'd be inclined to say that yes.

Treating a pregnancy through abortion also does not kill a person.
Also, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy because sex does not aleays result in pregnancy.

[Maurepas]

All I can say is: GO MISSISSIPPI!

"GO MISSISSIPPI" like "Go get out of the Union and don't let the door hit you on your way out"? YEAH!!! GO!!!

To be fair, it wanted to, it was the rest of the country that had a problem with that.

[Nazi Flower Power]

All I can say is: GO MISSISSIPPI!

What pro-abortion people don't realize is that they went through the fetal stage themselves, and could have just as easily been killed like millions of people around the world are killed each year.

To quote pro-life activist, and saline abortion survivor, Gianna Jessen: "If abortion is about women's rights, then were were mine?"

That's the saddest reality of all; that girls are more likely to be aborted.

That doesn't change what the law should be and it doesn't make the pro-life movement any less misogynistic.

[Keronians]

Why, exactly, not?

And before you come up with "you went skiing and broke your leg", whether you consented or not is irrelevant because that has no bearing on whether or not you get treated because treating you does not require killing another person.

And my second question is most certainly relevant. If it's temporary, I was responsible for the person's injuries, there is no other way to obtain treatment for the person, and allowing the person to use my resources won't harm my ability to function in society, while simultaneuously not having extremely detrimental effects on my physical or mental health, then I'd be inclined to say that yes.

Treating a pregnancy through abortion also does not kill a person.
Also, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy because sex does not aleays result in pregnancy.

Consent to a possible pregnancy, then.

If sex doesn't result in pregnancy, then good for you. If it does, then own up to your responsibilities.

A fetus is not a person? What do you believe constitutes a "person"?

Apart from, of course, US law.

[Geniasis]

Why, exactly, not?

Because it isn't.

And before you come up with "you went skiing and broke your leg", whether you consented or not is irrelevant because that has no bearing on whether or not you get treated because treating you does not require killing another person.

I don't ski, actually.

And my second question is most certainly relevant. If it's temporary, I was responsible for the person's injuries, there is no other way to obtain treatment for the person, and allowing the person to use my resources won't harm my ability to function in society, while simultaneuously not having extremely detrimental effects on my physical or mental health, then I'd be inclined to say that yes.

Wait, a few posts ago you were calling it "murder", implying that it involved a fundamentally illegal action. Now you're talking about a moral burden.

Decide which one you're going with, then we can talk.

[Keronians]

All I can say is: GO MISSISSIPPI!

"GO MISSISSIPPI" like "Go get out of the Union and don't let the door hit you on your way out"? YEAH!!! GO!!!

What pro-abortion people don't realize is that they went through the fetal stage themselves, and could have just as easily been killed like millions of people around the world are killed each year.

I wouldn't give a crap if I was aborted because I wouldn't know anything about it. Fetus' brains are not developed enough to understand what is happening.

That is debateable once the third term starts.

Of course, a minimal amount of abortions in the third term are elective...

[Keronians]

Why, exactly, not?

Because it isn't.

And before you come up with "you went skiing and broke your leg", whether you consented or not is irrelevant because that has no bearing on whether or not you get treated because treating you does not require killing another person.

I don't ski, actually.

And my second question is most certainly relevant. If it's temporary, I was responsible for the person's injuries, there is no other way to obtain treatment for the person, and allowing the person to use my resources won't harm my ability to function in society, while simultaneuously not having extremely detrimental effects on my physical or mental health, then I'd be inclined to say that yes.

Wait, a few posts ago you were calling it "murder", implying that it involved a fundamentally illegal action. Now you're talking about a moral burden.

Decide which one you're going with, then we can talk.

I never called abortion murder.

I said it could easily be defined as murder if it were illegal.

As for the first question, that's not a very good response.

Pregnancy is the direct consequence of sexual intercourse.

[Geniasis]

Yeah, and death is a direct consequence of life.

[An Intelligent Man]

Because it isn't.



I don't ski, actually.



Wait, a few posts ago you were calling it "murder", implying that it involved a fundamentally illegal action. Now you're talking about a moral burden.

Decide which one you're going with, then we can talk.

I never called abortion murder.

I said it could easily be defined as murder if it were illegal.

As for the first question, that's not a very good response.

Pregnancy is the direct consequence of sexual intercourse.

So you are saying that the human life, the result of intercourse, ought be used as a punishment for the now parent? How the heck is that "pro life"?

[Keronians]

I never called abortion murder.

I said it could easily be defined as murder if it were illegal.

As for the first question, that's not a very good response.

Pregnancy is the direct consequence of sexual intercourse.

So you are saying that the human life, the result of intercourse, ought be used as a punishment for the now parent? How the heck is that "pro life"?

Twisting words to make an appeal to emotion, I see.

Responsibility for one's actions =/= form of punishment

If it was, then I'd be telling you that I want anybody who's had sex to be given a child to raise. But I'm not saying that, am I?

[Keronians]

Yeah, and death is a direct consequence of life.

I'm not seeing a point here.

[Nazi Flower Power]

No, dependency is not universally similar. Social dependency is social dependency; dependent on people. A biomolecular/biochemical dependency is a dependence on a cellular(and in regards to genetic coding a molecular) level to just one other organism/cell/biochemical enviorment. Not the same.

I hate to speak for EVERYONE in this thread... but I don't think there is anyone here who doesn't understand what you're saying.

His question was, I think, not how is it different in form but how it is different when making moral considerations. A 9-year-old is arguably a bigger drain on a woman's (and, should be, a man's) autonomy and wallet than a fetus ever could be (a note to all in the thread; please don't write "foetus"; it's a hypercorrection with no real etymological basis in Latin.)

Your pro-abortion rhetoric falls apart if you can't apply it consistently. If you allow a woman to terminate the life of her child in utero on the basis of dependency, then you must be consistent and allow her to terminate her child after it has been born. The reasoning behind and form of the dependency might be different, but it is felt more acutely at this stage.

The mods ought to start warning people for spamming every time they post this shit. It's a crap argument, and people still feel compelled to rehash it every abortion thread.

You can hand over a 9 year old to someone else if you don't want to care for them yourself. You can't do that with a fetus that is not yet viable outside the womb.

[Keronians]

I hate to speak for EVERYONE in this thread... but I don't think there is anyone here who doesn't understand what you're saying.

His question was, I think, not how is it different in form but how it is different when making moral considerations. A 9-year-old is arguably a bigger drain on a woman's (and, should be, a man's) autonomy and wallet than a fetus ever could be (a note to all in the thread; please don't write "foetus"; it's a hypercorrection with no real etymological basis in Latin.)

Your pro-abortion rhetoric falls apart if you can't apply it consistently. If you allow a woman to terminate the life of her child in utero on the basis of dependency, then you must be consistent and allow her to terminate her child after it has been born. The reasoning behind and form of the dependency might be different, but it is felt more acutely at this stage.

The mods ought to start warning people for spamming every time they post this shit. It's a crap argument, and people still feel compelled to rehash it every abortion thread.

You can hand over a 9 year old to someone else if you don't want to care for them yourself. You can't do that with a fetus that is not yet viable outside the womb.

Which is not the fetus' fault.

[The Pink Followers]

You can hand over a 9 year old to someone else if you don't want to care for them yourself. You can't do that with a fetus that is not yet viable outside the womb.

Which is not the fetus' fault.

Which gives it the right to use a woman's body without permission? I assume you would have no trouble giving me a kidney of yours, if I so needed it? Its not my fault I need one and you have one that I can use.

[Keronians]

Which is not the fetus' fault.

Which gives it the right to use a woman's body without permission? I assume you would have no trouble giving me a kidney of yours, if I so needed it? Its not my fault I need one and you have one that I can use.

Nope.

I was in no way responsible for your need of a kidney.

And it's not like I can take my kidney back after I give it to you.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Give me your liver, or your kidneys, or your lung. All of which under normal circumstances won't kill you.

I'd be permanently physically-limited without them, not so with child-bearing and -birthing. Also, you're a stranger, not my daughter. If my child/sibling/parent/best friend needed an organ that I could give, I would in a heartbeat; no deliberation needed on my part.

But you're not legally required to do that, and you never should be legally required. Plenty of women are glad to let a fetus use their body as life support, but that doesn't mean the unwilling should be forced into it.

Finally, a wise woman once said, of analogies. "They are not even similar so I wont lump them together, because doing so clouds the line between biological facts and moral bias. The reason not to combine the two is so that we can actually discuss this in a manner that is true and factual." Can we talk about unborn babies and not my visceral organs? Or do you really need a kidney?

I dunno about UCUMAY, but I really need a kidney. I borrowed money from some Jew, and when I couldn't pay him back he made me give him my kidney.

[The Pink Followers]

it's not like I can take my kidney back after I give it to you.

And its not like a woman can somehow make herself out to never have given birth to a child.

[Keronians]

I'd be permanently physically-limited without them, not so with child-bearing and -birthing. Also, you're a stranger, not my daughter. If my child/sibling/parent/best friend needed an organ that I could give, I would in a heartbeat; no deliberation needed on my part.

But you're not legally required to do that, and you never should be legally required. Plenty of women are glad to let a fetus use their body as life support, but that doesn't mean the unwilling should be forced into it.

Finally, a wise woman once said, of analogies. "They are not even similar so I wont lump them together, because doing so clouds the line between biological facts and moral bias. The reason not to combine the two is so that we can actually discuss this in a manner that is true and factual." Can we talk about unborn babies and not my visceral organs? Or do you really need a kidney?

I dunno about UCUMAY, but I really need a kidney. I borrowed money from some Jew, and when I couldn't pay him back he made me give him my kidney.

His point remains: he was in no way responsible, and he will be physically limited due to it. Forever.

As for the second part of your post, in conjunction with your ideology, that is hilarious.