Emily Letts abortion video

[Bythibus]

Not buying it, sorry.

Way to avoid answering the question. Do you believe that partial-birth abortion should be legal, or do you not?

Okay, we'll take another loop. I support the decision of the mother. I'm sorry that this is not the answer you need.

[Pilotto]

Way to avoid answering the question. Do you believe that partial-birth abortion should be legal, or do you not?

Okay, we'll take another loop. I support the decision of the mother. I'm sorry that this is not the answer you need.

So that's a yes. Care to explain why you would support the mother in her "right" to terminate the life of the fetus moments before leaving the womb, but do not support her "right" murder her newborn baby moments later?

[Lamaredia]

A foetus is not a parasite!!!

For dog sake

It is. It fits every definition of a parasite.

[Mavorpen]

I would never kill a child. A fetus? Sure.

And you have yet to explain what precisely is the difference between terminating the life of the fetus moments before it is born, and terminating it moments after.

Stop lying. One is a fetus, one isn't.

[Liriena]

What about the human right to control our own bodies? Why does something that is forcefully infringing upon my human rights get a free pass just because it may die because of it?

Because human life > autonomy, it's really that simple.

Except that, in the eyes of jurisprudence, that is not true. Human rights have no hierarchy.

It makes no sense to value any human right higher then life. The most important thing any human being possesses is their life.

Jurists disagree. All rights are equally important.

[Pilotto]

And you have yet to explain what precisely is the difference between terminating the life of the fetus moments before it is born, and terminating it moments after.

Stop lying. One is a fetus, one isn't.

Again, you fail to explain why you believe that a fetus should be deprived of the right to life, or to answer my question at all.

[Bythibus]

Okay, we'll take another loop. I support the decision of the mother. I'm sorry that this is not the answer you need.

So that's a yes. Care to explain why you would support the mother in her "right" to terminate the life of the fetus moments before leaving the womb, but do not support her "right" murder her newborn baby moments later?

Because the only time that happens is when it's literally to save the mother's life. You refuse to accept that.

[Mavorpen]

Stop lying. One is a fetus, one isn't.

Again, you fail to explain why you believe that a fetus should be deprived of the right to life, or to answer my question at all.

Because it's a fetus and fetuses do not have rights. It isn't my fault of you haven't grasped this after being told numerous times.

[Shie]

Stop lying. One is a fetus, one isn't.

Again, you fail to explain why you believe that a fetus should be deprived of the right to life, or to answer my question at all.

A fetus doesn't have a right to live but they should live because they'll become babies that grow into adults which serve their country.

[Pilotto]

Again, you fail to explain why you believe that a fetus should be deprived of the right to life, or to answer my question at all.

Because it's a fetus and fetuses do not have rights. It isn't my fault of you haven't grasped this after being told numerous times.

Why? What rationale for that statement do you have?

[Shie]

Because it's a fetus and fetuses do not have rights. It isn't my fault of you haven't grasped this after being told numerous times.

Why? What rationale for that statement do you have?

Natural rights are a joke, they're abused all of the time.

[Mavorpen]

Because it's a fetus and fetuses do not have rights. It isn't my fault of you haven't grasped this after being told numerous times.

Why? What rationale for that statement do you have?

There is no "rationale." My government has not granted fetuses the right to live. It therefore doesn't have rights. This isn't complex.

[Pilotto]

So that's a yes. Care to explain why you would support the mother in her "right" to terminate the life of the fetus moments before leaving the womb, but do not support her "right" murder her newborn baby moments later?

Because the only time that happens is when it's literally to save the mother's life. You refuse to accept that.

What the hell are you talking about? Is there anyone on this thread that opposes abortion if it is necessary to preserve the life of the mother?

[Shie]

Because the only time that happens is when it's literally to save the mother's life. You refuse to accept that.

What the hell are you talking about? Is there anyone on this thread that opposes abortion if it is necessary to preserve the life of the mother?

I don't support support abortion in any circumstance, in even that one, depending on who the mother is.

[Pilotto]

Why? What rationale for that statement do you have?

There is no "rationale." My government has not granted fetuses the right to live. It therefore doesn't have rights. This isn't complex.

And if your government decides that the elderly do not have the right to life, and it becomes legal to terminate them, would you not oppose that? Would you not find it disgusting and reprehensible?

[Shie]

There is no "rationale." My government has not granted fetuses the right to live. It therefore doesn't have rights. This isn't complex.

And if your government decides that the elderly do not have the right to life, and it becomes legal to terminate them, would you not oppose that? Would you not find it disgusting and reprehensible?

Would it be the government terminating the elderly in your example?

[Mavorpen]

There is no "rationale." My government has not granted fetuses the right to live. It therefore doesn't have rights. This isn't complex.

And if your government decides that the elderly do not have the right to life, and it becomes legal to terminate them, would you not oppose that? Would you not find it disgusting and reprehensible?

Of course I would. They are sentient and demonstrably persons. Quite frankly it's insulting for you to ever compare them to fetuses.

[Bythibus]

Because the only time that happens is when it's literally to save the mother's life. You refuse to accept that.

What the hell are you talking about? Is there anyone on this thread that opposes abortion if it is necessary to preserve the life of the mother?

If that's not what you're arguing against, you're arguing an intentionally absurd positions.

Send someone else down the rabbit hole, I have no intentions of following.

[Pilotto]

And if your government decides that the elderly do not have the right to life, and it becomes legal to terminate them, would you not oppose that? Would you not find it disgusting and reprehensible?

Of course I would. They are sentient and demonstrably persons. Quite frankly it's insulting for you to ever compare them to fetuses.

And how is a viable fetus moments before birth neither of these things? You were the one who attempted to claim that the only right to life that anyone has is bestowed by the government. By this argument, a government could decide to take the life of any person or group of people and be justified, because they no-longer have any such right to life.

[Lamaredia]

There is no "rationale." My government has not granted fetuses the right to live. It therefore doesn't have rights. This isn't complex.

And if your government decides that the elderly do not have the right to life, and it becomes legal to terminate them, would you not oppose that? Would you not find it disgusting and reprehensible?

Elders are sentien, fetuses are not.

Try again please.

[Pilotto]

What the hell are you talking about? Is there anyone on this thread that opposes abortion if it is necessary to preserve the life of the mother?

If that's not what you're arguing against, you're arguing an intentionally absurd positions.

Send someone else down the rabbit hole, I have no intentions of following.

I'm sorry, why would it be preferable to have two dead people as opposed to just one?

[Lamaredia]

Of course I would. They are sentient and demonstrably persons. Quite frankly it's insulting for you to ever compare them to fetuses.

And how is a viable fetus moments before birth neither of these things? You were the one who attempted to claim that the only right to life that anyone has is bestowed by the government. By this argument, a government could decide to take the life of any person or group of people and be justified, because they no-longer have any such right to life.

Because a fetus isn't a sentient person until after they are born? How many times do we have to repeat this?

[Mavorpen]

Of course I would. They are sentient and demonstrably persons. Quite frankly it's insulting for you to ever compare them to fetuses.

And how is a viable fetus moments before birth neither of these things? You were the one who attempted to claim that the only right to life that anyone has is bestowed by the government. By this argument, a government could decide to take the life of any person or group of people and be justified, because they no-longer have any such right to life.

Stop erecting straw men. I said governments decide who have rights or not. I didn't say this would ALWAYS be legitimate from a logical standpoint.

[Citizens of the future]

In Canada, there is no elective abortion past 24 weeks

[Pilotto]

And if your government decides that the elderly do not have the right to life, and it becomes legal to terminate them, would you not oppose that? Would you not find it disgusting and reprehensible?

Elders are sentien, fetuses are not.

Try again please.

*cough*alzheimer's*cough*