Advertisement
by The Spook Who Sat By The Door » Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:13 am
by The Free Joy State » Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:31 am
Agarntrop wrote:The Alma Mater wrote:And Arizona lawmakers have introduced a bill that would count abortion as a homicide, meaning both doctors and women could get the death penalty.
https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/1R/ ... B2650P.pdf
So pro-life.
This is not gonna pass and will die like the Texas bill
Suriyanakhon wrote:The Alma Mater wrote:And Arizona lawmakers have introduced a bill that would count abortion as a homicide, meaning both doctors and women could get the death penalty.
https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/1R/ ... B2650P.pdf
So pro-life.
Are these a bunch of new and upcoming Republican representatives who think they're finally going to be the ones who overturn Roe v. Wade?Neutraligon wrote:...From a quick look, miscarriage would count as homicide as would abortion due to life of the mother.
The prisons would be filled to the brim.
“What are you in here for?”
“My body didn't implant the fertilized egg in the uterine wall properly.”
by The New California Republic » Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:19 am
The Marlborough wrote:snip
Godular wrote:I HATE that track... mostly because it's a trivial concern in the grand scheme of things.
by The Free Joy State » Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:28 am
The New California Republic wrote:The Marlborough wrote:snip
It was just a point of order, I don't care for the "not alive" argument either as it's wrong, as I indicated earlier.Godular wrote:I HATE that track... mostly because it's a trivial concern in the grand scheme of things.
You and me both. It went on for far too long and is utterly spurious anyway.
by Molither » Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:28 am
The Spook Who Sat By The Door wrote:I find it interesting that my answer to mutual exclusivity is the least popular. I am pro-choice, yet I personally find abortion, especially at the rate and manner in which it is practiced in the US, to be one of the most disturbing human practices on Earth. That's just my personal belief though, and I have no desire to make laws to force that belief onto others.
The fact of the matter is that infanticide is a lot older than civilization. If modern medicine and technology can spare us the spectacle of newborns being tossed off of cliffs or some similar action like the ancients practiced, then all the better. Modern techniques allow us to place ourselves above not just cultures like the Spartans, but also some contemporary ones.
If someone wants to deny that we do indeed engage in mass infanticide in modern society by claiming that zygotes and fetuses are neither alive nor even human, I will not attempt to deny them that right. We are all unique individuals with unique perspectives and we all have to face the horrors we are willing to embrace in our own way, whether it's war, capital punishment, or even the tremendous cost of human life on the highways in exchange for convenience and economic benefits. People will fall all along the spectrum from shrugging their shoulders, to deep vehement denial.
Ultimately the pro-life movement, regardless of any Supreme Court decisions or any state or federal laws will never put a stop to abortion anymore than anyone or anything will ever bring an end to human trafficking and a myriad of other human behaviors. They can be made illegal, but they have been with us since before the rise of civilization and they will be with us after the fall.
by The New California Republic » Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:36 am
The Free Joy State wrote:The New California Republic wrote:It was just a point of order, I don't care for the "not alive" argument either as it's wrong, as I indicated earlier.
You and me both. It went on for far too long and is utterly spurious anyway.
Far better to agree that foetuses are alive and be done with it. It's a silly, pointless sidetrack.
But even though foetuses are alive (but insentient) and should you agree that foetuses are people -- which some pro-choicers do -- there's still no legal reason to deny abortion.
There is no person in the world who is entitled to the use of our bodies without consent.
by The Free Joy State » Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:47 am
The New California Republic wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:Far better to agree that foetuses are alive and be done with it. It's a silly, pointless sidetrack.
But even though foetuses are alive (but insentient) and should you agree that foetuses are people -- which some pro-choicers do -- there's still no legal reason to deny abortion.
There is no person in the world who is entitled to the use of our bodies without consent.
I did try to sway the discussion away from it and onto other points, such as a riposte to that "innocence" argument put forward by KK, but it got ignored and so here we are.
by Greater Miami Shores » Tue Jan 26, 2021 2:12 am
by Vassenor » Tue Jan 26, 2021 2:14 am
by The New California Republic » Tue Jan 26, 2021 2:47 am
The Free Joy State wrote:The New California Republic wrote:I did try to sway the discussion away from it and onto other points, such as a riposte to that "innocence" argument put forward by KK, but it got ignored and so here we are.
You know, I don't think I've seen "foetuses aren't alive" as a pro-choice argument. I have seen it touted on pro-life websites as a pro-choice argument (I was on the fence for a period as a teen, then I spoke to people from both sides and my mind was made up). I sometimes wish people would respond to our arguments, rather than what every-sperm-is-sacred.com ( ) assures people our arguments are.
The New California Republic wrote:Just to say that it's not really a common argument here for folk to say that fetuses are not alive. There is near universal acceptance amongst pro-choice people here that fetuses are alive, but it's immaterial to the arguments they use.
by Echo Chamber Thought Police » Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:01 am
by The Alma Mater » Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:04 am
The Free Joy State wrote:The New California Republic wrote:I did try to sway the discussion away from it and onto other points, such as a riposte to that "innocence" argument put forward by KK, but it got ignored and so here we are.
You know, I don't think I've seen "foetuses aren't alive" as a pro-choice argument. I have seen it touted on pro-life websites as a pro-choice argument (I was on the fence for a period as a teen, then I spoke to people from both sides and my mind was made up). I sometimes wish people would respond to our arguments, rather than what every-sperm-is-sacred.com ( ) assures people our arguments are.
by The Free Joy State » Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:06 am
Echo Chamber Thought Police wrote:So, logically, if you use the argument that a fetus has no legal right to use a woman's body so must be killed - even if it is alive and sentient - then wouldn't this apply to conjoined twins?
Should a conjoined twin be able to shoot the other to stop them from using their body?
by Echo Chamber Thought Police » Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:13 am
The Free Joy State wrote:Echo Chamber Thought Police wrote:So, logically, if you use the argument that a fetus has no legal right to use a woman's body so must be killed - even if it is alive and sentient - then wouldn't this apply to conjoined twins?
Should a conjoined twin be able to shoot the other to stop them from using their body?
Parents do make the decision to separate conjoined twins where one is supporting the life of the other, knowing the second and weaker twin will die (so the first can have a better quality of life), Agarntrop (assuming that is Agarntrop).
It's a poor argument.
by The New California Republic » Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:30 am
Echo Chamber Thought Police wrote:But the same logic applies, fundamentally, dosen't it?
by Echo Chamber Thought Police » Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:31 am
The New California Republic wrote:Echo Chamber Thought Police wrote:But the same logic applies, fundamentally, dosen't it?
It doesn't when taking stock of the context, in that in the example you have used there are alternate recourses to remedy it, such as separation surgery. In the case of abortion there are not, i.e. the only "alternative" isn't an alternative at all: it's for the situation to continue. As many pro-choice people here previously have said: if there was an alternate recourse in the situation then great, but there is not.
by The New California Republic » Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:33 am
Echo Chamber Thought Police wrote:The New California Republic wrote:It doesn't when taking stock of the context, in that in the example you have used there are alternate recourses to remedy it, such as separation surgery. In the case of abortion there are not, i.e. the only "alternative" isn't an alternative at all: it's for the situation to continue. As many pro-choice people here previously have said: if there was an alternate recourse in the situation then great, but there is not.
What if they share organs?
by Echo Chamber Thought Police » Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:35 am
by The New California Republic » Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:40 am
Echo Chamber Thought Police wrote:The New California Republic wrote:Then usually in that instance the death of one would mean the death of the other, so the point is moot.
This does not have to be the case.
The fact is the right to life supersedes the right to bodily autonomy, so this logic is moot. Like I said in my prior posts, there are far better ways to justify abortion.
by The Alma Mater » Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:43 am
by The New California Republic » Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:45 am
by Punished UMN » Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:50 am
The New California Republic wrote:And the example of shooting one's conjoined twin just makes me think of this too much, so I can't take the example seriously at all. I'm trying, but it's very difficult.
by A-Series-Of-Tubes » Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:51 am
Echo Chamber Thought Police wrote:So, logically, if you use the argument that a fetus has no legal right to use a woman's body so must be killed - even if it is alive and sentient - then wouldn't this apply to conjoined twins?
Should a conjoined twin be able to shoot the other to stop them from using their body?
by The New California Republic » Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:54 am
Punished UMN wrote:The New California Republic wrote:And the example of shooting one's conjoined twin just makes me think of this too much, so I can't take the example seriously at all. I'm trying, but it's very difficult.
It's something that has happened before, several times. A recent presidential candidate actually made his career on this exact situation.
by Punished UMN » Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:55 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Decolo, Google [Bot], ML Library, Neu California, Pasong Tirad, Shearoa, Spirit of Hope, Stratonesia, Sublime Ottoman State 1800 RP
Advertisement