Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-08-2016, 10:40 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
I'm not going to play silly mind games with you read my previous posts carefully and it should be obvious that I am not advocating abortion above a certain number of weeks if I did not make that clear I apologise. It makes a difference in both law and ethics once a baby is born and no longer dependent upon its mother for oxygenation / life support or capable of independent existence with or without support hence the words host dependent. And the stuff about food animals sorry it frankly ridiculous except perhaps to radical vegetarians or vegans and then maybe. Please choose your phrasiology a bit more carefully and above all do not attempt to teach grandad to suck eggs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2016, 11:14 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
reply in red

(21-08-2016 10:40 AM)adey67 Wrote:  I'm not going to play silly mind games with you read my previous posts carefully and it should be obvious that I am not advocating abortion above a certain number of weeks if I did not make that clear I apologise.

no need to apologize mate Smile Serious question, what is the number of weeks that abortions becomes ethically wrong?

It makes a difference in both law and ethics once a baby is born and no longer dependent upon its mother for oxygenation / life support or capable of independent existence with or without support hence the words host dependent.

I disagree about the ethics part, but what about zika infected fetuses? Should they be treated differently than healthy fetuses? Should we be able to abort them later in pregnancy than healthy fetuses? And why?

And the stuff about food animals sorry it frankly ridiculous except perhaps to radical vegetarians or vegans and then maybe. Please choose your phrasiology a bit more carefully and above all do not attempt to teach grandad to suck eggs.

I only bring that up because it is another instance where humans have disagreements about the morality of killing things. My hope is that it helps people to see that it all actually only comes down to preference.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2016, 11:26 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
Honestly i think it should not be possible to abort a healthy foetus above the time frame where it becomes viable for external life with or without support 22 -23 weeks roughly Imo. A grossly abnormal foetus I think needs to be left to the discression of the parent and doctors unless its something ridiculous like a week before birth. Its highly subjective and I do understand where you're coming from it was just unfortunate how you came across which I suspect in retrospect was not intentional as you seem like a nice guy. Friends ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2016, 11:35 AM (This post was last modified: 21-08-2016 03:57 PM by Aliza.)
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(21-08-2016 08:17 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  What about babies already born that have microcephaly?

Would you all be in favor of infanticide for babies with microcephaly? Why/why not?

When will you all understand that the abortion debate is simply a matter of personal preference? There is no right or wrong answer to this.

Blowjob makes a lot of sense on this thread. He's still wrong in thinking there is an answer to the question, but he's no more wrong than anyone else on this thread who thinks it's (objectively) immoral to deny a woman abortion rights. You're all fuckin' wrong!

Some people like to kill animals and eat them, some don't. It's really no different than the abortion debate. Some people like for women to be allowed to kill fetuses, some don't. At the end of the day, there's no right/wrong answer.

Heywood would have us to believe that it is morally wrong to abort a fetus for any reason what-so-ever. The pro-lifers are saying that they believe they know what’s right for everyone and because the other people are 'wrong' their views shouldn't count. The pro-choice folks say that there is no solid right or wrong choice, so it should be an individual decision made by the mother. No one should be compelled to have an abortion under the pro-choice model.

The people who are trying to speak on behalf of everyone else are the pro-lifers. They’re the ones trying to force their will on everyone else.

I agree with you, Matt. It’s not a right or wrong choice. It’s an individual choice, and the law in the United States allows us to make individual choices for our own bodies. We can just as easily choose to see our pregnancies to term as we can to end them early. I personally make my decision on this matter based on a combination of my religious views, my compassion for human life, and my understanding of when personhood takes root. It’s my choice, it only applies to me and no one has to agree with me.

Over a course of several anti-abortion themed threads, Heywood has failed to convince the members of this forum to adopt a pro-life stance. I have observed him using the same argument over and over to appeal emotionally to us or to try to use scenarios in which he deems equal to try to appeal to our morality under seemingly different (not so different) circumstances.

What I have not observed him doing is asking us what it would take to convince us to change our position. That might actually start a productive conversation!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Aliza's post
21-08-2016, 11:57 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(21-08-2016 10:21 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(21-08-2016 10:15 AM)adey67 Wrote:  I already explained that, which part of not host dependent do you not understand and don't you fucking dare say I'm making shit up come back when you have a degree in nursing or medicine and thirty years experience.

You've explained nothing. Let me ask again.... If it's about reducing/removing future suffering for the infant/person, why would it matter which side of the womb he/she/it is on?

Because it's not only about reducing/removing future suffering....It's more than about one thing alone.

Which is funny because Heywood was arguing in his other threads against the other 1 thing he proclaims a big argument is flawed in it about the control over the body. So is it about that 1 thing or the other 1 thing?

It's neither, boiling it down to some proclaimed 1 reason is a foolish delmia that ignores millions of peoples reasonings to why the effort is contrasted.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
21-08-2016, 11:57 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(21-08-2016 11:35 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(21-08-2016 08:17 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  What about babies already born that have microcephaly?

Would you all be in favor of infanticide for babies with microcephaly? Why/why not?

When will you all understand that the abortion debate is simply a matter of personal preference? There is no right or wrong answer to this.

Blowjob makes a lot of sense on this thread. He's still wrong in thinking there is an answer to the question, but he's no more wrong than anyone else on this thread who thinks it's (objectively) immoral to deny a woman abortion rights. You're all fuckin' wrong!

Some people like to kill animals and eat them, some don't. It's really no different than the abortion debate. Some people like for women to be allowed to kill fetuses, some don't. At the end of the day, there's no right/wrong answer.

Heywood would have us to believe that it is morally wrong to abort a fetus for any reason what-so-ever. The pro-lifers are saying that they believe they know what’s right for everyone and because the other people are 'wrong' their views shouldn't count. The pro-choice folks say that there is no solid right or wrong choice, so it should be an individual decision made by the mother. No one should be compelled to have an abortion under the pro-choice model.

The people who are trying to speak on behalf of everyone else are the pro-lifers. They’re the ones trying to force their will on everyone else.

I agree with you, Matt. It’s not a right or wrong choice. It’s an individual choice, and the law in the United States allows us to make individual choices for our own bodies. We can just as easily choose to see our pregnancies to term as we can to end them early. I personally make my decision on this matter based on a combination of my religious views, my compassion for human life, and my understanding of when personhood takes root. It’s my choice, it only applies to me and no one has to agree with me.

Over a course of several anti-abortion themed threads, Heywood has failed to convince the members of this forum to adopt a pro-life stance. I have observed him using the same argument over and over to appeal emotionally to us or to try to use scenarios in which he deems equal to try to appeal to our morality under seemingly different (not so different) circumstances.

What I have not observed him doing is asking us what it would take to convince us to change our position. That might actual start a productive conversation!
I agree it is all too easy to become angry emotional and or as a result take someone's comments out of context and end up getting frustrated and misinterpreting them. Nothing winds folks up quite like the debate on terminations of pregnancy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like adey67's post
21-08-2016, 02:58 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(21-08-2016 01:41 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(20-08-2016 06:51 PM)Dom Wrote:  That. Blowhard is totally devoid of empathy.

Not when it comes to the unborn. When it comes to the unborn you're happy to scramble them up like an omelet with your knitting pins.

Theirs' no such thing as the unborn yet more emotionally charged anti choice make believe and weasel wording to make the fetus something it objectively is not

And nope it's far more compassionate and emphatic to destroy the fetus before it becomes a person then to allow it to needlessly endure poverty and the agony of deformity .Something your HAPPY in fact positively ecstatic to force it and the mother(along with forcing her to endure legal slavery and rape) and it's whole family endure .

As for the method name me one surgery that has a pleasant description why should abortion be any different .I would take the horrid description to the long a horrendous list of medical afflictions that poverty and deformity will put on the unfortunate thing. So if it's my emotions your appealing to that emotional appeal has far more weight but unlike you i don't make descions on emotion .

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like OrdoSkeptica's post
21-08-2016, 03:33 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(21-08-2016 11:57 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(21-08-2016 10:21 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  You've explained nothing. Let me ask again.... If it's about reducing/removing future suffering for the infant/person, why would it matter which side of the womb he/she/it is on?

Because it's not only about reducing/removing future suffering....It's more than about one thing alone.

Which is funny because Heywood was arguing in his other threads against the other 1 thing he proclaims a big argument is flawed in it about the control over the body. So is it about that 1 thing or the other 1 thing?

It's neither, boiling it down to some proclaimed 1 reason is a foolish delmia that ignores millions of peoples reasonings to why the effort is contrasted.


Absolutely i agree it's about more the just suffering there dozens of other reasons and indeed some could be less then noble but unlike the anti choicer we want people to be able to make the choice rather then a cabal anti choicers

As for Matts infanticide etc argument he seems to be strolling down the same road as anti gay marriage advocates by arguing that if were for gay marriage we must support (insert straw man here) and that's a massive fallacy

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OrdoSkeptica's post
21-08-2016, 04:41 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
As to answer why abortion and not infanticide is simple

If one accepts bodily autonomy killing the infant would be no different then forcing the mother to carry the FETUS too term suffering would take an unfortunate back seat which could have been avoided if the abortion was carried out early the condition between the two are not the same

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2016, 06:18 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(21-08-2016 02:58 PM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  There's no such thing as the unborn

I have, in a real-life argument over the topic of abortion, laughed at a person who used the term "unborn" by quipping that "I suppose then I'm undead. Awesome! I kinda always wanted to be a lich."

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: