Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Captain Cranks

Why is Roe v Wade so important?

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I was the other side until I was 27 years old .... very pro abortion.

Just curious,  What changed your opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

what % of abortions are for mothers who are raped or incest? And remember, adding the death of an unborn plus the trauma for the procedure and after isn't roses for the woman either :(    women's health justifying abortion is ever rarer. I think its around 1-2% total for rape/incest/mothers health ..... meaning 98% of killing unborn babies and ending pregnancies via abortion is for convenience.

I'm a father of 2 children, we had a miscarriage and I say we because don't undermine that men and fathers and husbands have no role in a pregnancy, we're very much invested in

 

 

It doesn't matter how many, those people no matter how few there are should be able to make that choice. 

Are you in favor taking all guns away because less than 1 percent of the population uses them improperly?

Edited by msudaisy26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, adonis said:

Isn't your argument that it's alive?  Perhaps I am missing something, but I was under the impression that you were saying it was alive at conception?  Apologies if I misunderstood.

If there is a pregnancy - an unborn living child and a living mother .... then its a living human and its protected under every law we have except one

that a woman can be on her way to have an abortion and that's not killing an unborn child, but is hit by a drunk driver right before she gets to the abortion clinic and the driver is charged with double murder is unexplainable - that unborn life doesn't change. That we allow abortion clinic's to kill unborn children legally is unacceptable to me and in a world were everyone is so concerned with human life at the border, human live of refugee's from war torn countries, human life conditions that exist etc ..... allowing abortion still is just crazy to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tonydead said:

I like "unborn" almost as much as I like "fetus".  

call it a kitten or a puppy dog - the name we call it doesn't change that its a living human

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stealthycat said:
1 hour ago, adonis said:

Isn't your argument that it's alive?  Perhaps I am missing something, but I was under the impression that you were saying it was alive at conception?  Apologies if I misunderstood.

If there is a pregnancy - an unborn living child and a living mother .... then its a living human and its protected under every law we have except one

that a woman can be on her way to have an abortion and that's not killing an unborn child, but is hit by a drunk driver right before she gets to the abortion clinic and the driver is charged with double murder is unexplainable - that unborn life doesn't change. That we allow abortion clinic's to kill unborn children legally is unacceptable to me and in a world were everyone is so concerned with human life at the border, human live of refugee's from war torn countries, human life conditions that exist etc ..... allowing abortion still is just crazy to me

So if life begins at conception, and at conception that fertilized egg deserves every protection under the law, why is a mother who miscarries not guilty of involuntary manslaughter?

100% genuine question.  If her body was responsible for the death of another live being, fully protected by our laws, why shouldn't she be guilty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badmojo1006 said:

Just curious,  What changed your opinion?

I started to understand more about having opinions and idea on things was one thing .... having a foundation in which they are rooted is another

Like I was saying above

we almost all agree that killing a 1 minute old born baby is killing an life, right? unacceptable

I think we almost all agree partial birth abortion is unacceptable too - that's obviously the same living baby, right ?

well, back up 4 or 8  weeks from that moment and that same living baby could have been removed from the womb .... viable albeit it smaller than 100% developed and ready to be born, but a living human baby right ?

I think almost everyone see's the above as true.

 

As to the question why I went from pro-abortion ... I was challenged on when life started. The above is just logical reasoning .... so when DOES human life start? I had to think on it, I talked about it, a lot, debated it, a lot.

I came to the only conclusion I could. When a pregnancy begins, there HAS to be a living human unborn there. If there isn't, there isn't a pregnancy. It truly is that simple.

 

 

Now,  a person might be in favor of ending that abortion but its impossible to get around what the procedure of abortion does. It kills the unborn which ends the pregnancy. It doesn't leave the unborn alive - if an abortion is botched and the unborn is alive, then there is STILL a pregnancy, the goal of the abortion failed.

 

does that make sense? It wasn't like I was all moral and ethical soul searching, it was a part of a process of challenging things I believed in and didn't.  My father in law challenged me on this one issue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, adonis said:

So if life begins at conception, and at conception that fertilized egg deserves every protection under the law, why is a mother who miscarries not guilty of involuntary manslaughter?

100% genuine question.  If her body was responsible for the death of another live being, fully protected by our laws, why shouldn't she be guilty?

Going to need to reasons for the miscarriage to play this game.  But I suspect it would be like a car crash.  Some are accidents without charges and some are due to negligence and carry charges.

Another hypothetical.  If a man beats a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage is that just an assault situation?  Or carry additional charges?  Like you, being 100% genuine here and don't know the answer to my own question.  I've always assumed it would be additional charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, adonis said:

So if life begins at conception, and at conception that fertilized egg deserves every protection under the law, why is a mother who miscarries not guilty of involuntary manslaughter?

100% genuine question.  If her body was responsible for the death of another live being, fully protected by our laws, why shouldn't she be guilty?

miscarriages is a natural part of pregnancy - is a chicken responsible for a chick that cannot make it out of the egg and dies with the shell pipped ?

a miscarriage is an unborn baby dying - its tragic, is very hard on the mother, hard on the father ..... the physical and mental aspects carry on for weeks and months

its not a conscious decision of the mother to have the unborn die - there are a lot of reasons for miscarriages, nobody ever really knows why they occur because it's not studied. Did my wife eat wrong when we lost our 2nd child? was it chromosomal / DNA issues?  was it a physical problem ? I mean no one knows, right ?

Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I started to understand more about having opinions and idea on things was one thing .... having a foundation in which they are rooted is another

Like I was saying above

we almost all agree that killing a 1 minute old born baby is killing an life, right? unacceptable

I think we almost all agree partial birth abortion is unacceptable too - that's obviously the same living baby, right ?

well, back up 4 or 8  weeks from that moment and that same living baby could have been removed from the womb .... viable albeit it smaller than 100% developed and ready to be born, but a living human baby right ?

I think almost everyone see's the above as true.

 

As to the question why I went from pro-abortion ... I was challenged on when life started. The above is just logical reasoning .... so when DOES human life start? I had to think on it, I talked about it, a lot, debated it, a lot.

I came to the only conclusion I could. When a pregnancy begins, there HAS to be a living human unborn there. If there isn't, there isn't a pregnancy. It truly is that simple.

 

 

Now,  a person might be in favor of ending that abortion but its impossible to get around what the procedure of abortion does. It kills the unborn which ends the pregnancy. It doesn't leave the unborn alive - if an abortion is botched and the unborn is alive, then there is STILL a pregnancy, the goal of the abortion failed.

 

does that make sense? It wasn't like I was all moral and ethical soul searching, it was a part of a process of challenging things I believed in and didn't.  My father in law challenged me on this one issue.

 

I don't agree with most  of it, but I do appreciate you spelling it out in a thoughtful response. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Going to need to reasons for the miscarriage to play this game.  But I suspect it would be like a car crash.  Some are accidents without charges and some are due to negligence and carry charges.

Another hypothetical.  If a man beats a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage is that just an assault situation?  Or carry additional charges?  Like you, being 100% genuine here and don't know the answer to my own question.  I've always assumed it would be additional charges.

kill a woman's unborn baby and you're going to be charged

http://www.christian-attorney.net/laws_protection_unborn_child_abortion.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, badmojo1006 said:

I don't agree with most  of it, but I do appreciate you spelling it out in a thoughtful response. 

if you can logically step me through how I'm wrong, I'm all ears

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:
13 minutes ago, adonis said:

So if life begins at conception, and at conception that fertilized egg deserves every protection under the law, why is a mother who miscarries not guilty of involuntary manslaughter?

100% genuine question.  If her body was responsible for the death of another live being, fully protected by our laws, why shouldn't she be guilty?

Going to need to reasons for the miscarriage to play this game.  But I suspect it would be like a car crash.  Some are accidents without charges and some are due to negligence and carry charges.

What if the mother is obese?  It's well known that obesity is a major risk factor not only for infertility, but for miscarriage.

What about drinking?  A mother drinks a ton before she knows she's pregnant, miscarries.  Involuntary manslaughter.

What if she smokes?

And for all who believe life starts at conception, no distinction to be made from a fertilized egg and a grown person, why don't more folks have funerals for miscarriages at a couple weeks?  Seems inconsistent.

And what about anything the mother might do while pregnant that causes disorders in the child?  Can she be held criminally liable for not taking vitamins proven to prevent certain kinds of disorders?  Should not this be consider child abuse?

What about just not taking care of herself?  Could that be child neglect?

I mean folks...I truly am curious what your answers are to these questions, but the clear conclusion is that you can't treat a fertilized egg as if it's a human being with all the rights attached.  Because if you did, being a mother would be a criminally fraught situation where anything but perfect behavior could be criminally chargeable offenses.  When you take this to its logical conclusion, that's where you end up.

Feel free to point out where i'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:
17 minutes ago, adonis said:

So if life begins at conception, and at conception that fertilized egg deserves every protection under the law, why is a mother who miscarries not guilty of involuntary manslaughter?

100% genuine question.  If her body was responsible for the death of another live being, fully protected by our laws, why shouldn't she be guilty?

miscarriages is a natural part of pregnancy - is a chicken responsible for a chick that cannot make it out of the egg and dies with the shell pipped ?

a miscarriage is an unborn baby dying - its tragic, is very hard on the mother, hard on the father ..... the physical and mental aspects carry on for weeks and months

its not a conscious decision of the mother to have the unborn die - there are a lot of reasons for miscarriages, nobody ever really knows why they occur because it's not studied. Did my wife eat wrong when we lost our 2nd child? was it chromosomal / DNA issues?  was it a physical problem ? I mean no one knows, right ?

Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage.

It's not always hard on the mother and father.  In fact, sometimes it happens and no one knows.  Sometimes folks are relieved.

But in ever case, there's a death of a human, in your eyes.  

Consider from your perspective how many fertilizations there are every year.  These pose the biggest threats to human life out there.  Shouldn't we be focusing more efforts on criminalizing bad behavior by mothers who are putting their babies, these fertilized eggs, at risk due to poor personal decisions about health, drinking, food, exercise, lack of nutrition, taking vitamins?

These are millions and millions of fertilizations happening, and all of these babies are at risk, right?  I mean...these mothers, many of whom aren't doing what they need to do to ensure the proper survival of these children, these babies, these fertilized eggs...they're putting lives at risk right?  Lives that are every bit as valuable as adult lives right?  Full of potential?

If there's no difference between a fertilized egg and an adult in terms of human life and the expectation of protection, we really should be criminalizing a ton of things child-bearing women are doing to their bodies, and be more proactive about testing for pregnancy in the off chance that they're pregnant and don't know it and therefore are doing things that could be killing a life.

This whole preceding was written from the perspective that life begins at conception.  It's a horror story, when taken to its logical conclusion, for women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, adonis said:

What if the mother is obese?  It's well known that obesity is a major risk factor not only for infertility, but for miscarriage.

What about drinking?  A mother drinks a ton before she knows she's pregnant, miscarries.  Involuntary manslaughter.

What if she smokes?

And for all who believe life starts at conception, no distinction to be made from a fertilized egg and a grown person, why don't more folks have funerals for miscarriages at a couple weeks?  Seems inconsistent.

And what about anything the mother might do while pregnant that causes disorders in the child?  Can she be held criminally liable for not taking vitamins proven to prevent certain kinds of disorders?  Should not this be consider child abuse?

What about just not taking care of herself?  Could that be child neglect?

I mean folks...I truly am curious what your answers are to these questions, but the clear conclusion is that you can't treat a fertilized egg as if it's a human being with all the rights attached.  Because if you did, being a mother would be a criminally fraught situation where anything but perfect behavior could be criminally chargeable offenses.  When you take this to its logical conclusion, that's where you end up.

Feel free to point out where i'm wrong.

Not inconsistent at all

Tell me, what are women told who are pregnant? Don't smoke, don't drink alcohol .... don't do a LOT of things. Why ? if there is not a living human unborn there, it wouldn't make any difference would it? If it wasn't alive, smoking or drinking or whatever would impact the unborn at all would it ?

When do doctors start women on medicine or vitamins etc when they're pregnant? Why would they do that so early on if its not a living human baby ?

All the things you listed impact a pregnancy, absolutely because its a living unborn baby !

Should a woman be prosecuted if there is a miscarriage and she's proven that he neglect of the pregnancy is the cause? That's a State issue and right now,

at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization")

so you see, there ARE fetal protection laws

 

So you don't think a women who abuses her body and causes death to the unborn should be charged with the death of the unborn right? if that same unborn is killed by her husband who punched her in the stomach he shouldn't either right ?Same unborn baby ... either its killed or it isn't, right?

 

What you want me to say is that the women should be charged. No, its far from that simple. What IS simple, is that in every example you're suggesting, there is a living human baby there. To go to a clinic and have it killed because its an inconvenience shouldn't be legal. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, adonis said:

This whole preceding was written from the perspective that life begins at conception.  It's a horror story, when taken to its logical conclusion, for women.

lets focus on stopping the 850,000 - 1,000,000 babies being killed because they're an inconvenience ..... there already is a focus on the health of women who are pregnant. Have you no children adonis ? do you not remember all the dr visits, prenatal care, medicine, vitamins, healthy eating and exercise consultations etc?

health of pregnancy is a big focus - has been for a long time because hey, a innocent unborn life is right there in the womb and protecting it and the mother's health is very important

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stealthycat said:
57 minutes ago, adonis said:

This whole preceding was written from the perspective that life begins at conception.  It's a horror story, when taken to its logical conclusion, for women.

lets focus on stopping the 850,000 - 1,000,000 babies being killed because they're an inconvenience ..... there already is a focus on the health of women who are pregnant. Have you no children adonis ? do you not remember all the dr visits, prenatal care, medicine, vitamins, healthy eating and exercise consultations etc?

health of pregnancy is a big focus - has been for a long time because hey, a innocent unborn life is right there in the womb and protecting it and the mother's health is very important

You continue to ignore my points.

My point is whether action or inaction by pregnant women can be criminalized if they lead to the death of an unborn child, with the child being defined as being present at fertilization?

Should we criminalize a woman's behavior that results in damaged children and or early death of a fertilized egg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

I started to understand more about having opinions and idea on things was one thing .... having a foundation in which they are rooted is another

Like I was saying above

we almost all agree that killing a 1 minute old born baby is killing an life, right? unacceptable

I think we almost all agree partial birth abortion is unacceptable too - that's obviously the same living baby, right ?

well, back up 4 or 8  weeks from that moment and that same living baby could have been removed from the womb .... viable albeit it smaller than 100% developed and ready to be born, but a living human baby right ?

I think almost everyone see's the above as true.

 

 

That's the medical consensus and why abortions aren't allowed after 20 to 24 weeks, depending on what state you are in.   No need to rethink it, the medial community already has it figured out for you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, adonis said:

You continue to ignore my points.

You appear new to Stealthy. Don't worry. Sooner or later he'll end on your ignore list also.

For the sake of the rest of us, please make it sooner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, msommer said:
1 hour ago, adonis said:

You continue to ignore my points.

You appear new to Stealthy. Don't worry. Sooner or later he'll end on your ignore list also.

For the sake of the rest of us, please make it sooner

Well I'm truly curious as to his/her answer.

My questions are reasonable, and I welcome a reply to my specific questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, adonis said:

Well I'm truly curious as to his/her answer.

My questions are reasonable, and I welcome a reply to my specific questions.

Good luck!

Narrator: Adonis waited in vain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, adonis said:

You continue to ignore my points.

My point is whether action or inaction by pregnant women can be criminalized if they lead to the death of an unborn child, with the child being defined as being present at fertilization?

Should we criminalize a woman's behavior that results in damaged children and or early death of a fertilized egg?

not ignoring

you are trying to equate unintentional with intentional - if you ask if a woman 22 weeks pregnant goes on a drinking binge with the goal of killing her unborn baby? yes i think the is justification for charges of some kind, not unlike if a man punched her and killed the same unborn child

you are trying to equate a very obese woman having a miscarriage with a woman going to a clinic to have her unborn baby killed because its inconvenient

you do see the monster differences?

I asked and you ignored - 

So you don't think a women who abuses her body and causes death to the unborn should be charged with the death of the unborn right? if that same unborn is killed by her husband who punched her in the stomach he shouldn't either right ?Same unborn baby ... either its killed or it isn't, right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, msommer said:

Sooner or later he'll end on your ignore list also.

I'll never understand the ignore list ........... to me, that's a person desperate to not understand the views of others, which is one step towards unacceptance, intolerance and eventually, hate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tonydead said:

That's the medical consensus and why abortions aren't allowed after 20 to 24 weeks, depending on what state you are in.   No need to rethink it, the medial community already has it figured out for you.  

lets say 20 weeks ............ and you know down to the second when the pregnancy began ... that's when life begins, right ?

so .... 1 minute before that, it wasn't alive? something magically happened and made something not alive come alive ?

like a transformer all - spark ?

not only that ... if it wasn't alive, there wasn't a pregnancy anyway, the woman's body doesn't progress a pregnancy without an unborn child that's alive .... if its dead, that's a miscarriage or abortion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, adonis said:

Well I'm truly curious as to his/her answer.

his/her ?

you don't know by now I'm a man ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I'll never understand the ignore list ........... to me, that's a person desperate to not understand the views of others, which is one step towards unacceptance, intolerance and eventually, hate

That seems like an extreme reaction to someone using the ignore function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

lets say 20 weeks ............ and you know down to the second when the pregnancy began ... that's when life begins, right ?

so .... 1 minute before that, it wasn't alive? something magically happened and made something not alive come alive ?

Nothing magical happens when we turn 18 that allows us to vote or at 21 that allows us to drink. We just weigh the various considerations and pick an age.  Same with abortion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zoonation said:

I find it amusing that men think they have any say on what a woman decides will go on in her own body.

If men gave birth there would be an abortion clinic on every corner

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stealthycat said:
5 hours ago, adonis said:

You continue to ignore my points.

My point is whether action or inaction by pregnant women can be criminalized if they lead to the death of an unborn child, with the child being defined as being present at fertilization?

Should we criminalize a woman's behavior that results in damaged children and or early death of a fertilized egg?

not ignoring

you are trying to equate unintentional with intentional - if you ask if a woman 22 weeks pregnant goes on a drinking binge with the goal of killing her unborn baby? yes i think the is justification for charges of some kind, not unlike if a man punched her and killed the same unborn child

you are trying to equate a very obese woman having a miscarriage with a woman going to a clinic to have her unborn baby killed because its inconvenient

you do see the monster differences?

I asked and you ignored - 

So you don't think a women who abuses her body and causes death to the unborn should be charged with the death of the unborn right? if that same unborn is killed by her husband who punched her in the stomach he shouldn't either right ?Same unborn baby ... either its killed or it isn't, right?

This feels somewhat like trying to hit a target on the back of a butterfly.

The point I'm making is straightforward.

If life begins at conception, and at that point the "unborn child" deserves all the rights as a fully born child, then there are tons of ways a woman could be convicted of murder or involuntary manslaughter or abuse or neglect if she does or doesn't do certain things while pregnant.

This extends to things as simple as exercising, taking vitamins, but also could extend to other situations:

- What if a woman continually has miscarriages, yet continues to try despite the odds being incredibly low of keeping the baby?  Shouldn't this woman be stopped from killing all these innocent children?  Should the government have an interest in preventing women who are unlikely to carry a baby to term from getting pregnant for fear of resulting in lots of miscarriages?

- What if a woman miscarries after 2 weeks, and she had been drinking nightly, not in excess, but enough to pose a risk to the baby.  Oh, and she jumped on a trampoline and ran fast and hit a wall. Should she be charged with a crime of any kind?

There are millions of scenarios one could imagine where women do or don't do certain things after fertilization of their egg, where the consequences of their actions can result in miscarriage, deformities, or stillbirths.  With the belief system you have about the start of life and assignment of rights, I see no way around a woman, under your system of values, having a baby being one of the most legally risky things they could ever do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

or

ban abortions, stop killing unborn and try to get people to stop getting knocked up when they don't want to be pregnant (and I mean both the men and women equally responsible for the pregnancy)

 

 

How do you propose we do this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Nothing magical happens when we turn 18 that allows us to vote or at 21 that allows us to drink. We just weigh the various considerations and pick an age.  Same with abortion

say what ?

we're not talking about a restriction of age to vote, we're talking about a living human being and life and death

look, a pregnancy is a living human female and a living unborn baby, an abortion kills that unborn and stops the pregnancy - it cannot be any other way. If the unborn wasn't alive, there would be no pregnancy, no reason for an abortion

you cannot pick that - its absolute fact of biology

now, you CAN say that an unborn baby has no value, that its life isn't meaningful and that the woman can have it killed and if that doesn't bother you, then at least you're being honest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SHIZNITTTT said:

God forbid you ever have to walk a mile in her shoes 

says all the female little unborn babies killed in the womb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, adonis said:

This feels somewhat like trying to hit a target on the back of a butterfly.

The point I'm making is straightforward.

If life begins at conception, and at that point the "unborn child" deserves all the rights as a fully born child, then there are tons of ways a woman could be convicted of murder or involuntary manslaughter or abuse or neglect if she does or doesn't do certain things while pregnant.

This extends to things as simple as exercising, taking vitamins, but also could extend to other situations:

- What if a woman continually has miscarriages, yet continues to try despite the odds being incredibly low of keeping the baby?  Shouldn't this woman be stopped from killing all these innocent children?  Should the government have an interest in preventing women who are unlikely to carry a baby to term from getting pregnant for fear of resulting in lots of miscarriages?

- What if a woman miscarries after 2 weeks, and she had been drinking nightly, not in excess, but enough to pose a risk to the baby.  Oh, and she jumped on a trampoline and ran fast and hit a wall. Should she be charged with a crime of any kind?

There are millions of scenarios one could imagine where women do or don't do certain things after fertilization of their egg, where the consequences of their actions can result in miscarriage, deformities, or stillbirths.  With the belief system you have about the start of life and assignment of rights, I see no way around a woman, under your system of values, having a baby being one of the most legally risky things they could ever do.

again, none of what you're saying is anything remotely like walking into an abortion clinic and saying I want you to kill my unborn baby to end this pregnancy

is it ?

no, nothing like that at all

you are right, you can dream up a million scenario's ....... you're doing a good job of it, but until you make apples to apples comparisons then I don't know what to tell you. If a woman is drinking to kill the unborn, drugging to kill the unborn, jumping on a trampoline or running with the goal of killing that unborn then yes, there very well could be consequences and states that have the fetal protection laws could pursue it. I'd not disagree either, what a horrible thing to do, trying to kill an unborn baby like that.

you've still not answered my question ... why ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

again, none of what you're saying is anything remotely like walking into an abortion clinic and saying I want you to kill my unborn baby to end this pregnancy

is it ?

no, nothing like that at all

you are right, you can dream up a million scenario's ....... you're doing a good job of it, but until you make apples to apples comparisons then I don't know what to tell you. If a woman is drinking to kill the unborn, drugging to kill the unborn, jumping on a trampoline or running with the goal of killing that unborn then yes, there very well could be consequences and states that have the fetal protection laws could pursue it. I'd not disagree either, what a horrible thing to do, trying to kill an unborn baby like that.

you've still not answered my question ... why ?

 

I haven't answered your question because I've been too busy trying to get you to focus on answering mine.  And you're deflecting.  

I'm not talking about abortion clinics.  I'm talking about your stance on when life begins, and the consequences of that for women.

I've been trying to get you to answer questions about, under your premise that life begins at fertilization, and full rights begin then, what a hellscape that presents for women.  You grudgingly admit that, yes, in some cases women could be criminally liable for how they live their lives after being pregnant.  This could extend to intentional or unintentional harm or neglect for the baby.  This simply isn't a tenable solution for women.

What's your question?  I've been avoiding your question because I've been trying to focus on getting you to answer mine from my first post to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you think a women who abuses her body and causes death to the unborn should be charged with the death of the unborn ?

I'm taking it that you don't, correct ?

if that same unborn is killed by her husband who punched her in the stomach he shouldn't either right ?Same unborn baby ... either its killed or it isn't, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

do you think a women who abuses her body and causes death to the unborn should be charged with the death of the unborn ?

I'm taking it that you don't, correct ?

if that same unborn is killed by her husband who punched her in the stomach he shouldn't either right ?Same unborn baby ... either its killed or it isn't, right?

My answer is that it depends on a lot of circumstances.  How far along the pregnancy is, the wishes of the mother, etc.

But most of this revolves around the mothers disposition to the child.  If the mother wants the baby, or to be pregnant, that's one deal, if she doesn't, that's another.  Also depends on the age of the child/baby/fetus/whatever.  The older the baby gets, the more it matters to me.

There's no hard and fast rule that after 20 weeks things matter, but at 19 and 5 days, it's no holds barred.  It's a gray area where we as a society have to make choices about what to accept.  It's tough.  They're hard decisions.

But there are many implications with life beginning at conception and all rights being afforded a fertilized egg that don't get enough serious consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame.  This one ridiculous decision has forever warped the Supreme Court nomination process.

The Senate cares more about questioning about the "right" to abortion more than they care about any real constitutional issue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, adonis said:

My answer is that it depends on a lot of circumstances.  How far along the pregnancy is, the wishes of the mother, etc.

But most of this revolves around the mothers disposition to the child.  If the mother wants the baby, or to be pregnant, that's one deal, if she doesn't, that's another.  Also depends on the age of the child/baby/fetus/whatever.  The older the baby gets, the more it matters to me.

There's no hard and fast rule that after 20 weeks things matter, but at 19 and 5 days, it's no holds barred.  It's a gray area where we as a society have to make choices about what to accept.  It's tough.  They're hard decisions.

But there are many implications with life beginning at conception and all rights being afforded a fertilized egg that don't get enough serious consideration

That's very odd

How a woman views an unborn decides if its alive or not. That makes no logical sense to me. The unborn baby IS alive, it has to be or there is no pregnancy. You can't argue that, its simple biology. If a woman decides is its alive or not, then a pregnant woman could just decide its not alive, the pregnancy would end and there would be no need for an abortion at all if she didn't want the child, right? just wish it away

I guess what you're saying then maybe is that a woman decides the value of life? if that's true, why not allow a woman to decide that after birth?

Another odd thing to me about the above, is the older the baby gets (can't get older if it isn't alive and growing) the more important it is. Why? Does the life of a 7 year old matter more than the life of a 3 year old ?

Roe vs Wade will be overturned. it might be struck down and sent to States to vote on, where it should be IMO. Everyone knows an unborn baby is a living human. Its protected in every way by every law and ruling that we have in the United States from fetal protection laws to the requirements/acknowledgemetns of medical community and insurance companies.

Can you imagine a pregnant woman with complications going to a hospital and them denying here because the staff doesn't believe the unborn is a living human? Prenatal surgeries are not uncommon, do you think they are doing surgeries on not alive unborn babies? no, the unborn babies are alive, that's why there is a pregnancy and why there is a surgery, in an effort to save the live of the unborn.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Soonerman said:

It's a shame.  This one ridiculous decision has forever warped the Supreme Court nomination process.

The Senate cares more about questioning about the "right" to abortion more than they care about any real constitutional issue.

Roe should have never been determined the way it was. You're right about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stealthycat said:
12 hours ago, adonis said:

 

That's very odd

How a woman views an unborn decides if its alive or not. That makes no logical sense to me. The unborn baby IS alive, it has to be or there is no pregnancy. You can't argue that, its simple biology. If a woman decides is its alive or not, then a pregnant woman could just decide its not alive, the pregnancy would end and there would be no need for an abortion at all if she didn't want the child, right? just wish it away

I guess what you're saying then maybe is that a woman decides the value of life? if that's true, why not allow a woman to decide that after birth?

Another odd thing to me about the above, is the older the baby gets (can't get older if it isn't alive and growing) the more important it is. Why? Does the life of a 7 year old matter more than the life of a 3 year old ?

Roe vs Wade will be overturned. it might be struck down and sent to States to vote on, where it should be IMO. Everyone knows an unborn baby is a living human. Its protected in every way by every law and ruling that we have in the United States from fetal protection laws to the requirements/acknowledgemetns of medical community and insurance companies.

Can you imagine a pregnant woman with complications going to a hospital and them denying here because the staff doesn't believe the unborn is a living human? Prenatal surgeries are not uncommon, do you think they are doing surgeries on not alive unborn babies? no, the unborn babies are alive, that's why there is a pregnancy and why there is a surgery, in an effort to save the live of the unborn.

Sperm is alive.  Eggs are alive.  There's not a moment where two inanimate things come together to form life at fertilization.  It's all along a continuum.  You just put down an arbitrary line and say everything from here on out matters.

I recognize that it's an arbitrarily drawn line, recognize the drawbacks of drawing such a line at conception, and respect the difficult position it puts women in.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, adonis said:

Roe vs Wade will be overturned. it might be struck down and sent to States to vote on, where it should be IMO. Everyone knows an unborn baby is a living human. Its protected in every way by every law and ruling that we have in the United States from fetal protection laws to the requirements/acknowledgemetns of medical community and insurance companies.

And also, everyone doesn't know this.  Many folks disagree, and the law doesn't treat it this way so long as you consider a "living human" anything from fertilization onward.  I wish I could get you to stay on a single topic so I can point out what I see as flaws in this logic, but you won't stay on point.  I really don't mind answering whatever questions you have for me in response, so long as you're actually engaging me on what I'm asking or saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, adonis said:

Sperm is alive.  Eggs are alive.  There's not a moment where two inanimate things come together to form life at fertilization.  It's all along a continuum.  You just put down an arbitrary line and say everything from here on out matters.

I recognize that it's an arbitrarily drawn line, recognize the drawbacks of drawing such a line at conception, and respect the difficult position it puts women in.

Sperm is alive.  Eggs are alive. 

 

As I understand biology the above each have 1/2 of what it takes to make a living human being. Am I wrong ? neither of the above are a singular individual human genome are they ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, adonis said:

And also, everyone doesn't know this.  Many folks disagree, and the law doesn't treat it this way so long as you consider a "living human" anything from fertilization onward.  I wish I could get you to stay on a single topic so I can point out what I see as flaws in this logic, but you won't stay on point.  I really don't mind answering whatever questions you have for me in response, so long as you're actually engaging me on what I'm asking or saying.

not a single person can argue that a pregnant woman has a non-living unborn human involved in that pregnancy .......  there cannot be a pregnancy if that unborn isn't alive

again, its the entire concept of abortion - kill the unborn and end the pregnancy, that's the procedure and sometimes its botched and the unborn doesn't die and the pregnancy continues ..... because the unborn didn't die

now, you can call it a zygote, blastocyst, fetus, baby, kitten, or whatever you want to label that stage of human life .... but if it isn't alive, there is no pregnancy

period

 

If everyone doesn't understand that then I think they simply don't want to. Its very plain and easy. if a pregnant woman does not have a living human baby in the womb then she isn't pregnant, right ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, joffer said:

If men gave birth there would be an abortion clinic on every corner

I’d really prefer a taco truck. As I was promised earlier. 

Edited by timschochet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

Sperm is alive.  Eggs are alive. 

 

As I understand biology the above each have 1/2 of what it takes to make a living human being. Am I wrong ? neither of the above are a singular individual human genome are they ?

 

Yes, you are wrong.  They also need the mother to gestate the resulting zygote, then embryo, then fetus.

I don't care what you think of abortion, but any attempt to characterize the product of fertilization that ignores the necessity of a cooperative women prior to viability is misleading (and telling).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Yes, you are wrong.  They also need the mother to gestate the resulting zygote, then embryo, then fetus.

I don't care what you think of abortion, but any attempt to characterize the product of fertilization that ignores the necessity of a cooperative women prior to viability is misleading (and telling).

as I said, when a pregnancy exists ..... I never said anything different did I ?  you can talk about before a pregnancy and we can discuss that if you'd like ..... but a woman doesn't have an abortion before a pregnancy begins does she ??

and no, I'm not wrong, a single human cell can be called  "live" but its not a living human being

a pregnant woman has an unborn living child in the womb with all but the most rare of abnormal pregnancies ......... an abortion is the procedure to kill the unborn and end the pregnancy

nobody can argue that the above isn't true

now, you can argue that the unborn's life doesn't have value, that killing it should be the right of the mother to have it done .............  but to argue it isn't alive fails, every time

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:
29 minutes ago, adonis said:

And also, everyone doesn't know this.  Many folks disagree, and the law doesn't treat it this way so long as you consider a "living human" anything from fertilization onward.  I wish I could get you to stay on a single topic so I can point out what I see as flaws in this logic, but you won't stay on point.  I really don't mind answering whatever questions you have for me in response, so long as you're actually engaging me on what I'm asking or saying.

not a single person can argue that a pregnant woman has a non-living unborn human involved in that pregnancy .......  there cannot be a pregnancy if that unborn isn't alive

again, its the entire concept of abortion - kill the unborn and end the pregnancy, that's the procedure and sometimes its botched and the unborn doesn't die and the pregnancy continues ..... because the unborn didn't die

now, you can call it a zygote, blastocyst, fetus, baby, kitten, or whatever you want to label that stage of human life .... but if it isn't alive, there is no pregnancy

period

 

If everyone doesn't understand that then I think they simply don't want to. Its very plain and easy. if a pregnant woman does not have a living human baby in the womb then she isn't pregnant, right ?

There is life there, but it's not a human in any sense of the word human.

There is life in your #### and you kill life every time you ejaculate...by the millions.  Every time a woman menstruates without fertilization, life is ended.  Life continues and ends every moment of every day in our bodies, through actions we take and those we don't that are natural.

Think about pancakes.  You take an egg, flour, sugar, salt, milk, and anything else you'd like to put in there.  You mix it all together.  All the ingredients are there right?  Could consider this "fertilization" of pancakes.  It's a batter.  But no sane person would call that batter a pancake.  When properly cooked, it might be a pancake. But it's not one just because the ingredients come together.  It's certainly something...but calling it a pancake is not correct.

Similarly, when sperm and egg come together in fertilization, what results is not a "living human".  Whatever it is is alive, it's moving towards being human if all conditions are correct for that to happen, but it's not a "living human" anymore than pancake batter is a pancake.

Take the pancake the moment you put it in the skillet.  It's still runny, it's not yet cooked.  Is it a pancake the MOMENT you put it in the pan?  Of course not.  It's only a pancake when it's properly cooked.

Chefs and customers could argue about when the exact moment pancake batter and all the ingredients come together to form a pancake.  They can legislate protection on the status of pancakes based on intenral temerature, based on the consistency of the cooked batter...some believe it's a pancake when there's no batter remaining and all fluffy pancake.  Others may like a little goo.  It's a fierce battle.  

But to make arbitrary distinctions about when it's a pancake and when it's not, seems rather silly doesn't it?  But that's precisely what we're doing with babies.  When is a baby a human life?  Is it when it's all still just batter?  Does there have to be a certain amount of development present for us to call it a human life?  What about a brain, a heartbeat, lungs?  All arbitrary...but similar to the pancake, the closer you get to the final pancake product, the more reasonable it is to call it a pancake.  Same thing with human life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, adonis said:

There is life there, but it's not a human in any sense of the word human.

There is life in your #### and you kill life every time you ejaculate...by the millions.  Every time a woman menstruates without fertilization, life is ended.  Life continues and ends every moment of every day in our bodies, through actions we take and those we don't that are natural.

Think about pancakes.  You take an egg, flour, sugar, salt, milk, and anything else you'd like to put in there.  You mix it all together.  All the ingredients are there right?  Could consider this "fertilization" of pancakes.  It's a batter.  But no sane person would call that batter a pancake.  When properly cooked, it might be a pancake. But it's not one just because the ingredients come together.  It's certainly something...but calling it a pancake is not correct.

Similarly, when sperm and egg come together in fertilization, what results is not a "living human".  Whatever it is is alive, it's moving towards being human if all conditions are correct for that to happen, but it's not a "living human" anymore than pancake batter is a pancake.

Take the pancake the moment you put it in the skillet.  It's still runny, it's not yet cooked.  Is it a pancake the MOMENT you put it in the pan?  Of course not.  It's only a pancake when it's properly cooked.

Chefs and customers could argue about when the exact moment pancake batter and all the ingredients come together to form a pancake.  They can legislate protection on the status of pancakes based on intenral temerature, based on the consistency of the cooked batter...some believe it's a pancake when there's no batter remaining and all fluffy pancake.  Others may like a little goo.  It's a fierce battle.  

But to make arbitrary distinctions about when it's a pancake and when it's not, seems rather silly doesn't it?  But that's precisely what we're doing with babies.  When is a baby a human life?  Is it when it's all still just batter?  Does there have to be a certain amount of development present for us to call it a human life?  What about a brain, a heartbeat, lungs?  All arbitrary...but similar to the pancake, the closer you get to the final pancake product, the more reasonable it is to call it a pancake.  Same thing with human life.

 

So its human, and its alive ............  if its NOT human, they you have something that needs to be an X-Files episode. If its not alive, there is no pregnancy

it really is that simple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:
38 minutes ago, adonis said:

And also, everyone doesn't know this.  Many folks disagree, and the law doesn't treat it this way so long as you consider a "living human" anything from fertilization onward.  I wish I could get you to stay on a single topic so I can point out what I see as flaws in this logic, but you won't stay on point.  I really don't mind answering whatever questions you have for me in response, so long as you're actually engaging me on what I'm asking or saying.

not a single person can argue that a pregnant woman has a non-living unborn human involved in that pregnancy .......  there cannot be a pregnancy if that unborn isn't alive

You're missing my point.  I"m not saying there's not something "living" in there.  What i'm saying is that it's not a "living human".

If everyone believed that at fertilization there was a "living human" inside a woman, things would be ENTIRELY DIFFERENT in how we treat women who are of childbearing years.

Every period would be fraught with danger because there's a possibility that if she's sexually active, she could be killing a "living human".  And if she's killing a living human, whether on purpose or not, through negligence or active steps...there should be consequences.  What a terrifying existence that would be for women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.