Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 2/6/2019 4:42:00 PM (view original):
One thing we should ALL agree on: If you are anti abortion, you better be in love with birth control.

For the life of me I cannot understand why some pro lifers hate birth control.

I don't think anyone but some catholics hate birth control.

It's mostly catholic evangelicals, far righters, and public speakers at anti-abortion workshops.

Posted by tangplay on 2/6/2019 4:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:13:00 PM (view original):
KO, you agree that there are at least some situations where abortion should be allowed, right?

If I concede that the 1% of abortions that pose a legitimate threat on the mother's life are justified, will you concede that the 99% of the other abortions aren't?

No.

I'm trying to see where you draw your line. It's hard to take your claim that abortion is murder seriously if you think it's OK in some situations.

I think abortion is wrong in all cases. If a woman has uterine cancer and the baby dies during treatment, that is quite tragic but it is different than abortion.

So, just to be clear, if you had it your way, there is no situation where you would allow a legal abortion?

Yep.

Oh, but what about rape? Not the baby's fault. Find the rapist and cut off his genitals.

Yeah but that doesn't solve for the fact that you have a pregnant rape victim.

I understand if the mother doesn't want to keep the child. Adoption is the option for this. Don't murder the baby because of it.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:36:00 PM (view original):
Viability is a weak argument. The guy in a coma is not viable. You have already admitted he is a person. The fetus is every bit as "viable" as the guy in the coma.

The guy in the coma is not inside someone else.

This is irrelevant when you are talking about the BABY'S life. It did not ask to be put there. It should not be put to death because it is an inconvenience.

It's VERY relevant. It's the crux of the argument. The fact that the fetus didn't ask to be there doesn't change the fact that it is relying on position inside someone else's body for survival.

Not the baby's fault. The baby shouldn't be killed because it is an inconvenience for 9 months.

Nothing is being decided based on fault. Fault is irrelevant. The decision is whose preference gets priority. The woman or the fetus living inside the woman?

Life always takes priority. If you remember, it is one of our rights as Americans. It has been stripped away from millions upon millions due to a corrupt court ruling, but life always takes precedence.

Fetuses aren't separate people. They don't have the same rights as Americans.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:13:00 PM (view original):
KO, you agree that there are at least some situations where abortion should be allowed, right?

If I concede that the 1% of abortions that pose a legitimate threat on the mother's life are justified, will you concede that the 99% of the other abortions aren't?

No.

I'm trying to see where you draw your line. It's hard to take your claim that abortion is murder seriously if you think it's OK in some situations.

I think abortion is wrong in all cases. If a woman has uterine cancer and the baby dies during treatment, that is quite tragic but it is different than abortion.

So, just to be clear, if you had it your way, there is no situation where you would allow a legal abortion?

Yep.

Oh, but what about rape? Not the baby's fault. Find the rapist and cut off his genitals.

Cutting off his genitals doesn't really solve that problem.

What if there's an accidental pregnancy and, due to a physical issue, the woman cannot safely carry a baby to term? OK with abortion then?

I love have the pro-abortion side picks the most extreme, rare cases to justify making abortion legal in all cases. You are taking something that is the case in less than 1% of all abortions as your justification.

Literally not what I'm doing. I've made my position very clear. I think the person that gets to decide if they grow another person inside them is the mother. No one else.

I'm just looking for your line. Because if you move off of "abortion is murder no exceptions," to something reasonable like "abortion can be allowed if X," then we can actually discuss this.

No we couldn't. You would still be stuck on the woman has the right to choose death for the baby because it's her body. Like I said, that is almost identical to the pro-slavery argument.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 2/6/2019 4:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:13:00 PM (view original):
KO, you agree that there are at least some situations where abortion should be allowed, right?

If I concede that the 1% of abortions that pose a legitimate threat on the mother's life are justified, will you concede that the 99% of the other abortions aren't?

No.

I'm trying to see where you draw your line. It's hard to take your claim that abortion is murder seriously if you think it's OK in some situations.

I think abortion is wrong in all cases. If a woman has uterine cancer and the baby dies during treatment, that is quite tragic but it is different than abortion.

So, just to be clear, if you had it your way, there is no situation where you would allow a legal abortion?

Yep.

Oh, but what about rape? Not the baby's fault. Find the rapist and cut off his genitals.

Yeah but that doesn't solve for the fact that you have a pregnant rape victim.

I understand if the mother doesn't want to keep the child. Adoption is the option for this. Don't murder the baby because of it.

As someone who belonged in a family who had to adopt a foster child we didn't want because no one else wanted that child, I don't trust adoption as an alternative. You are punishing a rape victim for something that isn' t their fault. I understand the argument for consential sex, but not for rape.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:36:00 PM (view original):
Viability is a weak argument. The guy in a coma is not viable. You have already admitted he is a person. The fetus is every bit as "viable" as the guy in the coma.

The guy in the coma is not inside someone else.

This is irrelevant when you are talking about the BABY'S life. It did not ask to be put there. It should not be put to death because it is an inconvenience.

It's VERY relevant. It's the crux of the argument. The fact that the fetus didn't ask to be there doesn't change the fact that it is relying on position inside someone else's body for survival.

Not the baby's fault. The baby shouldn't be killed because it is an inconvenience for 9 months.

Nothing is being decided based on fault. Fault is irrelevant. The decision is whose preference gets priority. The woman or the fetus living inside the woman?

Life always takes priority. If you remember, it is one of our rights as Americans. It has been stripped away from millions upon millions due to a corrupt court ruling, but life always takes precedence.

Fetuses aren't separate people. They don't have the same rights as Americans.

With all due respect, this is just dumb. You have children. I am positive that you have seen an ultrasound. They are undoubtedly separate people. Would you like me to post some pictures to remind you.

Posted by tangplay on 2/6/2019 4:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 2/6/2019 4:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:13:00 PM (view original):
KO, you agree that there are at least some situations where abortion should be allowed, right?

If I concede that the 1% of abortions that pose a legitimate threat on the mother's life are justified, will you concede that the 99% of the other abortions aren't?

No.

I'm trying to see where you draw your line. It's hard to take your claim that abortion is murder seriously if you think it's OK in some situations.

I think abortion is wrong in all cases. If a woman has uterine cancer and the baby dies during treatment, that is quite tragic but it is different than abortion.

So, just to be clear, if you had it your way, there is no situation where you would allow a legal abortion?

Yep.

Oh, but what about rape? Not the baby's fault. Find the rapist and cut off his genitals.

Yeah but that doesn't solve for the fact that you have a pregnant rape victim.

I understand if the mother doesn't want to keep the child. Adoption is the option for this. Don't murder the baby because of it.

As someone who belonged in a family who had to adopt a foster child we didn't want because no one else wanted that child, I don't trust adoption as an alternative. You are punishing a rape victim for something that isn' t their fault. I understand the argument for consential sex, but not for rape.

Punish the woman unfairly with 9 months of hardship or punish the baby with death unfairly which is eternal? That is an easy one for me. It's quite tragic for the rape victim and the rapist should be severely punished, but abortion is fatal.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:36:00 PM (view original):
Viability is a weak argument. The guy in a coma is not viable. You have already admitted he is a person. The fetus is every bit as "viable" as the guy in the coma.

The guy in the coma is not inside someone else.

This is irrelevant when you are talking about the BABY'S life. It did not ask to be put there. It should not be put to death because it is an inconvenience.

It's VERY relevant. It's the crux of the argument. The fact that the fetus didn't ask to be there doesn't change the fact that it is relying on position inside someone else's body for survival.

Not the baby's fault. The baby shouldn't be killed because it is an inconvenience for 9 months.

Nothing is being decided based on fault. Fault is irrelevant. The decision is whose preference gets priority. The woman or the fetus living inside the woman?

Life always takes priority. If you remember, it is one of our rights as Americans. It has been stripped away from millions upon millions due to a corrupt court ruling, but life always takes precedence.

Fetuses aren't separate people. They don't have the same rights as Americans.

With all due respect, this is just dumb. You have children. I am positive that you have seen an ultrasound. They are undoubtedly separate people. Would you like me to post some pictures to remind you.

If a fetus can't be separated from the person it is inside of, it can't, by definition, be a separate person.

Once again, that's completely illogical. It is a separate person growing inside of a person.

Maybe this will help you understand. If they were the same person, abortion would be impossible. If they were the same person, you wouldn't be able to kill one without also killing the other. If they were the same person, they would have the exact same DNA. They are obviously two separate people.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 5:03:00 PM (view original):
Once again, that's completely illogical. It is a separate person growing inside of a person.

Maybe this will help you understand. If they were the same person, abortion would be impossible. If they were the same person, you wouldn't be able to kill one without also killing the other. If they were the same person, they would have the exact same DNA. They are obviously two separate people.

If it can't be separated it can't be separate.

Full stop.

I really don't understand how this is so hard for you to grasp. It's really an easy concept. If it couldn't be separated, abortion would be impossible. Please go back and look at some sonograms.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 2/6/2019 4:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 2/6/2019 4:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 4:13:00 PM (view original):
KO, you agree that there are at least some situations where abortion should be allowed, right?

If I concede that the 1% of abortions that pose a legitimate threat on the mother's life are justified, will you concede that the 99% of the other abortions aren't?

No.

I'm trying to see where you draw your line. It's hard to take your claim that abortion is murder seriously if you think it's OK in some situations.

I think abortion is wrong in all cases. If a woman has uterine cancer and the baby dies during treatment, that is quite tragic but it is different than abortion.

So, just to be clear, if you had it your way, there is no situation where you would allow a legal abortion?

Yep.

Oh, but what about rape? Not the baby's fault. Find the rapist and cut off his genitals.

Yeah but that doesn't solve for the fact that you have a pregnant rape victim.

I understand if the mother doesn't want to keep the child. Adoption is the option for this. Don't murder the baby because of it.

As someone who belonged in a family who had to adopt a foster child we didn't want because no one else wanted that child, I don't trust adoption as an alternative. You are punishing a rape victim for something that isn' t their fault. I understand the argument for consential sex, but not for rape.

Punish the woman unfairly with 9 months of hardship or punish the baby with death unfairly which is eternal? That is an easy one for me. It's quite tragic for the rape victim and the rapist should be severely punished, but abortion is fatal.

Nope. In this case I am doing everything possible for the person who has been raped to recover.

And I don't understand how this is so hard for you to grasp. The ability to survive separately is pretty ******* crucial to the argument that someone is a separate person.

The fetus can be removed (and die). It cannot be separated and survive. It's not a separate person.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 5:11:00 PM (view original):
And I don't understand how this is so hard for you to grasp. The ability to survive separately is pretty ******* crucial to the argument that someone is a separate person.

The fetus can be removed (and die). It cannot be separated and survive. It's not a separate person.

You never answered me. If it is week 28 and the fetus can survive then is abortion OK or not?

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/6/2019 5:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 5:11:00 PM (view original):
And I don't understand how this is so hard for you to grasp. The ability to survive separately is pretty ******* crucial to the argument that someone is a separate person.

The fetus can be removed (and die). It cannot be separated and survive. It's not a separate person.

You never answered me. If it is week 28 and the fetus can survive then is abortion OK or not?

It's somewhat irrelevant. Less than 0.10% (not ten percent, one-tenth of a percent) of abortions are performed after 24 weeks and almost all of them were due to fetal anomalies.

No one is having voluntary late-term abortions.