Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Woman's Body Argument for Abortion

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 12:02:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
For people who are pro-choice because it is the woman's body, I have a question:

At what point, if any is the child a "human"?
Can a woman do as she wishes to her body up to, or even past, said point?

If it's her body, then can she still smoke, do drugs, drink, and whatnot while pregnant?
If not, why not?
My work here is, finally, done.
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 12:05:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 12:02:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
For people who are pro-choice because it is the woman's body, I have a question:

At what point, if any is the child a "human"?

When it is viable, meaning that it can sustain life on its own.

Can a woman do as she wishes to her body up to, or even past, said point?

Yes.

If it's her body, then can she still smoke, do drugs, drink, and whatnot while pregnant?

There is legal precedent for a pregnant woman to be taken into custody whose behavior endangers the life of her child -but it's fledgling at best. Generally speaking, though, a woman who would willfully harm her child in vitro should be made not able to reproduce. The same applies to men who impregnate women and then leave them... but hey, that's just my controversial opinion. But of course, if there were proper sex ed in schools and condoms were easier to get ahold of this would be less of a problem... so, there's that to consider.
Tsar of DDO
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 12:16:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 12:02:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
For people who are pro-choice because it is the woman's body, I have a question:

At what point, if any is the child a "human"?

Those few cells after conception are "human"...........biologically speaking. Any human cell..............is human..............biologically speaking.

Can a woman do as she wishes to her body up to, or even past, said point?

1) Yes
2) No
3) I don't know


If it's her body, then can she still smoke, do drugs, drink, and whatnot while pregnant?
If not, why not?

1) Yes, cause its her body
2) No, cause it will result harm to another person
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 12:17:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 12:05:48 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:02:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
For people who are pro-choice because it is the woman's body, I have a question:

At what point, if any is the child a "human"?

When it is viable, meaning that it can sustain life on its own.

Can a woman do as she wishes to her body up to, or even past, said point?

Yes.
Is this yes she can do as she wishes past the age of viability, or yes up to that point?

If it's her body, then can she still smoke, do drugs, drink, and whatnot while pregnant?

There is legal precedent for a pregnant woman to be taken into custody whose behavior endangers the life of her child -but it's fledgling at best. Generally speaking, though, a woman who would willfully harm her child in vitro should be made not able to reproduce. The same applies to men who impregnate women and then leave them... but hey, that's just my controversial opinion. But of course, if there were proper sex ed in schools and condoms were easier to get ahold of this would be less of a problem... so, there's that to consider.

My question is if she should be allowed to do this, since it is her body.
Do you think that a woman should be allowed to drink/smoke/shoot heroin at nine months?
The fact that she is not likely to be a good mother is not the issue here.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 12:18:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 12:16:40 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:02:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
For people who are pro-choice because it is the woman's body, I have a question:

At what point, if any is the child a "human"?

Those few cells after conception are "human"...........biologically speaking. Any human cell..............is human..............biologically speaking.

Can a woman do as she wishes to her body up to, or even past, said point?

1) Yes
2) No
3) I don't know


If it's her body, then can she still smoke, do drugs, drink, and whatnot while pregnant?
If not, why not?

1) Yes, cause its her body
2) No, cause it will result harm to another person

Thank you for that wonderful input ;)
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 12:19:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
For the record, by human, I meant LEGALLY a human. At what point is the child a human/citizen with legal rights...
My work here is, finally, done.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 12:21:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 12:19:12 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
For the record, by human, I meant LEGALLY a human. At what point is the child a human/citizen with legal rights...

I think you mean personhood.

I don't know. But giving person hood to the few cells after conception ? I think that's a bridge to far and frankly the only reason people push that is so they can deny women ANY ABORTION.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 12:21:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 12:17:30 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:05:48 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:02:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
For people who are pro-choice because it is the woman's body, I have a question:

At what point, if any is the child a "human"?

When it is viable, meaning that it can sustain life on its own.

Can a woman do as she wishes to her body up to, or even past, said point?

Yes.
Is this yes she can do as she wishes past the age of viability, or yes up to that point?

Yes, to all of the above. But, once the child is viable -it's a child, and not only her body. Viability is about 22 weeks.


If it's her body, then can she still smoke, do drugs, drink, and whatnot while pregnant?

There is legal precedent for a pregnant woman to be taken into custody whose behavior endangers the life of her child -but it's fledgling at best. Generally speaking, though, a woman who would willfully harm her child in vitro should be made not able to reproduce. The same applies to men who impregnate women and then leave them... but hey, that's just my controversial opinion. But of course, if there were proper sex ed in schools and condoms were easier to get ahold of this would be less of a problem... so, there's that to consider.

My question is if she should be allowed to do this, since it is her body.

I think not, in the same way that I think that men who rape women should be castrated. You cannot use your body to harm another -even it it is logically problematic to both say that, and say that a fetus is not a person until it's viable. The cognitive dissonance doesn't bother me, though.

Do you think that a woman should be allowed to drink/smoke/shoot heroin at nine months?

No.

The fact that she is not likely to be a good mother is not the issue here.

Actually it is, but it's not immediately what we're discussing. So, yeah.
Tsar of DDO
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 12:28:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 12:21:40 AM, YYW wrote:

My question is if she should be allowed to do this, since it is her body.

I think not, in the same way that I think that men who rape women should be castrated. You cannot use your body to harm another -even it it is logically problematic to both say that, and say that a fetus is not a person until it's viable. The cognitive dissonance doesn't bother me, though.

Do you think that a woman should be allowed to drink/smoke/shoot heroin at nine months?

No.

Do you think that abortion should be legal because of the woman's autonomy or for other reasons?

My problem isn't that it's not a person then it is, but the logic of the argument.
If the reason for abortion is because of female autonomy, then isn't the bitter pill to allow them to do as they please with their body period?

Kind of like the intellectually honest approach to those who want abortion banned because it is murder ought to ONLY allow it in cases of mother's health, and say "sucks to be raped". Innocence is innocence after all.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 12:29:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 12:21:36 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:19:12 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
For the record, by human, I meant LEGALLY a human. At what point is the child a human/citizen with legal rights...

I think you mean personhood.

I don't know. But giving person hood to the few cells after conception ? I think that's a bridge to far and frankly the only reason people push that is so they can deny women ANY ABORTION.

I find this whole issue a challenge to be intellectually honest, really.
No matter what side you are on, I think there is a bitter pill one must swallow.
My work here is, finally, done.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 12:31:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 12:29:22 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:21:36 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:19:12 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
For the record, by human, I meant LEGALLY a human. At what point is the child a human/citizen with legal rights...

I think you mean personhood.

I don't know. But giving person hood to the few cells after conception ? I think that's a bridge to far and frankly the only reason people push that is so they can deny women ANY ABORTION.

I find this whole issue a challenge to be intellectually honest, really.
No matter what side you are on, I think there is a bitter pill one must swallow.

KHAOS...........now your getting it
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 12:31:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Another question, given female autonomy (I do hope that is the right word):

Let's say a mother chooses to bottle feed their child (it's her body, right), and mother and child are stranded somewhere for a few days. The child starves to death because the mother refuses to breastfeed (assume there is milk to be had still).
Is this murder?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 12:33:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 12:31:09 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:29:22 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:21:36 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:19:12 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
For the record, by human, I meant LEGALLY a human. At what point is the child a human/citizen with legal rights...

I think you mean personhood.

I don't know. But giving person hood to the few cells after conception ? I think that's a bridge to far and frankly the only reason people push that is so they can deny women ANY ABORTION.

I find this whole issue a challenge to be intellectually honest, really.
No matter what side you are on, I think there is a bitter pill one must swallow.

KHAOS...........now your getting it

I've had it for a while, but I just thought of this the other day, wondering what people would say.

Frankly, I am of the opinion the child is a person at the age of viability, and at such a time, the mother is responsible for its care, because she has made a conscience choice to bring the child to term. Thus, it is child abuse to ingest such things.

However, before this, anything goes, I guess.
My work here is, finally, done.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 12:34:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 12:31:21 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Another question, given female autonomy (I do hope that is the right word):

Let's say a mother chooses to bottle feed their child (it's her body, right), and mother and child are stranded somewhere for a few days. The child starves to death because the mother refuses to breastfeed (assume there is milk to be had still).
Is this murder?

THe right to life crowd don't really believe in the right to life, what they really mean is the right not to be killed.

Being killed, and being allowed to die are not the same thing.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 12:36:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 12:34:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:31:21 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Another question, given female autonomy (I do hope that is the right word):

Let's say a mother chooses to bottle feed their child (it's her body, right), and mother and child are stranded somewhere for a few days. The child starves to death because the mother refuses to breastfeed (assume there is milk to be had still).
Is this murder?

THe right to life crowd don't really believe in the right to life, what they really mean is the right not to be killed.

Being killed, and being allowed to die are not the same thing.

If I don't feed my five year old child, it is neglect. If he dies because of it, it is negligible homicide. Is the above case the same, since the only source of food is via the woman?
My work here is, finally, done.
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 12:36:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 12:28:26 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:21:40 AM, YYW wrote:

My question is if she should be allowed to do this, since it is her body.

I think not, in the same way that I think that men who rape women should be castrated. You cannot use your body to harm another -even it it is logically problematic to both say that, and say that a fetus is not a person until it's viable. The cognitive dissonance doesn't bother me, though.

Do you think that a woman should be allowed to drink/smoke/shoot heroin at nine months?

No.

Do you think that abortion should be legal because of the woman's autonomy or for other reasons?

Bodily autonomy, and autonomy balanced against the life of the child if the woman intends to carry the child to term. If she's going to get an abortion, then let her eat fish, drink, shoot heroin, etc.

My problem isn't that it's not a person then it is, but the logic of the argument.
If the reason for abortion is because of female autonomy, then isn't the bitter pill to allow them to do as they please with their body period?

So, here's the basic notion of where I'm coming from:

A woman ought to be allowed to have an abortion until the child/fetus is viable.
If the woman intends to carry the child/fetus to term, then she has a moral obligation to not harm the fetus in vitro. I have no problem using the force of law to ensure that she upholds that moral obligation and does not harm her child/fetus if she intends to carry the child to term.
Even if the woman has not harmed the fetus in any way up to the point of viability, she ought to be able to at any point before viability decide to abort.

Kind of like the intellectually honest approach to those who want abortion banned because it is murder ought to ONLY allow it in cases of mother's health, and say "sucks to be raped". Innocence is innocence after all.

I don't get along well with pro-lifers.
Tsar of DDO
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 12:37:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 12:21:36 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:19:12 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
For the record, by human, I meant LEGALLY a human. At what point is the child a human/citizen with legal rights...

I think you mean personhood.

I don't know.

If you don't know then it'd be best to err on the side of caution.

But giving person hood to the few cells after conception ? I think that's a bridge to far and frankly the only reason people push that is so they can deny women ANY ABORTION.

Frankly the the only reason people deny it is so the can grant women ANY ABORTION for ANY REASON at ANY TIME.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 12:41:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 12:36:57 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:28:26 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:


So, here's the basic notion of where I'm coming from:

A woman ought to be allowed to have an abortion until the child/fetus is viable.
If the woman intends to carry the child/fetus to term, then she has a moral obligation to not harm the fetus in vitro. I have no problem using the force of law to ensure that she upholds that moral obligation and does not harm her child/fetus if she intends to carry the child to term.
Even if the woman has not harmed the fetus in any way up to the point of viability, she ought to be able to at any point before viability decide to abort.

This is my view on the issue as well.
However, those who claim female autonomy seem to suggest that an abortion should be allowed whenever, because it's the woman's body, and who the hell are you to decide anything? It is in that vein, I ask these questions.

Kind of like the intellectually honest approach to those who want abortion banned because it is murder ought to ONLY allow it in cases of mother's health, and say "sucks to be raped". Innocence is innocence after all.

I don't get along well with pro-lifers.

I don't mind them, as long as they're consistent, which they rarely are ;(
My work here is, finally, done.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 12:44:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 12:37:27 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:21:36 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:19:12 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
For the record, by human, I meant LEGALLY a human. At what point is the child a human/citizen with legal rights...

I think you mean personhood.

I don't know.

If you don't know then it'd be best to err on the side of caution.

But giving person hood to the few cells after conception ? I think that's a bridge to far and frankly the only reason people push that is so they can deny women ANY ABORTION.

Frankly the the only reason people deny it is so the can grant women ANY ABORTION for ANY REASON at ANY TIME.

Are you serious pop ? that's so beneath you and so weak.

Some people are of the view that personhood requires certain qualifications. If a few cells after conception don't meet those qualitification then ergo they don't get personhood anymore than say a rock.

You may disagree on what those qualifications should or should not be,..............but pop really ? they deny personhood to a few cells to justify a woman having an abortion for any reason any time ? pop ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 12:54:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 12:41:10 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:36:57 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:28:26 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:


So, here's the basic notion of where I'm coming from:

A woman ought to be allowed to have an abortion until the child/fetus is viable.
If the woman intends to carry the child/fetus to term, then she has a moral obligation to not harm the fetus in vitro. I have no problem using the force of law to ensure that she upholds that moral obligation and does not harm her child/fetus if she intends to carry the child to term.
Even if the woman has not harmed the fetus in any way up to the point of viability, she ought to be able to at any point before viability decide to abort.

This is my view on the issue as well.
However, those who claim female autonomy seem to suggest that an abortion should be allowed whenever, because it's the woman's body, and who the hell are you to decide anything? It is in that vein, I ask these questions.

Kind of like the intellectually honest approach to those who want abortion banned because it is murder ought to ONLY allow it in cases of mother's health, and say "sucks to be raped". Innocence is innocence after all.

I don't get along well with pro-lifers.

I don't mind them, as long as they're consistent, which they rarely are ;(

1. It's not only the woman's body once the child is viable, from a legal or moral standpoint.
2. I mind them very much, whether they are logically consistent or not.
Tsar of DDO
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 12:58:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 12:44:08 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:37:27 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:21:36 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:19:12 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
For the record, by human, I meant LEGALLY a human. At what point is the child a human/citizen with legal rights...

I think you mean personhood.

I don't know.

If you don't know then it'd be best to err on the side of caution.

But giving person hood to the few cells after conception ? I think that's a bridge to far and frankly the only reason people push that is so they can deny women ANY ABORTION.

Frankly the the only reason people deny it is so the can grant women ANY ABORTION for ANY REASON at ANY TIME.

Are you serious pop ? that's so beneath you and so weak.

Some people are of the view that personhood requires certain qualifications. If a few cells after conception don't meet those qualitification then ergo they don't get personhood anymore than say a rock.

You may disagree on what those qualifications should or should not be,..............but pop really ? they deny personhood to a few cells to justify a woman having an abortion for any reason any time ? pop ?

Yup. Now how does that assertion compare to your assertion that push the line thought of personhood at conception only to deny women any abortion? Why does it not carry the same strength as your assertion?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 1:17:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 12:58:34 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:44:08 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:37:27 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:21:36 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:19:12 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
For the record, by human, I meant LEGALLY a human. At what point is the child a human/citizen with legal rights...

I think you mean personhood.

I don't know.

If you don't know then it'd be best to err on the side of caution.

But giving person hood to the few cells after conception ? I think that's a bridge to far and frankly the only reason people push that is so they can deny women ANY ABORTION.

Frankly the the only reason people deny it is so the can grant women ANY ABORTION for ANY REASON at ANY TIME.

Are you serious pop ? that's so beneath you and so weak.

Some people are of the view that personhood requires certain qualifications. If a few cells after conception don't meet those qualitification then ergo they don't get personhood anymore than say a rock.

You may disagree on what those qualifications should or should not be,..............but pop really ? they deny personhood to a few cells to justify a woman having an abortion for any reason any time ? pop ?

Yup. Now how does that assertion compare to your assertion that push the line thought of personhood at conception only to deny women any abortion? Why does it not carry the same strength as your assertion?

Cause denying person hood to the few cells doesn't necessarily entail that therefore all abortion should be allowed.

As opposed giving personhood and the "right to life" to a few cells just after conception because it is biologically "human" thus resulting in the conclusion all abortions are wrong..........always.

I don't see these positions are some sort of equal opposites.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 1:28:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 12:02:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
For people who are pro-choice because it is the woman's body, I have a question:

At what point, if any is the child a "human"?

Technically speaking, a fetus really isn't a "human." That being said, you can't just look at it as a blob of cells. That's what all the pro-choice people see it as, just a meaningless blob.

Can a woman do as she wishes to her body up to, or even past, said point?

If it's her body, then can she still smoke, do drugs, drink, and whatnot while pregnant?
If not, why not?

To all the pro-choice fvckers who whine and bitch that it's a "woman's body," take a second to think. First of all, if that's the case, stop fvcking with my freedom to do whatever I want to do to my body. It's my body, let me do to it as I please. If I want to fvck up my guts by snorting coke, that should be my freedom. It won't hurt anyone else. Second of all, it's not just a woman's body that you're fvcking with, it's something that would otherwise develop into a human being.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 1:46:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 1:28:09 AM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:02:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
For people who are pro-choice because it is the woman's body, I have a question:

At what point, if any is the child a "human"?

Technically speaking, a fetus really isn't a "human." That being said, you can't just look at it as a blob of cells. That's what all the pro-choice people see it as, just a meaningless blob.

Can a woman do as she wishes to her body up to, or even past, said point?

If it's her body, then can she still smoke, do drugs, drink, and whatnot while pregnant?
If not, why not?

To all the pro-choice fvckers who whine and bitch that it's a "woman's body," take a second to think. First of all, if that's the case, stop fvcking with my freedom to do whatever I want to do to my body. It's my body, let me do to it as I please. If I want to fvck up my guts by snorting coke, that should be my freedom. It won't hurt anyone else. Second of all, it's not just a woman's body that you're fvcking with, it's something that would otherwise develop into a human being.

If your going to give person hood/right to life to a few cells after conception & enforce that a woman must be forced even against her will to go through with a pregnancy........considering what is at stake people might actually want to look at the justification for that.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 12:07:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 1:46:18 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
If your going to give person hood/right to life to a few cells after conception & enforce that a woman must be forced even against her will to go through with a pregnancy........considering what is at stake people might actually want to look at the justification for that.

Exactly what is at stake?

Whether or not life begins at conception, you're still preventing life by getting an abortion. The little blob of cells in you could have went on to be this great success, and you didn't even give it a chance.

If a woman gets knocked up, she should sack up and deal with the consequences. If you don't want a baby, either use protection or close your legs. It's as simple as that. If she was raped, then that's different. However, can't she still give the baby to a foster home? If she can't afford to raise a baby, 1. why is she getting knocked up in the first place, 2. can't she still give it up for adoption? If there are health issues involved during the pregnancy, then there's definitely a problem. That's the only time I would say abortion is justified. What other reasons would there be to get an abortion?
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 3:06:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 12:05:48 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:02:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
For people who are pro-choice because it is the woman's body, I have a question:

At what point, if any is the child a "human"?

When it is viable, meaning that it can sustain life on its own.

What? If it only human after it is "viable," then what was it prior to this? A-kinda-sorta-human? An octopus?
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 3:06:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 3:06:35 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:05:48 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:02:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
For people who are pro-choice because it is the woman's body, I have a question:

At what point, if any is the child a "human"?

When it is viable, meaning that it can sustain life on its own.

What? If it only human after it is "viable," then what was it prior to this? A-kinda-sorta-human? An octopus?

If it *is*
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 3:56:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 3:06:35 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:05:48 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:02:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
For people who are pro-choice because it is the woman's body, I have a question:

At what point, if any is the child a "human"?

When it is viable, meaning that it can sustain life on its own.

What? If it only human after it is "viable," then what was it prior to this? A-kinda-sorta-human? An octopus?

A fetus.
Tsar of DDO
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 5:18:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 12:07:31 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 12/31/2013 1:46:18 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
If your going to give person hood/right to life to a few cells after conception & enforce that a woman must be forced even against her will to go through with a pregnancy........considering what is at stake people might actually want to look at the justification for that.

Exactly what is at stake?

Whether or not life begins at conception, you're still preventing life by getting an abortion. The little blob of cells in you could have went on to be this great success, and you didn't even give it a chance.

This is just an excuse. You don't apply such reasoning to say condom use. OMG that sperm never got a chance to fertise an egg, you didn't even give it a chance, it could of gone on to have..............GREAT SUCCESS !!!


If a woman gets knocked up, she should sack up and deal with the consequences. If you don't want a baby, either use protection or close your legs. It's as simple as that.

And that's part of the dark side of this whole pro life movement isn't ? Pregnancy is used as a punishment for having sex.

Shut your legs............slut,whore.

Maybe this is the REAL REASON you want forced pregnancy hmmm ?

If she was raped, then that's different. However, can't she still give the baby to a foster home? If she can't afford to raise a baby, 1. why is she getting knocked up in the first place,

Because in this situation she got raped.

2. can't she still give it up for adoption? If there are health issues involved during the pregnancy, then there's definitely a problem. That's the only time I would say abortion is justified. What other reasons would there be to get an abortion?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 9:03:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 5:18:20 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2013 12:07:31 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 12/31/2013 1:46:18 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
This is just an excuse. You don't apply such reasoning to say condom use. OMG that sperm never got a chance to fertise an egg, you didn't even give it a chance, it could of gone on to have..............GREAT SUCCESS !!!

...huh?

If a woman gets knocked up, she should sack up and deal with the consequences. If you don't want a baby, either use protection or close your legs. It's as simple as that.

And that's part of the dark side of this whole pro life movement isn't ? Pregnancy is used as a punishment for having sex.

You're not getting the point. If you set yourself up for the consequences, you need o deal with them. Anyone with a brain knows that if you have sex without a condom, you're probably going to have a baby...unless, "Oh, sh!t, I'm pregnant, I wonder where that came from. Huh...I had sex...without a condom...shoot, must've magically appeared inside me. Time for an abortion!"

Shut your legs............slut,whore.

If you're too young, then yeah.

Maybe this is the REAL REASON you want forced pregnancy hmmm ?

...again, huh?

If she was raped, then that's different. However, can't she still give the baby to a foster home? If she can't afford to raise a baby, 1. why is she getting knocked up in the first place,

Because in this situation she got raped.

You clearly misunderstood that.

If she was raped, then she could give the baby up to a foster home.

If she can't afford it (different situation) 1. why did she get knocked up in the first place, 2. give it up to a foster home.

And you didn't answer my question. What other reason besides risk of death during birth is valid enough to justify getting an abortion?
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"