Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Respecting abortion rights

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 12:38:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I propose a thought experiment for you all.

If we accept that an early stage embryo does not qualify for the right to life, and as such, the right of choice for the expectant mother takes lead. Does that mean that it is within the expectant mother's rights to abort for any reason? Presuming medical technology advances to a point where all factors can be determined early, would it be okay to abort the embryo because of its sex? Because of any unwanted genetic conditions? If it was determined that the embryo would likely be gay?

If the embryo is not a person and has no rights, is there any abortuon reason that would not be acceptable via rights?

Why or why not?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 1:32:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 12:38:25 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I propose a thought experiment for you all.

If we accept that an early stage embryo does not qualify for the right to life, and as such, the right of choice for the expectant mother takes lead. Does that mean that it is within the expectant mother's rights to abort for any reason? Presuming medical technology advances to a point where all factors can be determined early, would it be okay to abort the embryo because of its sex? Because of any unwanted genetic conditions? If it was determined that the embryo would likely be gay?

If the embryo is not a person and has no rights, is there any abortuon reason that would not be acceptable via rights?

Why or why not?

Yes. The woman has complete control of her body.

Need more clarity?
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 1:37:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 12:38:25 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I propose a thought experiment for you all.

If we accept that an early stage embryo does not qualify for the right to life, and as such, the right of choice for the expectant mother takes lead. Does that mean that it is within the expectant mother's rights to abort for any reason?

Yes.

Presuming medical technology advances to a point where all factors can be determined early, would it be okay to abort the embryo because of its sex? Because of any unwanted genetic conditions? If it was determined that the embryo would likely be gay?

Is it ok for mothers to abort their fetuses for factors like sexual identity (which will very soon be detectable in the womb) or gender? No.

Should it be illegal to limit a woman's right to an abortion if she was on notice of what she may subjectively determine to be undesirable characteristics? No.

If the embryo is not a person and has no rights, is there any [abortion] reason that would not be acceptable via rights?

No.

Why or why not?

It's a public policy issue with respect to what we want the government to be able to do. The government should not be able to tell women what they can and can not do with their bodies, even if women's reasons for doing things (e.g. aborting a fetus because it would grow up to be gay) are objectively reprehensible.

And I can tell you that I would very likely publicly shame, and support the flagrant public shaming of any woman who elected to abort their fetus because of reasons like gender or sexual identity. The fact that people should have a right to make a morally reprehensible choice does not mean that they should be entitled to not be criticized for their morally reprehensible choices.
Tsar of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 2:13:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 1:37:46 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/13/2015 12:38:25 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I propose a thought experiment for you all.

If we accept that an early stage embryo does not qualify for the right to life, and as such, the right of choice for the expectant mother takes lead. Does that mean that it is within the expectant mother's rights to abort for any reason?

Yes.

Presuming medical technology advances to a point where all factors can be determined early, would it be okay to abort the embryo because of its sex? Because of any unwanted genetic conditions? If it was determined that the embryo would likely be gay?

Is it ok for mothers to abort their fetuses for factors like sexual identity (which will very soon be detectable in the womb) or gender? No.

Should it be illegal to limit a woman's right to an abortion if she was on notice of what she may subjectively determine to be undesirable characteristics? No.

If the embryo is not a person and has no rights, is there any [abortion] reason that would not be acceptable via rights?

No.

Why or why not?

It's a public policy issue with respect to what we want the government to be able to do. The government should not be able to tell women what they can and can not do with their bodies, even if women's reasons for doing things (e.g. aborting a fetus because it would grow up to be gay) are objectively reprehensible.

And I can tell you that I would very likely publicly shame, and support the flagrant public shaming of any woman who elected to abort their fetus because of reasons like gender or sexual identity. The fact that people should have a right to make a morally reprehensible choice does not mean that they should be entitled to not be criticized for their morally reprehensible choices.

So to clarify, it is acceptable to frarantly shame someone publically for doing something that you agree is their right? Do you believe it is okay for other people to frarantly shame someone publically for doing something that is within their right? Can a religious zealot and their followers publically shame a gay couple for living in their neighborhood?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 2:24:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 2:13:04 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
So to clarify, it is acceptable to [flagrantly] shame someone [publicly] for doing something that you agree is their right?

Yes. That is, however, a seriously controversial position that would outrage many. The basic point to my perspective here exists at the margin between governmental authority and individual liberty. For the government to regulate the thoughts and moral values of other people in that way would be morally unacceptable -and more unacceptable than permitting women to seek abortions for morally repugnant reasons.

That is where social norms step in: they fill the gap between what the government restricts and what individuals may chose to incentivize people's doing the right thing.

I'm sure many people will have vastly different views, though, and I expect that they will.

Do you believe it is okay for other people to [flagrantly] shame someone [publicly] for doing something that is within their right?

Yes. It should surely be legal (read: the first amendment says so), but I'm glad that's not what you were contesting. As an ethical matter, there are three relevant concerns:

1. (individual level) The individual woman who may seek to abort her fetus because it may be gay;
2. (social level) Each and every other woman who might do the same; and
3. (societal level) societal concerns with respect to norms pertaining to gender equality and tolerance of the LGBT community.

All of these generally suggest that both the individual and aggregate goods are best served by women who may seek abortions being exposed to social censure for aborting gay children, or children whose genders they don't like.

Can a religious zealot and their followers [publicly] shame a gay couple for living in their neighborhood?

Sure, and they do... all the time. There was once a time where such individuals were the majority. Now, they are not. And while I will not object to their right to believe any stupid thing they want, they should not labor under the delusion that they should be able to do whatever they want with impunity.
Tsar of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 2:35:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 2:24:41 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/13/2015 2:13:04 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
So to clarify, it is acceptable to [flagrantly] shame someone [publicly] for doing something that you agree is their right?

Yes. That is, however, a seriously controversial position that would outrage many. The basic point to my perspective here exists at the margin between governmental authority and individual liberty. For the government to regulate the thoughts and moral values of other people in that way would be morally unacceptable -and more unacceptable than permitting women to seek abortions for morally repugnant reasons.

That is where social norms step in: they fill the gap between what the government restricts and what individuals may chose to incentivize people's doing the right thing.

I'm sure many people will have vastly different views, though, and I expect that they will.

Do you believe it is okay for other people to [flagrantly] shame someone [publicly] for doing something that is within their right?

Yes. It should surely be legal (read: the first amendment says so), but I'm glad that's not what you were contesting. As an ethical matter, there are three relevant concerns:

1. (individual level) The individual woman who may seek to abort her fetus because it may be gay;
2. (social level) Each and every other woman who might do the same; and
3. (societal level) societal concerns with respect to norms pertaining to gender equality and tolerance of the LGBT community.

All of these generally suggest that both the individual and aggregate goods are best served by women who may seek abortions being exposed to social censure for aborting gay children, or children whose genders they don't like.

Can a religious zealot and their followers [publicly] shame a gay couple for living in their neighborhood?

Sure, and they do... all the time. There was once a time where such individuals were the majority. Now, they are not. And while I will not object to their right to believe any stupid thing they want, they should not labor under the delusion that they should be able to do whatever they want with impunity.

A little of the topic of abortion and on the wider range on "rights" but should a company then be able to fire someone for any reason they want with the only recourse being public shaming?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 2:37:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Public shaming is an every day thing for any women seeking an abortion. Is there an added bit of ick around aborting a "gay" child, sure. Still her right, still her choice. He11, I bet I could find a good number of pro-life Christians who would say aborting a gay fetus is morally superior.
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 2:41:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 1:32:25 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/13/2015 12:38:25 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I propose a thought experiment for you all.

If we accept that an early stage embryo does not qualify for the right to life, and as such, the right of choice for the expectant mother takes lead. Does that mean that it is within the expectant mother's rights to abort for any reason? Presuming medical technology advances to a point where all factors can be determined early, would it be okay to abort the embryo because of its sex? Because of any unwanted genetic conditions? If it was determined that the embryo would likely be gay?

If the embryo is not a person and has no rights, is there any abortuon reason that would not be acceptable via rights?

Why or why not?

Yes. The woman has complete control of her body.

Need more clarity?

its not her body thats being aborted.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 2:44:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 2:41:33 AM, Dilara wrote:
At 10/13/2015 1:32:25 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/13/2015 12:38:25 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I propose a thought experiment for you all.

If we accept that an early stage embryo does not qualify for the right to life, and as such, the right of choice for the expectant mother takes lead. Does that mean that it is within the expectant mother's rights to abort for any reason? Presuming medical technology advances to a point where all factors can be determined early, would it be okay to abort the embryo because of its sex? Because of any unwanted genetic conditions? If it was determined that the embryo would likely be gay?

If the embryo is not a person and has no rights, is there any abortuon reason that would not be acceptable via rights?

Why or why not?

Yes. The woman has complete control of her body.

Need more clarity?

its not her body thats being aborted.

No.... It is the body of the fetus that is using her body against her will.
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 2:56:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 2:44:52 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/13/2015 2:41:33 AM, Dilara wrote:
At 10/13/2015 1:32:25 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/13/2015 12:38:25 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I propose a thought experiment for you all.

If we accept that an early stage embryo does not qualify for the right to life, and as such, the right of choice for the expectant mother takes lead. Does that mean that it is within the expectant mother's rights to abort for any reason? Presuming medical technology advances to a point where all factors can be determined early, would it be okay to abort the embryo because of its sex? Because of any unwanted genetic conditions? If it was determined that the embryo would likely be gay?

If the embryo is not a person and has no rights, is there any abortuon reason that would not be acceptable via rights?

Why or why not?

Yes. The woman has complete control of her body.

Need more clarity?

its not her body thats being aborted.

No.... It is the body of the fetus that is using her body against her will.

and the fetus doesn't choose to use her body. he cant help that so why punish him for it.
http://www.babycenter.com... http://www.babycenter.com...
https://www.google.com...
https://www.google.com...
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 3:00:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 2:35:15 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
A little [off] the topic of abortion and on the wider range on "rights" but should a company then be able to fire someone for any reason they want with the only recourse being public shaming?

No, but it's a fair question to ask. I'm not the kind of person who buys into the idea that corporations (or companies, generally) have analogous rights to individuals. The reason for that is pretty basic: a person's ability to make a living is different from their constitutional rights, for example.

I do not think that a corporation should be able to discover information like "abortion access" of their employees, either.

I understand why some people think that they should be able to fire people for any reason at all (and, frankly, i'm sympathetic to that perspective because I too would like to fire people for any reason I pleased). But there's more on the line than what I want when you're talking about where people work. A lot more.
Tsar of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 3:15:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 3:00:34 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/13/2015 2:35:15 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
A little [off] the topic of abortion and on the wider range on "rights" but should a company then be able to fire someone for any reason they want with the only recourse being public shaming?

No, but it's a fair question to ask. I'm not the kind of person who buys into the idea that corporations (or companies, generally) have analogous rights to individuals. The reason for that is pretty basic: a person's ability to make a living is different from their constitutional rights, for example.

I do not think that a corporation should be able to discover information like "abortion access" of their employees, either.

I understand why some people think that they should be able to fire people for any reason at all (and, frankly, i'm sympathetic to that perspective because I too would like to fire people for any reason I pleased). But there's more on the line than what I want when you're talking about where people work. A lot more.

A corporation is just the property of the owners. It doesn't have its own rights (in my opinion), but it falls under the rights of its owner.

I can trade money for a good, so long as both parties agree, right? Either party can choose not to participate for any reason. It doesn't matter how immoral the reason ma be. The government should not (I would assume you would agree) force a racist to buy their groceries from a black merchant. That should apply to all transactions and all sides of each transaction. Includes money for services and money for labor.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 3:58:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If a fetus has no right to life, then it's perfectly acceptable for a mother to choose to abort for any reason, including the child's sexuality, gender, etc.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 4:08:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm not hard on either side. There should be a balance in abortion laws.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 4:30:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 12:38:25 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
If the embryo is not a person and has no rights, is there any abortuon reason that would not be acceptable via rights?

Assuming an "any time, no questions asked" policy, the mother could indeed abort for discriminatory reasons. I'm not advocating that, but it would be the logical conclusion to your scenario.
Devilry
Posts: 468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 6:45:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If the woman has the right to abort, the man should have the right to opt out of paying child support. Fair is fair.

And that shuts down most of the women crying 'my body, my right!'
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 2:17:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 6:45:55 AM, Devilry wrote:
If the woman has the right to abort, the man should have the right to opt out of paying child support. Fair is fair.

And that shuts down most of the women crying 'my body, my right!'

Why should the man have the right to opt out? The woman's actions of aborting would be stopping the process and as such preventing all future costs to everyone. The man opting out is only preventing future costs to him and shifting them onto the woman and society.

The equivalent of that would be if the woman gave birth and then opted out of all support of the child and left everything with the man.

Personally, I look forward to the day when an embryo can be transplanted into a man and men can give birth (though I imagine it would have to be a C-section).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 2:20:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'll make a new thread regarding public shaming rather than bring it back up here.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 3:51:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 12:38:25 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I propose a thought experiment for you all.

If we accept that an early stage embryo does not qualify for the right to life, and as such, the right of choice for the expectant mother takes lead. Does that mean that it is within the expectant mother's rights to abort for any reason? Presuming medical technology advances to a point where all factors can be determined early, would it be okay to abort the embryo because of its sex? Because of any unwanted genetic conditions? If it was determined that the embryo would likely be gay?

If the embryo is not a person and has no rights, is there any abortuon reason that would not be acceptable via rights?

Why or why not?

In my view abortion should be allowed at any stage of pregnancy. I see no reason not to allow selective abortion. It is down to the individual to make that choice. If they do not want a baby with a disability, a baby of a certain sex or sexual orientation then that should be their decision. In my view a vast majority of people would not want to abort babies on a selective basis regarding the characteristics of the foetus but if somebody does want to they should be able to. I do not believe a foetus has the same rights as an adult human due to its significantly lower intelligence, understanding and development.
BrittanyR1911.45
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 11:01:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 2:17:27 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/13/2015 6:45:55 AM, Devilry wrote:
If the woman has the right to abort, the man should have the right to opt out of paying child support. Fair is fair.

And that shuts down most of the women crying 'my body, my right!'

Why should the man have the right to opt out? The woman's actions of aborting would be stopping the process and as such preventing all future costs to everyone. The man opting out is only preventing future costs to him and shifting them onto the woman and society.

The equivalent of that would be if the woman gave birth and then opted out of all support of the child and left everything with the man.

Personally, I look forward to the day when an embryo can be transplanted into a man and men can give birth (though I imagine it would have to be a C-section).

I think I get what the previous poster was getting at. Say there are two couples.

Couple A: Mother wants to Abort because she doesn't want to support a child, Father wants his child to be brought to life
Couple B: Mother wants Child brought to life, Father wants child aborted because he doesn't want to support it

Baby A- Dead Aborted Fetus
Baby B- Gets the gift of Life

If the woman is always the one with the right to chose, than the father of Baby B should not have to pay child support
Devilry
Posts: 468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 2:12:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 2:17:27 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/13/2015 6:45:55 AM, Devilry wrote:
If the woman has the right to abort, the man should have the right to opt out of paying child support. Fair is fair.

And that shuts down most of the women crying 'my body, my right!'

Why should the man have the right to opt out? The woman's actions of aborting would be stopping the process and as such preventing all future costs to everyone. The man opting out is only preventing future costs to him and shifting them onto the woman and society.

The woman need not incur those costs; she can just abort.

The equivalent of that would be if the woman gave birth and then opted out of all support of the child and left everything with the man.

Not true. That is arguably a tyranny carried out by the woman, nine months in the making. The issue, when it comes to abortion, is largely just women not wanting to be told what they can and can't do with their bodies. Why should they be allowed impose a lifetime commitment on the man with their bodies? If we're taking the fetus to be worth zilch, then the man should have every right to cut ties with it while it is of no burden to him, just as the woman has the right to cut ties with it while it is only burden to her. Otherwise, there is a certain fairness in the illegality of abortion.

Personally, I look forward to the day when an embryo can be transplanted into a man and men can give birth (though I imagine it would have to be a C-section).
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Devilry
Posts: 468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 2:23:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At most, in the interest of fairness, the man owes the woman the cost of an abortion and maybe some expenses having impregnated her. My body, my right. Why should a woman enslave me with her choices?
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Devilry
Posts: 468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 2:25:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Of course I don't believe any of this, but I think abortion is basically atrocious too. Take adequate precaution, or be responsible.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 5:05:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 12:38:25 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I propose a thought experiment for you all.

If we accept that an early stage embryo does not qualify for the right to life, and as such, the right of choice for the expectant mother takes lead. Does that mean that it is within the expectant mother's rights to abort for any reason? Presuming medical technology advances to a point where all factors can be determined early, would it be okay to abort the embryo because of its sex? Because of any unwanted genetic conditions? If it was determined that the embryo would likely be gay?

If the embryo is not a person and has no rights, is there any abortuon reason that would not be acceptable via rights?

Why or why not?

You could take it even further. Would it be acceptable for the mother to genetically alter the unborn child so as to alter the child to become a highly attractive and compliant sex slave, or a very powerful, skilled and obedient soldier.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 12:41:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 2:12:42 PM, Devilry wrote:
At 10/13/2015 2:17:27 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/13/2015 6:45:55 AM, Devilry wrote:
If the woman has the right to abort, the man should have the right to opt out of paying child support. Fair is fair.

And that shuts down most of the women crying 'my body, my right!'

Why should the man have the right to opt out? The woman's actions of aborting would be stopping the process and as such preventing all future costs to everyone. The man opting out is only preventing future costs to him and shifting them onto the woman and society.

The woman need not incur those costs; she can just abort.

The woman only has the ability to remove the cost from both the father and herself, while the father has the ability to remove the cost from himself only. That makes it fundamentally different. The only comparison would be if the woman could do likewise (remove the cost from herself alone).


The equivalent of that would be if the woman gave birth and then opted out of all support of the child and left everything with the man.

Not true. That is arguably a tyranny carried out by the woman, nine months in the making. The issue, when it comes to abortion, is largely just women not wanting to be told what they can and can't do with their bodies. Why should they be allowed impose a lifetime commitment on the man with their bodies? If we're taking the fetus to be worth zilch, then the man should have every right to cut ties with it while it is of no burden to him, just as the woman has the right to cut ties with it while it is only burden to her. Otherwise, there is a certain fairness in the illegality of abortion.

Letting the man opt out would then be tyranny carried out by the man.


Personally, I look forward to the day when an embryo can be transplanted into a man and men can give birth (though I imagine it would have to be a C-section).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 6:04:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
To pro-lifers, as soon as the egg cell is fertilized a new human being is created. she can either have this baby or have it murdered.
If you are pro-choice then whatever is growing in her womb is not a human being, for, well, let's say for a while.
The other issue here is the woman's ideas. She has probably thought about it, and decided that she won't be having a baby at this time, therefore if a pregnancy happens, she will end it before whatever is inside her becomes a baby.
What is important here is that in modern day White America, breeding is an option.
Comprende? The reproduction of Americans is something that will only happen if women feel like having a baby.
Back in the day ,a typical American woman would date a man, go steady, and if/when she got pregnant, this man would step up to the plate and show everybody what a good man he was by marrying her.
So, 2 things happen with abortion. 1, the living thing does not survive , 2, Traditional White America does not survive.
Hey, maybe Blondie wants to have a kid, but not until her career has gotten a good start, and she is thirty- something.
So, Global warming is something that you and Al Gore will have to just get over it. The people who will be here after we are dead are gonna be some other country, **** them!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 7:00:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 6:04:06 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
To pro-lifers, as soon as the egg cell is fertilized a new human being is created. she can either have this baby or have it murdered.
If you are pro-choice then whatever is growing in her womb is not a human being, for, well, let's say for a while.
The other issue here is the woman's ideas. She has probably thought about it, and decided that she won't be having a baby at this time, therefore if a pregnancy happens, she will end it before whatever is inside her becomes a baby.
What is important here is that in modern day White America, breeding is an option.
Comprende? The reproduction of Americans is something that will only happen if women feel like having a baby.
Back in the day ,a typical American woman would date a man, go steady, and if/when she got pregnant, this man would step up to the plate and show everybody what a good man he was by marrying her.
So, 2 things happen with abortion. 1, the living thing does not survive , 2, Traditional White America does not survive.
Hey, maybe Blondie wants to have a kid, but not until her career has gotten a good start, and she is thirty- something.
So, Global warming is something that you and Al Gore will have to just get over it. The people who will be here after we are dead are gonna be some other country, **** them!

If he was to really step up to the plate, he'd be marrying her before getting her knocked up, lol. Also, I might regret asking, but why are you focused on "white" america (I suspect trolling)?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
fettywap
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 7:03:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 12:38:25 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I propose a thought experiment for you all.

If we accept that an early stage embryo does not qualify for the right to life, and as such, the right of choice for the expectant mother takes lead. Does that mean that it is within the expectant mother's rights to abort for any reason? Presuming medical technology advances to a point where all factors can be determined early, would it be okay to abort the embryo because of its sex? Because of any unwanted genetic conditions? If it was determined that the embryo would likely be gay?

If the embryo is not a person and has no rights, is there any abortuon reason that would not be acceptable via rights?

Why or why not? : :

The embryo is not the created man but it is the visible part of a man that dies in this world. What difference does it make where the body dies?