- 17 Jun 2018 15:45
#14925433
And a lot f hot air has gone into attempting to make unborn human entities people and has failed in every case
.
Your point being?
Which is true. It's a step in the right direction.
Nobody is arguing they aren't human. What they aren't is people.
I don't want any hyperbole at all. Canada has it right.
Why shouldn't women have full bodily autonomy?
Democracy should never be about mob rule.
Some people believe men should be able to have abortions. If they were in the majority, just how could be made to happen?
there's a sizeable number of them in the US. They could easily form a majority.
Because that is what the pregnant woman chooses. Simple, isn't it?
Its much better than anything you have in the USA, where pregnant women have been forced to undergo surgery against their will.
https://www.aclu.org/other/coercive-and ... -pregnancy
I thought you wanted to reject hyperbole?
While it's inside of a woman, who is undoubtedly a person with rights, it should belong to her.
Not the man next door, or to anyone else.
When a woman becomes pregnant ,she chooses to suspend some of her rights in favour of her foetus. Or she might choose not to do that. It must be up to her.
She should never need the approval of anyone else.
As long as you are prepared to hear my rebuttal, then go ahead.
It doesn't really matter. If you are going to concentrate on what are unimportant trivialities, then you won't win.
You wont, anyway, as your argument is based purely on emotion and false supposititions and not cold hard facts.
Canada decided that laws restricting abortion were an affront to women's reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy.
Which they are.
Argue against that.
And, Boycey, it's not possible to adopt a foetus.
why is so diffisult for some of you to differentiate between born children and foetuses?
Surely it's quite simple?
Drlee wrote:I love the non-person argument. It really reminds me of the arguments about male slaves in the US. They were non-persons until the day of emancipation. A lot of ink went to enshrining this idea.
And a lot f hot air has gone into attempting to make unborn human entities people and has failed in every case
.
Your point being?
And this is the key. I posted poll numbers and every one of the "abortion anytime" folks ignored them. Godstud congratulated Ireland on passing very restrictive abortion laws because he said they were better than nothing.
Which is true. It's a step in the right direction.
We can argue all that we want to. We see that the unrestricted abortion people have descended into referring to unborn children as "spit" and "parasites". Really unintelligent arguments by the way. Obvious hyperbole.
Nobody is arguing they aren't human. What they aren't is people.
Remember the reference to Canada allowing abortion even at a late stage in the pregnancy is a reference by anti late term folks to the absurdity that can exist on that side of the equation. Do we all want hyperbole?
I don't want any hyperbole at all. Canada has it right.
Why shouldn't women have full bodily autonomy?
Why is what Ter said key? Again. Because all law flows from the consent of the people in a democracy. Late term abortion is wildly unpopular and therefor it will continue to be very rarely allowed in most civilized nations.
Democracy should never be about mob rule.
Some people believe men should be able to have abortions. If they were in the majority, just how could be made to happen?
there's a sizeable number of them in the US. They could easily form a majority.
So what does Canada really think about unborn children? They allow and pay for fetal surgery. Why would they operate on a parasite? Why spend money on a gob of DNA or spit? Why pay for this surgery in the US when it was not available in Canada previously?
Because that is what the pregnant woman chooses. Simple, isn't it?
Its much better than anything you have in the USA, where pregnant women have been forced to undergo surgery against their will.
https://www.aclu.org/other/coercive-and ... -pregnancy
The overwhelming majority of people in civilized countries reject the absolute ownership of an unborn child by its mother. And so it will likely stay. It is interesting to me to see the examples here of people who claim to believe in democracy until they disagree with the will of the people. Then, like religious fanatics, they look for some moral absolute to determine right from wrong. Like it or not though, in the majority of countries in the world, the law is created by the people through their representatives. And it stands in the face of opposition by some. It really is as simple as that.
I thought you wanted to reject hyperbole?
While it's inside of a woman, who is undoubtedly a person with rights, it should belong to her.
Not the man next door, or to anyone else.
When a woman becomes pregnant ,she chooses to suspend some of her rights in favour of her foetus. Or she might choose not to do that. It must be up to her.
She should never need the approval of anyone else.
I would point out to the abortion on demand folks that they stand a great deal to lose with their heated rhetoric. Anyone want to hear the political speech I would give if running for office on this subject?
As long as you are prepared to hear my rebuttal, then go ahead.
Would any of those arguing that fetuses are non-human want me to quote them in my speech? Calling babies in the womb parasites will garner countless votes for my side. I suppose the people making these arguments should be celebrated politically as the useful idiots that they are. They do more to limit woman's choice than any baptist preacher could.
It doesn't really matter. If you are going to concentrate on what are unimportant trivialities, then you won't win.
You wont, anyway, as your argument is based purely on emotion and false supposititions and not cold hard facts.
Canada decided that laws restricting abortion were an affront to women's reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy.
Which they are.
Argue against that.
And, Boycey, it's not possible to adopt a foetus.
why is so diffisult for some of you to differentiate between born children and foetuses?
Surely it's quite simple?
Last edited by snapdragon on 17 Jun 2018 15:53, edited 1 time in total.
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” -Socrates.