Fetal heartbeat and the abortion fight - Page 17 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15012022
SpecialOlympian wrote:Imagine if you're a young woman who discovers she's pregnant. You work minimum wage part time because you're in a small, economically depressed town. The nearest clinic is 200 miles away. There is no public transit to speak of. Aside from the cost of getting there, you're also legally required to get an initial consultation and then wait 24 hours before the operation is performed.


Then that's what you do.

If that's too difficult for a woman to do, maybe she should've said "no"...

Also, the doctor has to jam an ultrasound wand up inside you, make you...


While a transvaginal ultrasound is an internal examination, it's use is nowhere near as common as transabdominal...

So you either take two days off work and pay for four trips, or you pay for the trip but book a hotel as well. These are all costs of time and money that can easily be prohibitive.


Hey, then that's just too fuckin' bad. Life's full of tough choices...
#15012025
SpecialOlympian wrote:Have fun, single young whore mother who was not in a situation to raise a child. Remember that life is beautiful. Glad you didn't make the decision to abort!

There is plenty of welfare provided to a single mother with child. So no problem there.
Praise the Lord.
#15012028
BigSteve wrote:If that's too difficult for a woman to do, maybe she should've said "no"...


It sure is a smart societal choice to make people who lack impulse control become parents by restricting their control over their own reproduction. Good argument there.
#15012030
Godstud wrote:No, we do not. It is her body and therefore her choice. There is no law, either that states that a woman cannot drink herself into a stupor, while pregnant, either.

Most cities provide free needles so that there is some safety involved in the substance abuse. Some places even have free places for them to shoot up, in safety. This is not enabling, but providing some health safety net for them. Most states provide more for a heroin addict than for a pregnant woman. How telling is that?


Really? There's no law that a woman can't wreck her baby's health through alcohol? Geez, Louise! There should be!

... But the baby's body is not her body, and the baby is a human life.

Our laws protect human life.

Why does she have the right to mutilate and destroy the baby?

Honestly, our argument now sounds really low level because we are just making counter-statements at each other.

You are free to have your opinion, but not to insist on it.

:lol: Cmon, Verv. That's being silly, and you know it.


Right, because there is a God, and morality does exist. We can't fathom at all a world where right and wrong do not exist. It would not make sense.

Morality is subjective int he sense that we are not certain what is right and wrong. Even two Orthodox Christians who affirm the same doctrine may have different ideas of what is right or wrong concerning a complex moral issue, right.

In that sense, it is subjective.

But in another sense, it is subjective only because there is a concept that there is an objectively right thing and right answer, right.

If we were to say that there simply is no morality, morality isn't even subjecitve.

It doesn't even exist.

But we agree it exists. And we agree that there is something out there that is objectively right.

Morality is subjective . One society(eg. Canada) might deem the right to have abortion as moral, whereas you and some assholes in Alabama, feel it is not. You'd rather remove the rights of a person in favour of a "potential" person. I find that morally objectionable. Mind you, that's my moral opinion on it. :D


Sure, sure, but I believe it is a person right in the womb, right upon conception.

and that's a big debate.

But what is always irrelevant to this:

The gender of the people in the debate. It's always a valid debate, regardless of who is having it.

That baby was put there illegally. She was raped. She does not want to be pregnant 9 months because some asshole impregnated her by force. She should not have to take the health risks and mental stress simply to make you and the rapist feel good about themselves.

So you agree that the rapist should have parental rights? That's what Alabama suggests, since a woman who DID have a rape baby, now has to fight for custody of said baby. So much for pro-life. Pro-birth and then "we don't give a fuck after that" is what I see from your ilk.


(1) But the classic question: do we execute the rapist, or the rapist's daughter?

(2) I have no idea how there can be such a circumstance where a man who raped a woman could be entitled to see his baby and fight for custody. I'd argue against that.
#15012031
Hindsite wrote:There is plenty of welfare provided to a single mother with child. So no problem there.
Praise the Lord.


... And if we didn't pay a third of our money in taxes to the government for that welfare check, maybe they would get more in charity, right?
#15012041
@Hindsite Nothing you said is an argument.

Verv wrote:Really? There's no law that a woman can't wreck her baby's health through alcohol? Geez, Louise! There should be!
So are you going to start jailing women who might not be living healthy lives? You really have no problem with taking away the rights of women, do you? :eh:

Verv wrote:Right, because there is a God, and morality does exist.
That's simply your opinion.

Verv wrote:Sure, sure, but I believe it is a person right in the womb, right upon conception.
Yes, and that's something I find absolutely ridiculous. Are you going to jail mothers who exercise and cause a miscarriage?

Verv wrote:I have no idea how there can be such a circumstance where a man who raped a woman could be entitled to see his baby and fight for custody. I'd argue against that.
Here's your perfect world, Verv.

Rape survivor fighting rapist for custody of child in Alabama
‘It’s just flat out ugly, unfair and even dangerous to these mothers and children’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 51751.html
#15012042
Pants-of-dog wrote:The point was that we do not use access to medical treatment as a way of teaching responsibility in any other situation, so why do you guys do it to women?


Limiting abortion isn't designed as a tool to "teach responsibility"? That's like saying laws preventing a person from shooting another person is to "teach responsibility" (gun ownership responsibility), whereas the point is actually to stop tons of people from being shot needlessly.

The main point of limiting abortion is to prevent literally millions of unborn children from being killed by the people who created them in the first place. Narcissists will come up with all these other reasons, like "people want to control women's bodies!". LOL nobody gives a crap what a woman does with her body, there's no ugly tattoo or plastic surgery or tampon bans, but people DO care that her body is attached to another living being that people want to kill.
#15012057
Suntzu wrote:[img]https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/images/thumb/e/e1/Early_zygote.jpg/400px-Early_zygote.jpg
[/img]

Do you really believe this is a human being? :eh:


Considering everybody, including you, had been in this stage, yes I do.
#15012058
Godstud wrote:No, we do not. It is her body and therefore her choice. There is no law, either that states that a woman cannot drink herself into a stupor, while pregnant, either.


If you or anyone cares more about the right of a woman to get drunk or high than the right of an unborn child not to suffer health abnormalities for the rest of its life that's just horrifically disgusting.
#15012060
SpecialOlympian wrote:It sure is a smart societal choice to make people who lack impulse control become parents by restricting their control over their own reproduction. Good argument there.


I guess you missed the part where I said I think abortion should be legal...
#15012063
Unthinking Majority wrote:If you or anyone cares more about the right of a woman to get drunk or high than the right of an unborn child not to suffer health abnormalities for the rest of its life that's just horrifically disgusting.


My ex-wife smoked throughout her pregnancy.

On the side of a cigarette pack it says "Smoking may result in low fetal birth weight."

At birth, my daughter weighed 9 lbs 6-1/2 ounces. We used to joke that, had my ex not smoked, she'd have given birth to a second grader...
#15012068
BigSteve wrote:"You guys"?

I haven't done it to anyone...


Sorry, I thought you were a US conservative.

However, the point still stands: it is sexist to restrict access to medical treatments for women to teach them responsibility when we do not do this for anyone else.

————————-

Unthinking Majority wrote:Limiting abortion isn't designed as a tool to "teach responsibility"? That's like saying laws preventing a person from shooting another person is to "teach responsibility" (gun ownership responsibility), whereas the point is actually to stop tons of people from being shot needlessly.


Then why did you bring up the woman’s responsibility?

You cannot make an argument based on a certain premise, and then pretend you never made that argument because of the moral implications of your premise.

The main point of limiting abortion is to prevent literally millions of unborn children from being killed by the people who created them in the first place. Narcissists will come up with all these other reasons, like "people want to control women's bodies!". LOL nobody gives a crap what a woman does with her body, there's no ugly tattoo or plastic surgery or tampon bans, but people DO care that her body is attached to another living being that people want to kill.


If we really cared so much about saving lives that we disregarded consent to use the body of another, organ donations would not be voluntary.

We even respect the consent of dead people as being more important than saving lives. And we treat pregnant women as less important than dead people.
#15012076
BigSteve wrote:My ex-wife smoked throughout her pregnancy.

On the side of a cigarette pack it says "Smoking may result in low fetal birth weight."

At birth, my daughter weighed 9 lbs 6-1/2 ounces. We used to joke that, had my ex not smoked, she'd have given birth to a second grader...


It just said "may", which they fully know to be a statistical fact. Your ex-wife is an exceptional case.
#15012079
Here we are back on the rights of dead people again.... :roll: POD that is a terrible argument.

One argument we are not seeing is that of trying to convince women not to have abortions whether or not they are easy to get.

It seems to me that if I felt as strongly about abortion as the anti-abortion crowd does I would want my money to go to preventing it. And if it truly is murder then I would want the amount of money going to prevent it to be almost limitless. And I would be prepared to pay my tax money to prevent it just as I pay for the police.

There is no doubt that the anti-abortion crowd is amazingly hypocritical. They are among the same so-called conservatives who want to cut welfare programs across the board. They have already cut food stamps. They have already tried to cut health care for pregnant women. They have repeatedly tried to shut down what is in some places the only place for poor uninsured women to go for prenatal care. Other than the Roman Catholic Church there are very few others that offer comprehensive programs to help the poor. And those are spearheaded by their unique monastic movement and considerable membership in under served communities. Any way you cut it the help available to women who might want to keep a baby is, in most places, almost farcical. Look at the myriad republican politicians who want to cast disdain on the African American community rather than try anything to help. And the programs that are out there lack any unifying or centralized authority at all. I work with poor people all of the time. Just getting a replacement social security card (without which it is illegal to be hired) requires two months and a visit to at least three different locations. Pregnant women get food stamps for one and, in some states, none if she has been out of work for a long time.

The blame for abortion has to fall squarely on the shoulders of conservatives who make having a child very difficult for poor women. Why? Because they might be Hispanic or black? Yup.

It just said "may", which they fully know to be a statistical fact. Your ex-wife is an exceptional case.


Exceptionally stupid for smoking at all and criminal for doing it while pregnant. Hopefully she has stopped. If not, and the child is around her while she (or you) are smoking, at much greater risk for real problems. Children should be taken from parents who smoke around them.
#15012083
SpecialOlympian wrote:It sure is a smart societal choice to make people who lack impulse control become parents by restricting their control over their own reproduction. Good argument there.

In "Freakonomics," Leavitt shows that ~15 years after US abortion rates started rising following Roe vs. Wade, crime rates started falling.
#15012084
Here we are back on the rights of dead people again.... :roll: POD that is a terrible argument.


Not really, since no one has refuted it.

One argument we are not seeing is that of trying to convince women not to have abortions whether or not they are easy to get.


This is probably because women are not seeking out abortions for fun or on a whim. So there is no need to convince them to get unnecessary ones.
#15012085
BigSteve wrote:My ex-wife smoked throughout her pregnancy.

On the side of a cigarette pack it says "Smoking may result in low fetal birth weight."

At birth, my daughter weighed 9 lbs 6-1/2 ounces. We used to joke that, had my ex not smoked, she'd have given birth to a second grader...

Maternal weight gain and gestation length are better predictors of birth weight than smoking.
Drlee wrote:Here we are back on the rights of dead people again.... :roll:

It's more that we think the rights of the living are better protected if we act as though the dead have rights. E.g., we aren't allowed to interfere with the bodies of the dead because that could destroy evidence of wrongful death.
Children should be taken from parents who smoke around them.

That's a bit extreme! Alcohol consumption by proximate adults is worse for children than smoking, and I would not advocate removal of children for that.
Last edited by Truth To Power on 14 Jun 2019 19:10, edited 1 time in total.
#15012086
Pants-of-dog wrote:However, the point still stands: it is sexist to restrict access to medical treatments for women to teach them responsibility when we do not do this for anyone else.


"Sexist"? An abortion is not simply a "medical treatment". It's not like getting a wart removed. It's a medical procedure where the doctor kills a human life. The fact that men can't have babies is a biological reality nobody can control, that doesn't make it sexist. Are pregnancy tests and mammograms sexist?

People who insist to always call the unborn baby a "fetus" and call abortions "medical treatments" or to deny that they are "people" until birth...it's all designed to de-humanize the unborn child, which then makes it morally acceptable to kill them. The Nazis dehumanized the Jews as "less than human" in order to make it morally acceptable in their minds to kill them, & slave owners & racists dehumanized african-americans to make slavery & Jim Crow morally acceptable.

Nobody says "Congrats you're having a fetus!". Or "well mom and dad, i've decided to keep the fetus!". Or "how's the fetus coming along?". Or "OMG, I had an affair & I'm pregnant with Jimmy's zygote!"

We're talking about human lives here for fucks sake! Killing a healthy unborn life that will turn into a fully developed human being just because it's inconvenient to carry a kid for 9 months, being too lazy to put it up for adoption if you don't want it (there's lots of gay couples etc who want to adopt etc), turning into a narcissistic selfish ass by proclaiming "by body by choice!", it's such immature BS. You made your bed, now lay in it. Don't make the baby pay for your bad decisions with it's life. When does THE BABY get consent in ANY of this, whether its created or destroyed?? Nobody gives a flying shit about the baby's life, it's all about the mother's inconvenience.

Then why did you bring up the woman’s responsibility? You cannot make an argument based on a certain premise, and then pretend you never made that argument because of the moral implications of your premise.


Because it is her responsibility, but it isn't the entirety of the argument. A gun owner is responsible for not shooting other people needlessly with his gun, a car owner is responsible for not running into pedestrians, but car and gun laws aren't simply tools to "teach responsibility", it's to protect innocent human lives.....LIKE A BABY!

If we really cared so much about saving lives that we disregarded consent to use the body of another, organ donations would not be voluntary.


I've already shown how the organ donation comparison is illogical. Also, a person with healthy organs has no relationship or responsibility to a sick person, they didn't make them sick. On the other hand, a pregnant woman is fully responsible for the unborn child, and in fact her willful decisions/actions created its existence in the first place! Which she had informed consent before making that choice. See so I am pro-choice, i just think the choice comes before creating the human life.

It's horribly immoral & cruel to create human beings and then kill them for literally any reason whatsoever just because you want sexy fun times without any repercussions. Sex feels good, but it's not simply a game for fun, it's not going to club dancing & getting drunk, sex is literally the biggest responsibility most any person will ever engage in throughout their lives, because we're talking about creating life and death here, this is the ability to play god. Evolution has even deemed it such because children are not mature enough to handle that responsibility of life and death & therefore cannot create life until puberty.

We even respect the consent of dead people as being more important than saving lives. And we treat pregnant women as less important than dead people.


And we treat a mother's inconvenience as more important than the life of an unborn baby. Why do you literally give zero regard to the life of the unborn child? Is it ethical to abort the baby because "eww omg it's a girl, but i want a boy, kill it", because that's the policy we have now.

All these vegan social justice types are so morally upset if you kill an animal for food or milk a cow, but they support the killing of millions of unborn human lives & will even have THE NERVE to call you a women-hater if you disagree. The truth is they're hypocrites who act moral until they want to fuck without consequences, FULL STOP. Save the baby seals!!...Oh but bring out the Auschwitz ovens for the unborn kids. My body my choice to kill whatever humans I create WEEEEEEEEeeeeee!
Last edited by Unthinking Majority on 14 Jun 2019 19:00, edited 2 times in total.
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 22

Double post

You and your establishment nonsense. It is time yo[…]

Eh Rich, you're 4 years late. There's a couple o[…]

Am I racist in your opinion?

@layman , you can hate the bl**dy French all day […]