Fetal heartbeat and the abortion fight - Page 4 - 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.
#15005288
I don't agree with Hindsite. but there you go.

We're both entitled to have sex any way we want as long as no other person is harmed or forced to do anything they find disgusting against their will.
By The trigger
#15005289
I saw where someone said a unborn baby has no rights like its mother really now. Then why is it if a pregnet woman is killed in the usa and the baby dies you get charged with 2 counts of murder. But of course its ok if mom kills it.
They have no rights because you some want to murder them because they are to stupid to use birth control and they want to be able to murder the unborn when they fail to use birthcontrol due to a total lack of intelegence and moral values.
#15005295
It's old, but shows the hypocrisy on this topic.

Anti-abortion Rep. Tim Murphy resigns after report he asked lover to end pregnancy
Pennsylvania Rep. Tim Murphy has resigned after a report surfaced earlier this week that he had asked an extramarital lover to end her pregnancy.

Murphy, a Republican who co-sponsored a 20-week abortion ban that passed in the House Tuesday, allegedly asked his lover to terminate her pregnancy, according to text message records acquired by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Shannon Edwards, 32, whom Murphy recently admitted to having an affair with, messaged the 65-year-old congressman after an anti-abortion statement was posted on his office’s Facebook account in January.

"And you have zero issue posting your pro-life stance all over the place when you had no issue asking me to abort our unborn child just last week when we thought that was one of the options," allegedly wrote Edwards in a text exchange that was a part of a number of documents obtained by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

A response from Murphy's phone number allegedly read, "I get what you say about my March for life messages. I've never written them. Staff does them. I read them and winced. I told staff don't write any more. I will."

According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the exchange was over "an unfounded pregnancy scare."

Murphy’s office and Edwards had no comment when reached by ABC News.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/anti-ab ... IRdwK1ZzVA
#15005316
@snapdragon said: We're both entitled to have sex any way we want as long as no other person is harmed or forced to do anything they find disgusting against their will.


I agree. I could make quite a long list of things you are entitled to do. Entitlement to do something does not remove the necessity to suffer the consequences for doing it.

Your argument is correct but does not in any way argue against what the anti abortion people are saying. They agree you have the right to have sex pretty much anytime you like. THEIR argument would be that you do not have the right to kill a person because you do not want to accept the consequences for your actions.
#15005318
If the purpose behind abortion is to “teach responsibility to women”, or something like that, then the object of these laws is to regulate women’s sexuality and is not about saving lives.
#15005322
Godstud wrote:As I already said, humans are flawed and make mistakes.

That's why we have laws to punish people. Having an abortion isn't something people do accidentally. Murders, assaults, thefts, and so forth are often done intentionally. I haven't heard too many cases of people accidentally having an abortion.

Godstud wrote:It's old, but shows the hypocrisy on this topic.

It's nice to see another RINO bite the dust though. Don't you share in the schadenfreude?
#15005331
Drlee wrote:I agree. I could make quite a long list of things you are entitled to do. Entitlement to do something does not remove the necessity to suffer the consequences for doing it.


Very true.

Men have to realise they don't have any birth control choices after they've had sex, but that women do, and whether they take them up is down to them.

Your argument is correct but does not in any way argue against what the anti abortion people are saying. They agree you have the right to have sex pretty much anytime you like. THEIR argument would be that you do not have the right to kill a person because you do not want to accept the consequences for your actions.



You certainly don't have the right to kill a person for that reason.
I've not made the argument you do.
Foetuses aren't people.
#15005335
Men have to realise they don't have any birth control choices after they've had sex, but that women do, and whether they take them up is down to them.


That is absolutely correct. It is why, IF there is to be a decision to abort, it must be solely the woman's decision.

You certainly don't have the right to kill a person for that reason.
I've not made the argument you do.
Foetuses aren't people.


And, of course THEY believe a fetus is a person. That argument will never be resolved, will it. So what we are left with is two opposing opinions about life. That is why we have to resolve the argument on the basis of the rights of the mother IMO. Nothing else will ever gain consensus.
#15005338
Drlee wrote:And, of course THEY believe a fetus is a person. That argument will never be resolved, will it. So what we are left with is two opposing opinions about life. That is why we have to resolve the argument on the basis of the rights of the mother IMO. Nothing else will ever gain consensus.


Is every fertilised embryo a person?
#15005341
blackjack21 wrote:Set who back decades? And how? Who cares what happens in Alabama?


What Bama wants is for this to get challenged at the US supreme court. This is why they made the law so extreme. If that happens, the US supreme court could overturn Roe V Wade, when then affects the entire nation.
#15005343
Pants-of-dog wrote:Is every fertilised embryo a person?


It depends on the definition PoD. Alabama wants to give fetuses personhood. Under that law they would be classed as a person. I think that is what Drlee is getting at when he mentioned conflicting opinions which cannot be broken - which causes a legal problem by the way. A conflict in law. Whose right then takes priority? The fetuses for the right to live or the mother for the right of self determination. That is why science and anyone of sound mind do not determine personhood until birth. Because abortions under health reasoning could be legally challenged when you do.
Last edited by B0ycey on 17 May 2019 17:29, edited 1 time in total.
#15005344
Drlee wrote:And, of course THEY believe a fetus is a person. That argument will never be resolved, will it.

It can be resolved if both sides agree to respect fact and logic.
So what we are left with is two opposing opinions about life. That is why we have to resolve the argument on the basis of the rights of the mother IMO. Nothing else will ever gain consensus.

It is a fact that if a fetus cannot live separately from the woman carrying it, it is by definition not a separate life, and therefore cannot be a separate person. If it is not a separate life or person, it is part of the woman's body. Morally, authority and responsibility must be coextensive; so as everyone is immutably in control of and thus responsible for their own body, a woman has absolute authority over her pre-viable fetus.

Traditionally, a newborn's lusty cry was considered the definitive proof of live birth, and even if it was born with a heartbeat, inability to breathe showed it was stillborn. Capacity for independent respiration, not heartbeat, is therefore the criterion of separate life and thus separate personhood.
#15005346
B0ycey wrote:It depends on the definition PoD. Alabama wants to give fetuses personhood. Under that law they would be classed as a person. I think that is what Drlee is getting at when he mentioned conflicting opinions which cannot be broken - which causes a legal problem by the way. A conflict in law. Whose right then takes priority? The fetuses for the right to live or the mother for the right of self determination. That is why science and anyone of sound mind do not determine personhood until birth. Because abortions under health reasoning could be legally challenged when you do.


There are arguments that support abortion even if we assume the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. Rothbard has one that most ancaps ignore.

I am wondering if the idea is to protect all fertilised embryos because they are human people.

If we grant personhood to all fertilised embryos, then what happens to the person who throws away all the fertilised embryos at the fertility clinic?
#15005348
Pants-of-dog wrote:There are arguments that support abortion even if we assume the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. Rothbard has one that most ancaps ignore.

I am wondering if the idea is to protect all fertilised embryos because they are human people.

If we grant personhood to all fertilised embryos, then what happens to the person who throws away all the fertilised embryos at the fertility clinic?


I don't know what Rothbard thinks about abortion but his opinion means little in a legal sense. If a fetus is given personhood it has the same rights as you. Which is why it shouldn't. Drlee is correct that as there is a conflict in opinion and as such a conflict in law, the rights of the mother should be paramount. And to ensure that, a fetus must be classed as such. A fetus.
#15005350
Drlee wrote:That is absolutely correct. It is why, IF there is to be a decision to abort, it must be solely the woman's decision.


Yep.

And, of course THEY believe a fetus is a person. That argument will never be resolved, will it. So what we are left with is two opposing opinions about life. That is why we have to resolve the argument on the basis of the rights of the mother IMO. Nothing else will ever gain consensus.


I agree with you absolutely.

Nobody is right and nobody is wrong, which is why it must be left to the conscience of the woman concerned.

I think most of us have known a child that died or was killed and I, personally, find it pretty dsgusting that people want to give the same value to an embryo as a born person.

The father of my playmate who was knocked down and killed by a car at the age of ten, never , ever got over it. He aged twenty years overnight. I remember as if it was yesterday him sitting at the kitchen table, his head in his arms, his whole body shaking with grief.

Yet there are people who would have told him the loss of his son was no worse than the embryo.

Sod that.
#15005351
The trigger wrote:Myself I think all of you and anyone wanting a abortion need to go to a abortion and watch one.
There are 2 basic types one they suck the child out with a hose its very graphic and disgusting.
The other one is the hook method where the child is hooked like a fish and often placed in a stainless try or bucket to die a horrable painful discusting death.
I have not looked for a long time but id bet the vids could still be found online. Look at them if you think abortions used for birth control are a good thing.
Most of those in favor wont do it id bet . they dont want to see it. They are afraid it might touch thier heart .
Or have to judge themself for what they are doing.


What a load of crap. Most (90+%) are chemically induced abortions (taking a pill) performed during the first trimester.
#15005352
B0ycey wrote:I don't know what Rothbard thinks about abortion but his opinion means little in a legal sense. If a fetus is given personhood it has the same rights as you. Which is why it shouldn't. Drlee is correct that as there is a conflict in opinion and as such a conflict in law, the rights of the mother should be paramount. And to ensure that, a fetus must be classed as such. A fetus.


I agree that Rothbard’s opinion is irrelevant for legal purposes, but it is interesting to note that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) came to the same conclusion that he did using a different argument.

Basically, the argument is that we are not obligated to allow someone else to use our body even when the other person’s life depends on it. So, we cannot be forced to donate a kidney, or even blood. We even extend this right to the dead by not using their organs without consent.

Usually, it is called the right to bodily integrity. Oddly enough, the USA does not actually have any clear text saying that its citizens have this right.
#15005353
That is a fair argument. Although a hospital would have to try and preserve the life of embryo regardless of its medical condition once it had left the mother and then there is the possibility of prosecution by wilful neglect if it was classed as a person as you are endangering its life nonetheless.
#15005355
While it is true that the fathers have no input in terminating pregnancies after conception, they had the option of using a condom to prevent conception. If the mother wants support she can seek it from him. If the combined income is insufficient to rear a child in a safe environment with a reasonably nutritious diet then the state, forcing the pregnancy goes forward, should have to ensure adequate financing
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 22

In fact he was a known opponent of racism. Diffe[…]

How ISIS replenishes its ranks

@anasawad Scholars from Al-Azhar University of[…]

There's a fundamental difference in terms of the […]

“We describe our psychological experience in term[…]