DC Tom Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Yeah but seriously. Seriously? I don't have one. I don't think anyone does. In fact, within ten posts, we're probably going to be arguing whether or not "viable" means "is a person yet" or "can develop in to a person." Up to what point does she no longer have the right to "choose"? When the baby is born? a day before? a month? at 28 weeks? Where is your cut off point? For the record, I support a woman's right to choose but up to a certain point. At some point, that fetus in my view then becomes a baby. And a woman's right to choose does not supersede the right of that baby to live. 20 weeks. Except gatorman's mom - she can choose at any time, since he's clearly not viable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 20 weeks. As of right now, in regards to the law I am with you. 20 weeks. This is the point that is has been published that a baby has a 25% chance of surviving outside of the womb. With time, that % will go higher. Personally, once that baby has a heartbeat, No !@#$ing way could I be supportive of an abortion. I must admit, my views on this has definitely evolved. I suppose having a child is what did it for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 As of right now, in regards to the law I am with you. 20 weeks. This is the point that is has been published that a baby has a 25% chance of surviving outside of the womb. With time, that % will go higher. Personally, once that baby has a heartbeat, No !@#$ing way could I be supportive of an abortion. I must admit, my views on this has definitely evolved. I suppose having a child is what did it for me. For me, it's always come down to it being an individual moral decision, when life begins, and regardless of what I believe on the subject, I've never been comfortable believing it's an absolute truth and forcing it on women. So if a woman's eight weeks pregnant and wants to have an abortion as a manner of convenient birth control...well, I don't agree with it. But I'm not her. I also don't have to have any respect for her afterwards - use the pill or make the dude wear a condom or - preferably - both next time. For health reasons, I can understand...but abortion is an incredibly idiotic form of birth control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 What about a man's right to choose? He's on the hook no matter what with no say on the matter? I don't believe in a man's right to choose to have an abortion. So yeah, a man that is intent on having a child by a woman that chooses to abort it, is phucked. Perhaps there is a court remedy he can pursue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 I don't believe in a man's right to choose to have an abortion. So yeah, a man that is intent on having a child by a woman that chooses to abort it, is phucked. Perhaps there is a court remedy he can pursue. Reconcile this, logically, with the fact that a man who wants an abortion is on the hook financially for a minimum of 18 years, his "right to choose" beginning at conception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 I think it would be preposterous to charge a woman with murder under those circumstances. Just for clarification, I support a woman's right to choose. Morality cannot be legislated and I think it's a moral question. I have never met one person who supports a woman's right to choose who wasn't also pro-life, BTW. EDIT: Just realized you said manslaughter. And no, I don't think it merits a manslaughter charge, either. Not that I'm necessarily looking for a governmental solution to liberals voluntarily reducing their contribution to the gene pool, but for argument's sake, at what point does it become actionable? Before/during/after birth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Reconcile this, logically, with the fact that a man who wants an abortion is on the hook financially for a minimum of 18 years, his "right to choose" beginning at conception. There is no logical reconciliation of it. Men have no rights, only responsibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Imagine a puppy that was born halfway through the gestation period being kept alive in an incubator. Now imagine someone picking up that puppy and cutting it up with a pair of scissors while it writhes in pain. Now imagine it being caught on video and played on the news. Now imagine the liberal reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Reconcile this, logically, with the fact that a man who wants an abortion is on the hook financially for a minimum of 18 years, his "right to choose" beginning at conception. Not sure it can be reconciled logically. Like I said, he's phucked. Not that I'm necessarily looking for a governmental solution to liberals voluntarily reducing their contribution to the gene pool, but for argument's sake, at what point does it become actionable? Before/during/after birth? At the point where it's no longer legal to abort a child by choice. That's what the law says. Still, since you can't legislate morality, there will always be exceptions. Imagine a puppy that was born halfway through the gestation period being kept alive in an incubator. Now imagine someone picking up that puppy and cutting it up with a pair of scissors while it writhes in pain. Now imagine it being caught on video and played on the news. Now imagine the liberal reaction. I'd beat that phuckin pup with a dead baby seal to make sure it was really dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) Not sure it can be reconciled logically. Like I said, he's phucked. Justify it, legally, using the same logic you did to define a "woman's right to choose". At the point where it's no longer legal to abort a child by choice. That's what the law says. Still, since you can't legislate morality, there will always be exceptions. ... What the hell do you mean "you can't legislate morality"? All law is, is the enforcable encoding of a morality. Edited July 30, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Not that I'm necessarily looking for a governmental solution to liberals voluntarily reducing their contribution to the gene pool I know it makes me evil, but I actually take great solace in this. For example, apparently about 17 million black babies (i.e. future Democrats) have been aborted since Roe v Wade. This country would've been screwed had they been born. What man intends for evil, God uses for good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 ... What the hell do you mean "you can't legislate morality"? All law is, is the enforcable encoding of a morality. I don't buy the argument that laws enforce "morality" at all. "Morality" is not a universal concept. Making something legal or illegal doesn't change the moral standards of anyone, necessarily. As an extreme example, if I think murder is perfectly acceptable but choose not to do it because I might get arrested, am I a moral person? Morality touches upon so much more than behavior, which is all laws can hope to regulate. I know it makes me evil, but I actually take great solace in this. For example, apparently about 17 million black babies (i.e. future Democrats) have been aborted since Roe v Wade. This country would've been screwed had they been born. What man intends for evil, God uses for good. This is a monument to evolved thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I don't buy the argument that laws enforce "morality" at all. "Morality" is not a universal concept. Making something legal or illegal doesn't change the moral standards of anyone, necessarily. As an extreme example, if I think murder is perfectly acceptable but choose not to do it because I might get arrested, am I a moral person? Morality touches upon so much more than behavior, which is all laws can hope to regulate. What do laws, in our modern society, enforce if not morality? Speak to the "why", in terms of the "why not". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 This is a monument to evolved thinking. I know, right? And let's say it would've taken X more unborn Dems to be murdered to prevent Obama from becoming president. And let's set Y = Christians and other innocents ISIS has killed + deaths resulting from 150 billion dollars given to Iran to fund terrorism + people killed when Iran sets off a nuclear bomb If Y > X, it could be argued that it would've been worth it to murder X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I know, right? And let's say it would've taken X more unborn Dems to be murdered to prevent Obama from becoming president. And let's set Y = Christians and other innocents ISIS has killed + deaths resulting from 150 billion dollars given to Iran to fund terrorism + people killed when Iran sets off a nuclear bomb If Y > X, it could be argued that it would've been worth it to murder X Posterity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 We keep un-viable people alive every day in hospitals. Are people hooked up to feeding tubes, dialisys, and IVs viable? What about when they do heart surgery and take one's heart out. At that point are they still viable?this is just funny. D for effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 By that definition, a two year old child most likely isn't viable. its scary to realize that many people are fully ready to start defining this stuff and eventually they'll end up interring mentally deficient and handicap people for not being viable. Then again, he supports Bernie.... Sooo.... Imagine a puppy that was born halfway through the gestation period being kept alive in an incubator. Now imagine someone picking up that puppy and cutting it up with a pair of scissors while it writhes in pain. Now imagine it being caught on video and played on the news. Now imagine the liberal reaction. pfff I saw that Monday night on the web. It wasn't even the worst thing I saw, either. Today, even, only the wort thing I saw was on liveleak was the woman ate by the escalator. Managed to save her kid but that was luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 What do laws, in our modern society, enforce if not morality? Speak to the "why", in terms of the "why not". Laws enforce a standard of conduct for those with or without morality, shared or otherwise. Simply put, morality cannot be imposed on anyone that doesn't share the same belief system. Laws are imposed on everyone, regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 At the point where it's no longer legal to abort a child by choice. That's what the law says. Still, since you can't legislate morality, there will always be exceptions. Isn't that a circular argument? And isn't any point set by law necessarily legislating morality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 And isn't any point set by law necessarily legislating morality? Yes. I don't see what's so difficult in grasping the concept. Theft is illegal because it's immoral. Murder is illegal because it's immoral. While not all laws are a direct reflection of morality (ie fishing without a license), both the laws we have adopted and the constitutional guarantees we enjoy are based in moral values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts