It’s just not. And even if not viable, without intervention the fetus will come viable. Odd that you accuse me of supporting murder when I support a chance at life for all, while you literally support it by being ok with the ending of a baby’s life for convenience.
1 Like
[quote=“GardenStateCane, post:39, topic:3938”]
A very shortsighted ignorant comment. Also inaccurate
What you actually meant to say is God.
No, I meant to say religions.
No, we don’t. Religions must have an element of the supernatural to be a religion, by definition.
That would be false, according to the definition of murder.
Once again, in order to justify your argument, you have to pretend words don’t have definitions.
I legit have a post missing.
Thank you.
They also use words like “baby” wrongly to justify their position. I assume it is a legit mistake in the heat of the moment.
Not using it wrong at all.
I know why you don’t want to use the term. Humanizing it makes it awful. Because it is.
Babies are born. Words have meanings
You certainly need them to have meaning when faced with an uncomfortable subject.
Luckily, the SC (apparently) appears read to return the issue to the states.
It’s uncomfortable for you, not for me. But, in general, yes…definitions of words are essential for a conversation whether based upon disagreement or not.
Since we are strictly going by definitions: It is wrong to deny the opportunity for a fertilzed egg to complete the process of gaining life. It’s hyprocritical to suggest otherwise. At one point of time, everyone who is living and breathing right now was once a fertilized egg. While I can’t control someone else’s choice, it doesn’t make the choice a correct choice.
Do explain how.
Then explain how endangering a living woman’s life is less important.
I already stated that it’s hypocritical.
All life is equally valuable. There are some women who are unable to have children that would love the able to risk their lives. Yes, you are correct that a woman’s life could be potentially threatened by having a child. That’s a risk that woman take and a regular basis. Using abortions as a method of birth control is to literally spit in the face of nature. There is a much simpler solution to the issue at hand. It doesn’t cover all scenarios, rape being the exception. If you don’t want to get pregnant, then do not engage in sexual activity. Sexual activity is the act for reproduction. They go hand in hand.
Does that negate the value or risk?
Apparently, you’ve never heard of miscarriages. It’s literally a nature abortion
Boy, how generous of you folks. Your “simple solution” is to force all women to carry to term all pregnancies, under any circumstances, unless they’re raped. Of course, we’ll disregard how many rape kits go untested each year and how rapists routinely get off without virtually anything, or how universities and what not try to sweep it under the rug. Gotcha.
Oddly, I don’t see any comments by you about forcing, by law, anything on the man. Nothing whatsoever. All I see is you trying to force women to carry to term any pregnancy outside of rape (ignoring all avenues of discussion about that, of course) by penalty of law.
You must be the “missionary only” type. Something tells me you’re not a lot of fun in the bedroom.
Thank God you will never know. Of course sex is used for pleasure as well. That’s not the conversation at hand.
Miscarriages and abortions are not the same thing.
For me, it’s not a legal issue, it’s a moral issue. I will not deny anyone from making a free will choice. Just because it’s legal to do it, doesn’t mean you should do it. I am full aware that men have paid women to have abortions. They are just as wrong from where I stand on the issue.
If miscarriages aren’t natural abortions, what are they? It’s literally called a spontaneous abortion in some medical settings and historically.
copy that - but, I’m not talking about men paying for abortions. Your stance is that women carry the burden of sex, not men. Again, you’ve said nothing about the man’s responsibility at all
My stance is that it takes two to make a baby. The man is equally responsible for causing pregnancy. We do not know how many abortions are the direct result of the man’s wishes and not the woman’s. Every situation is not cookie cut unfortunately. I don’t understand how people
Are we using strictly definitions here too? I guess we are. One is intentional and the other more often than not, isn’t.
I get your point, but I’m pointing out that technically, a miscarriage is literally a natural abortion.
You’re attributing “intention” with the word abortion. It’s not required. I’m just pointing out that nature causes abortions as well, by definition. It’s uncomfortable to talk about I guess, but it is an abortion.
I think if we are forcing women to carry to term the pregnancy, counting zygotes and fetuses as people, then we legally have to go all in - pregnancies are counted on the census. Child support payments start at conception if applicable. Food stamps, medical aid, etc…begins at conception. You get to claim a pregnancy on your taxes before birth, dependents. You can’t deport pregnant women because the zygote or fetus is a person and therefore a citizen. No pregnant woman can be incarcerated. It violates the rights of the fetus who has not committed a crime and has no opportunity for due process. Social Security #s must be handed out in utero and an unborn can be claimed on taxes. You must count the unborn on the census. Also, women must be allowed to insure the zygote or fetus with life insurance and get paid out with each miscarriage. In this case, I know several women who would be millionaires by now. My wife and I had a miscarriage last year. Is this retroactive?
Very interesting. I wouldn’t be opposed to the principle. I think in a way, you would almost end abortion if we handled it this way.
You’re right. Killing an innocent baby - especially a viable one - is uncomfortable for me. So is what the senate just tried to do - advance a bill that made abortion up to 9 months entirely legal.
Thank god they didn’t have the votes for that.
But they don’t. I have a friend who works out 3 times a day. It’s his religion.
Buddhism - no supernatural beings.
Agnosticism - suspension of a belief of anything supernatural.
Materialism - the belief that everything that exists is derived of material causes
Naturalism - the belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world.
But keep on.