Well, if you have nothing to say to me, why did you respond? And believe it or not I was simply curious when I asked the question about religion.
If there’s no reason to go further, why did you follow up?
My answer to the question doesn’t help the discussion. When someone else’s life is at stake, i.e. the ever-approximating human person fetus, that changes the equation. For you apparently that’s a non-issue. For me it’s fundamental.
I have no respect for you. You are the one who chose to come on heer and insult me first by saying that I was a 16 year old boy. You constantly chose to come here with no other purpose than to mock and ridicule me. Don’t go and play all innocent with me or act all high and mighty. Frankly it’s ridiculous.
Don’t try to claim you were just being curious because you know damn well you weren’t. You were being the same jerk that you always are. Buzz off.
I would be willing to bet the majority of pro-choicers are anti-draft and anti-SS-registration too, though…so why does it matter?
The government being wrong about conscription doesn’t mean we should use conscription to justify other wrongs to make it somehow fair.
Do you not think that sperm and eggs meet the criteria for life, like viruses or prions or something? Do human red blood cells contain human life (they have no nuclei)? Do human skeletal muscle cells contain human life (they have multiple nuclei)? Do human neurons contain human life (they do not divide)?
Males are not human now ?
All right. I see the sophists are out in force today.
A human (adj.) sperm cell is not a human (n). Everyone here knows this. “Contains human life” is a meaningless phrase. One either is or isn’t.
I would like medical procedures performed by practitioners who have been thoroughly trained in the procedures being performed and at the minimum professionally competent at performing those procedures. Does it matter if they work out of a hospital or clinic? No. I’m not sure why it should.
Are you saying that despite the fact that you support comprehensive sexual and reproductive access and education in this country, you feel it would be impractical to achieve? I don’t understand. Why you support it? Please tell me what is so unique about family planning in the Netherlands that the successes (and failures) of its’ policies shouldn’t be considered.
I’m not sure ‘push’ means what you think it means. How is respecting a woman’s (and her doctor’s) ability to make decisions with regard to her own life ‘pushing’ her into later abortions? If anyone’s pushing, it’s those who are actively making earlier term abortions incredibly difficult to access. And why doesn’t the status of the fetus matter if a woman’s health and well-being is at risk?
I’ve given this a great deal of thought and, frankly, I can’t think of one. You are welcome to provide me with some real-world scenarios, however. I appreciate the opportunity to challenge my own positions.
The fact is, I don’t believe in the existence of T-1 abortions and I see no benefit to society in legislating against it or even basing an argument on the hypothetical. I can comfortably accept that there is a damn good reason for each and every post-viability abortion. Further, I see no societal benefit to extending legal personhood to unwanted zygotes/embryos/unborn fetuses and providing them with legal rights that born persons are not granted.
Off-topic, but as tangentially related to bodily autonomy, I also support voluntary organ and blood donation; I oppose military conscription; I oppose legislation selectively banning personal drug usage; and I oppose legislation regulating voluntary euthanasia. Pretty much, I don’t appreciate the government and/or religious organizations dictating what one can and cannot do with respect to one’s own body.
To be perfectly clear, I see a fetus as an extension of one’s body. Once it is no longer part of an existing person (i.e., it is born), it becomes an individual person unto itself.
No. I thought I explained this once; your claim implies that at some time in the past, a non-human gave birth to a human. You’re claim implies that one species gave birth to another.
You’re wrong about everything else in this thread too, but others have that well covered. Very well covered.
You know, you could ignore the posts you find insulting, and answer the genuine questions I and others have posed you.
The fact you chose to ignore the actual questions and get involved instead in a flame battle indicates that you know your beliefs are unsustainable under examination.
I’m confident that you’re wrong, and I recognize the possibility that you choosing to believe this is a symptom that your individual perspective is biased, i.e. you want to believe it, there you can’t be trusted to believe it. I can only suggest you check with higher authority.
Well, okay, if you want to rape an unborn individual inside you, be my guest. The “foul” part of your analogies is you keep dropping the critical element, i.e. that it involves someone being inside your body.
If the “another” is inside you, go ahead. Every time you drop this critical element and claim I’m suggesting a license to rape and murder, you display your irrational inability to maintain constancy, like an infant who thinks an object ceases to exists when it disappears from view.
Meh, I’m of the position that all freedoms exist by default unless the state can demonstrate a good reason why a particular freedom should not. Preventing violent crimes like rape and murder are perfectly sound, of course. Preventing abortion… rather less so, and I haven’t seen anything compelling presented in this or any earlier thread. I can vaguely imagine circumstances changing so the state could have a valid argument to ban abortion, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
Do you believe you only have the freedoms your government allows you to have, or do they only have the laws you allow them to have? Just curious. I figure the 10th Amendment supports me.
Heck, even if she’d filed in 1974 with a massive case of plaintiff’s regret… y’know, truth be told, I’m not sure what effect it would have had. Personally, I think it shouldn’t have had any effect - McCorvy won the right to choose and the subsequent responsibilities. I’m not sure she should be allowed to just give those up. She could always choose to do nothing, after all.
Well, I’m sure someone with some constitutional expertise can weigh in sooner or later on the possible effects of a Roe withdrawal. The mechanism for withdrawal exists, so presumably it’s been done before and since, though perhaps on not such a pivotal case.
Heh, there’s that “as a whole” thing, again. As far as I can tell, you’re the only one in this thread who has invoked McCorvey’s later regrets, and now you’re doing so with Cano.
Well, as long as you admit it doesn’t prove anything, I feel safe in just shrugging it off.
I don’t actually know what Democrats promise to college educated white women, though I presume this is a group that overall wants abortion to remain legal and accessible. And I guess we can see the results of Republicans following through with recent proposed legislation denying federal funding the medical schools that teach abortion procedures, doing what they can to restrict access, ignoring consequences for short-term political gain…
Then we have different interpretations of the word “serious”, and I note that yours seems especially and conveniently flexible.
Slavery arguments involved people being inside the bodies of other people, then? How novel.
Sure, it would. You’d get some extra unwanted babies born into the world, hurray, along with a variety of negative effects that you can’t or won’t recognize.
Your position is such that any analysis I could give about the negative effects of an abortion ban could be rationalized away as “fearmongering”. I can refer you to the “the only moral abortion is MY abortion” link, if it’ll matter.
What “record” are you talking about? The loss of gynecological services when Planned Parenthood clinics get driven out of town because pro-lifers ignorantly think the vast majority of their services are abortion related?
You’re right - we won, you lost. Maybe you can try to claim a kind of victory through martyrdom, see how well that works out for you.
Which would be fine if **classyladyhp **hadn’t happily skipped between “carries human DNA”, “is produced by a human” and “is a human being” as suited her at the moment when defining what her use of the adjective “human” meant.
Let her pick a fucking one and stick with it.
As for “contains human life” being meaningless, it does seem rather important in the pro-life argument and their equation that foetus=baby. It certainly seems to matter to little miss retard here.
And again I laugh at this and point out that it doesn’t. I’m not the one claiming that a human can reproduce to produce anything other than a human (apparently, you missed curlcoat’s responses so somehow thinks that a human woman gestates something other than a human, like a dog or something. But that’s forgivable, seeing as how the pro-choicers in this thread don’t read what the others type out). You know, at some point in time, one would pick up a biology book or something. Scientific understanding goes a long way. Just as some ape-like creature didn’t pop out a human millions of years ago, a human isn’t going to pop out some alien-like creature at any point in time. That ain’t the way things work.
Assuming you’re a chick and you give birth to a girl, that girl will still be a human like you yet ever-so-slightly genetically different than yourself. If she gives birth to a daughter, that daughter will still be a human yet ever-so-slightly genetically different than your daughter, and a bit more-so than you. If she were to have a daughter, she’d still be a human like you, yet ever-so-slightly genetically different than her mother, a bit more-so than her grandmother, and a tad bit more-so than you. And so on and so forth through every generation. If this happens for long enough (typically over hundreds of thousands of millions of years), you will eventually end up with a new species.
Again, simple. Before you criticize, you might want to read what I’m responding to in regards to what others type out.
Uh-huh. I hate people who dickride. Especially people who do so after saying something incredibly dumb.
…Oh, but tell me how abortion is never a decision undertaken cavalierly. I need a good laugh again 
You must have rode on the short bus at school moron. A sperm is not a human. It does not contain human life. It is a haploid cell produced by a man. A fetus is human it does not contain human life you imbecile:rolleyes:
I never used the fucking term contains human life. It was some dipshit anti-lifer that used that term.
Who the fuck said males are not human. You c a n n o t r e a d.
I said SPERM cells are not human and don’t contain human life. They are cells haploiid cells PRODUCED by a human male.
QFT.
OMG, a fucking idiot.
Define human life. Then explain why it matters.
Wait, what ?!
OK, you’re going to have to define human life even harder now.
I said it does not simply contain human life it is human. Do you actually go around telling people you contain human life. Who the hell talks like that?