A question for anti-choicers

Atheistmark said:
Why would I support that?

Maybe if we had an artificial embryo that they could put it in instead (although that would still force the woman to undergo surgery). But I don't think the man should have veto right to force the woman to carry the child.
Click to expand...

it takes two willing people (assuming no rape) to make a baby....it is ludicrous to deny that the father rights simply because the woman carries the child

and good for you for saying child
 
Yurt said:
it takes two willing people (assuming no rape) to make a baby....it is ludicrous to deny that the father rights simply because the woman carries the child

and good for you for saying child
Click to expand...

Wow. It's amazing to hear it trivialized like that.

Spoken like someone who never carried a child & will never have to...
 
Onceler said:
Wow. It's amazing to hear it trivialized like that.

Spoken like someone who never carried a child & will never have to...
Click to expand...

The peanut gallery chimes in.

Why are you interrupting? I was busy laying waste to the "pro choice" argument. I don't want these vaginist distractions.
 
Yurt said:
not really....if you look at it non religiously, it is more human....it is a child growing inside its mother....babies are taken out of their mother prematurely all the time, are they not human? why is it not human just because it is inside its mother?
Click to expand...

Late-second trimester babies can sometimes survive when taken out of the mother. But I don't think that viability is really anything more than an arbitrary point. We routinely slaughter and eat animals with a greater amount of cognitive ability than a second trimester fetus.
 
Atheistmark said:
Late-second trimester babies can sometimes survive when taken out of the mother. But I don't think that viability is really anything more than an arbitrary point. We routinely slaughter and eat animals with a greater amount of cognitive ability than a second trimester fetus.
Click to expand...

:thisisgettinggood:
 
Yurt said:
it takes two willing people (assuming no rape) to make a baby....it is ludicrous to deny that the father rights simply because the woman carries the child

and good for you for saying child
Click to expand...

A man simply can't make a baby. Usually, this is a benefit, not a curse.

In the future we're probably be able to make babies from sperm and donated eggs and grow them in an artificial womb (although we really shouldn't encourage such frivolousness with overpopulation going on).

But forcing a woman to carry a child to term is slavery.
 
Atheistmark said:
A man simply can't make a baby. Usually, this is a benefit, not a curse.

In the future we're probably be able to make babies from sperm and donated eggs and grow them in an artificial womb (although we really shouldn't encourage such frivolousness with overpopulation going on).

But forcing a woman to carry a child to term is slavery.
Click to expand...

hate to break it to you, but a woman can't simply make a baby either

its not slavery, if she willingly chose to have sex.....if you willingly eat a fat burrito from taco bell and get the shits, is it slavery you have to sit on the throne for hours? did taco bell enslave your ass on the porcelain throne?
 
Atheistmark said:
Late-second trimester babies can sometimes survive when taken out of the mother. But I don't think that viability is really anything more than an arbitrary point. We routinely slaughter and eat animals with a greater amount of cognitive ability than a second trimester fetus.
Click to expand...

so, to you, its only human when...................._____......
 
I know I promised I wouldn't interrupt, but Yurt, seriously - would you want to see an America where abortion was illegal, at any stage?
 
Onceler said:
I know I promised I wouldn't interrupt, but Yurt, seriously - would you want to see an America where abortion was illegal, at any stage?
Click to expand...

I don't want it to be legal at the third trimester other than for health reasons. I mean, if you have abortion on demand at that stage, I'm not into it. 2nd trimester too. Most women know they're pregnant within the first 6 weeks. Boil an egg if you will, but late term shit on demand? Not into it.
 
Onceler said:
I know I promised I wouldn't interrupt, but Yurt, seriously - would you want to see an America where abortion was illegal, at any stage?
Click to expand...

i'm not sure....i don't know exactly when human life begins, i tend to err on the side it begins at conception, however, i am not naive enough to believe that abortion is never an answer in every case imaginable

if you wouldn't kill a baby once it is outside of its mother, why do you support the legal right to kill a baby at any stage that it is in it's mother?
 
Yurt said:
i'm not sure....i don't know exactly when human life begins, i tend to err on the side it begins at conception, however, i am not naive enough to believe that abortion is never an answer in every case imaginable

if you wouldn't kill a baby once it is outside of its mother, why do you support the legal right to kill a baby at any stage that it is in it's mother?
Click to expand...

It's good to hear a thoughtful answer like that. I'm not someone who sees this as a very black & white issue. Clearly, life "begins" at some point during the development, and the 1st trimester is a very arbitrary mark.

I also can't be convinced that there is something supremely magical that happens when a sperm combines with an egg; no one will ever convince me that 2 cells combined is a "child." Nor do I think anything in the zygote stage is a "child," and I don't think it's murder to terminate at that time.

But I also think as a pregnancy develops, a child is clearly developing as it gets toward the middle & later stages, and viability becomes a real consideration. Ultimately, I see Roe - while being arbitrary - as representing as good a compromise as we can get on this issue. I absolutely do not want to live in an America where the state tells a woman that they have to carry the fetus to term as soon as they are pregnant. Roe gives them an option early on in the pregnancy, and if they can't decide by then, they have to carry to term.

It's definitely a complex issue - more complex than zealots on both sides will allow. Still, the thought of abortion being completely outlawed is, to me, chilling....
 
Onceler said:
It's good to hear a thoughtful answer like that. I'm not someone who sees this as a very black & white issue. Clearly, life "begins" at some point during the development, and the 1st trimester is a very arbitrary mark.

I also can't be convinced that there is something supremely magical that happens when a sperm combines with an egg; no one will ever convince me that 2 cells combined is a "child." Nor do I think anything in the zygote stage is a "child," and I don't think it's murder to terminate at that time.

But I also think as a pregnancy develops, a child is clearly developing as it gets toward the middle & later stages, and viability becomes a real consideration. Ultimately, I see Roe - while being arbitrary - as representing as good a compromise as we can get on this issue. I absolutely do not want to live in an America where the state tells a woman that they have to carry the fetus to term as soon as they are pregnant. Roe gives them an option early on in the pregnancy, and if they can't decide by then, they have to carry to term.

It's definitely a complex issue - more complex than zealots on both sides will allow. Still, the thought of abortion being completely outlawed is, to me, chilling....
Click to expand...

good points...it is a very complex issue and since it deals with life or potential life, a very emotional issue. to those who believe life begins at conception, that the state allows abortion is tantamount to the state allowing murder...i can see what you're saying about teh very early stages due to the fact i do not know exactly when life begins, but i'm with you in leaning heavily against the middle, later stages....my best friend's wife is due in a month, they've seen the sonograms and i can't help but believe that if (they would never) she aborted now simply because she didn't want the child, that this would not be murder

something i've never understood is: how can abortion be legal, but someone who is not the mother or doctor, kills the unborn child and gets charged with murder
 
Atheistmark said:
Late-second trimester babies can sometimes survive when taken out of the mother. But I don't think that viability is really anything more than an arbitrary point. We routinely slaughter and eat animals with a greater amount of cognitive ability than a second trimester fetus.
Click to expand...

So, by extension, you endorse the slaughter of lesser humans? And it's only the religious who are insidious?
 
Atheistmark said:
What lead you down the path of evil? Why did you reject good, and become an anti-human peace of scum?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be that harsh on people supporting one size fits all health care "solutions"... but to each their own. You go Agnostimark!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top