- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Oklahoma lawmakers OK bill criminalizing performing abortion
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:23 pm to slackster
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:23 pm to slackster
quote:
I do too, and I think my stance is pretty practical. If you let nature take its course, the only way that zygote won't turn into a baby 40 weeks later is if an outside party interferes. I've got no problem if someone thinks that is asinine, but that is my belief.
Ok. So this is a good example of an anti abortion zealot. The issue here is not being anti abortion. The problem with this stance is you're ignoring the fact that there are times when a pregnancy can do more harm than good, yet you chose to willfully ignore this problem in favor of your personal moral convictions. This is a problem.
There are times when terminating a pregnancy is a necessary evil. I simply can not understand how one can take the stance of, let nature take it's course. I bet you're vaccinated and a I bet your kids are vaccinated. I bet you go to the doctor when your sick. Let nature take it's course right? But only when it suites you best.
1
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:23 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
TheCaterpillar
quote:
It's absurd people think a microscopic zygote should have human rights.
Once it develops slightly into something I see the argument, but come on.
Did you see the 8 weeks pictures? Eyes, ears, mouth, arms, legs, hands, feet, fingers, toes, heart, lungs, and liver are all present and identifiable.
It is very much human shaped.
That's at 8 weeks, not even the end of the first trimester.
I personally knew a woman(who because she never "missed" a menstrual cycle) didn't know she was pregnant until she was five months along.
Due to an anomaly she didn't know the child was there until it mas past most people's cut off for an abortion.
Did she have the right to abort it from her body upon discovery at 5 months?
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:24 pm to Barf
quote:
I think both sides have a little bit of truth to them but neither sides seems to want to compromise.
You're going to have a hard time getting someone to compromise on something that is so divisive, particularly on the side of people who are pro-life.
Confining abortions to the first or second trimester is not a "win" or even a "compromise" if you believe life begins at conception.
I don't think you can sway many people firmly in either camp, but the middle ground is where I have an issue, particularly with the "mother's body, mother's choice" argument. As I said earlier, I cannot reconcile the idea that you can be pro-choice, but only up to a certain point. If the mother has a right over her body, then she should be allowed to abort something in her body at any point that it is still in her body. Most would agree that is despicable, and many would say it should be illegal, but if that is the case, I don't see how you can peel it back to a certain trimester without infringing on that mother's right.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:25 pm to Azranod
quote:
Did she have the right to abort it from her body upon discovery at 5 months?
Do you have the right to tell her she can not?
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:27 pm to Barf
quote:
There are times when terminating a pregnancy is a necessary evil. I simply can not understand how one can take the stance of, let nature take it's course. I bet you're vaccinated and a I bet your kids are vaccinated. I bet you go to the doctor when your sick. Let nature take it's course right? But only when it suites you best.
Is this really the route you're going to take? Do you not see or understand the difference between interference that promotes life and interference that destroys it?
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:27 pm to AUveritas
quote:
The simple truth is inarguable. There is no way, scientifically or otherwise, to determine when "life' begins. Everyone will ultimately fall back to some arbitrary standard.
True.
quote:
If we are truly a civilized people, the moral choice would be to err on the side of caution and assume it begins at conception.
And this is your arbitrary standard.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:28 pm to Barf
quote:
Do you have the right to tell her she can not?
Are you for or against late term abortions? I suspect you're against them, and that would sum this debate up pretty quickly.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:30 pm to ULSU
quote:
Lol, not necessarily
Do you understand the logic? A miscarriage doesn't change the logic.
ETA: For the record, I'm not the one down voting all of these pro-choice posts.
This post was edited on 5/19/16 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:34 pm to Barf
quote:
Zeal is the biggest problem in this debate.
The problem with most of these complicated issues is that people are convinced of the simple correctness of their own position. They argue with the conclusion already decided and are more interested in being "right" than they are in finding the truth.
The position of "this debate would be ended quickly if just..." is a perfect example of the foolhardiness of people not being willing to have an actual discussion. No, it really isn't that simple. If it were then it would have been solved a long time ago.
This post was edited on 5/19/16 at 2:35 pm
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:38 pm to TechDawg2007
Good - It ought to be Oklahoma's decision. States Rights. 
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:38 pm to Peazey
quote:
And this is your arbitrary standard.
Of what?
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:39 pm to Barf
I am neither Pro-Choice or Pro-Life. As the husband of a woman who had an ectopic pregnancy, I am Pro-Reason.
I don't believe because two people could not be bothered to take precautions to ensure they did not conceive a child is reason to abort a life.
I don't believe because two people could not be bothered to take precautions to ensure they did not conceive a child is reason to abort a life.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:43 pm to slackster
it isn't just pro choice that is being downvoted. It is neutral discussion. The people on either side of this issue generally hate even hearing what isn't exactly what they already believe. This post was edited on 5/19/16 at 2:54 pm
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:47 pm to slackster
quote:
Do you understand the logic? A miscarriage doesn't change the logic.
We use different logic. Nature kills embryos, humans kill embryos. Makes no difference to me for the most part. I don't think humanity is worse for it frankly. That is what we will likely never agree on.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:54 pm to Peazey
It's logically inconsistent to make performing an abortion an offense without penalizing the women seeking the abortion. Even the most zealous anti abortionists won't say this publicly because it would sink their movement. But if an abortion doctor is a criminal, so is the woman. And what of miscarriages or stillbirths caused by the woman not taking proper prenatal care? You will have to go back and investigate every pregnancy not carried to term to make sure a crime hasn't been committed. That's the logical end to all this.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 2:56 pm to AUveritas
Think about it. Have some self awareness. Sincerely, I know it's hard. It might come to you.
Eta: the first statement is true. The second statement is entirely based off of your preconceived subjective and arbitrary values to come to a conclusion that you have already made. It is a simple opinion. See this about yourself. Other people do hold different values. Falsely stating your own opinions as axiomatic doesn't change that.
Eta: the first statement is true. The second statement is entirely based off of your preconceived subjective and arbitrary values to come to a conclusion that you have already made. It is a simple opinion. See this about yourself. Other people do hold different values. Falsely stating your own opinions as axiomatic doesn't change that.
This post was edited on 5/19/16 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 5/19/16 at 3:06 pm to slackster
quote:
Is this really the route you're going to take? Do you not see or understand the difference between interference that promotes life and interference that destroys it?
I fail to see how my stance is any more or less ludicrous than yours. The difference is I understand the fallacy in mine. I was simply using your suggestion to let nature take it's course. Your words, not mine.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 3:08 pm to Barf
I applaud them. Also to hell with the federal government trying to protect murder nationwide.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 3:08 pm to Peazey
quote:
Sincerely, I know it's hard. It might come to you.
Ah, the ad hominem. Simply as a retort, allow me to point out that this is always the fallback response of the intellectual lightweight.
quote:
The second statement is entirely based off of your preconceived subjective and arbitrary values to come to a conclusion that you have already made.
a. Murder is the willful illegal killing of a human being.
b. Since we do not know when life begins,abortion may be murder.
c. To avoid possibly murdering someone, it would be prudent to avoid abortion.
Arbitrary?
This post was edited on 5/19/16 at 3:16 pm
Posted on 5/19/16 at 3:11 pm to Azranod
quote:
I am Pro-Reason.
quote:
I don't believe because two people could not be bothered to take precautions to ensure they did not conceive a child is reason to abort a life.
That's not reason, that's morality policing
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News