- 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: All the talk on Roe V. Wade
Posted on 7/14/18 at 4:27 pm to Ole Messcort
Posted on 7/14/18 at 4:27 pm to Ole Messcort
quote:
I'm not trying to get multiple laws changed here but my personal opinion is the father has zero right to tell the woman what to do with the baby till it comes out.
Why? If the father doesn't want the baby, and the woman has it, it's the father that pays for the next 18-20 years. Thats a huge expectation to dump on him, more so than the woman who has many venues for aid, don't you agree?
0
Posted on 7/14/18 at 4:29 pm to Ole Messcort
Okay. Let's make it simple.
If you don't want to have a kid, two options:
• Don't have sex.
• Let someone adopt the baby.
A child should NEVER be killed. Abortions should be banned.
By being "Pro Choice", you are taking away the baby's choice of life.
If you don't want to have a kid, two options:
• Don't have sex.
• Let someone adopt the baby.
A child should NEVER be killed. Abortions should be banned.
By being "Pro Choice", you are taking away the baby's choice of life.
Posted on 7/14/18 at 4:32 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
I just searched the words "expend" and "expendable" in my post history.
So you're so confused about what you meant that you check your own post history searching, with furrowed brow and a puzzled look as to what I could have possibly meant. Silly.
Posted on 7/14/18 at 4:34 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
In the context of an abortion debate, it means that I'm not interested in having one if it doesn't center on a discussion of personhood.
Why not? Is someone lacking the semantic quality of "personhood" expendable?
quote:
I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to make of this.
bullshite.
Posted on 7/14/18 at 4:35 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
You're begging the question.
Not intentionally. It was my understanding you were conceding personhood of the fetus, while trying to explain how killing it could be justified regardless.
Since that's not the case:
quote:
What level of personhood does the fetus have, and what rights, both positive and negative, go with that designation?
Full personhood as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't mean they can vote or drive, but I absolutely believe their life is every bit as deserving of protection under the law as mine or yours.
Posted on 7/14/18 at 4:37 pm to Ole Messcort
quote:
No what's dumb is thinking birth control will be as available to women as it currently is once abortion is banned everywhere.
This makes no sense.
So now you're arguing from a fear of the future you create in your mind.
Weak.
Posted on 7/14/18 at 4:38 pm to Ole Messcort
I’m STILL waiting. And I find it odd I’ve had to post this several times now for you just to not answer.
quote:
How do you feel about our meddling in foreign affairs? Can I get your opinion on our support for or the various ways we meddle in other countries affairs and elections? Rebel groups, coups, regime change, sowing dissent, spying, phishing, hacking, influencing public opinion, American companies (facebook, Twitter etc) using their platform to push an agenda Which of these are acceptable? Which of these are acts of war? Is it okay for us to do these things to others or not?
Posted on 7/14/18 at 4:38 pm to Dale51
quote:
bullshite.
You're either very stupid or entirely full of shite. Either way, I'm not interested
Posted on 7/14/18 at 4:41 pm to CptRusty
quote:
Not intentionally. It was my understanding you were conceding personhood of the fetus, while trying to explain how killing it could be justified regardless.
Technically, I'm kind of separating the two out. I'll concede that my cabin hypothetical pertains to someone with full personhood. With that said, we went down a different rabbit hole as it pertained to causation of the condition of reliance, which complicated things a bit. I'll see if I can bring us back on the same page, no matter which of the two pages that might be at any given moment.
quote:
Full personhood as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't mean they can vote or drive, but I absolutely believe their life is every bit as deserving of protection under the law as mine or yours.
We're getting into semantics at this point, but I would call that partial personhood. But the nomenclature isn't important. You believe that they have the "right to life". Would you define that as a positive or negative right?
Posted on 7/14/18 at 4:45 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
If my intentions don't matter, and the mere knowledge of potential causality is sufficient, why aren't I culpable?
When your defenses have been breached, resort to circumlocution.
Posted on 7/14/18 at 4:46 pm to Perfect Circle
quote:
When your defenses have been breached, resort to circumlocution.
Neither my question nor my reasoning were in the least bit circular. Anything else?
Posted on 7/14/18 at 4:48 pm to Dale51
quote:
This makes no sense.
So now you're arguing from a fear of the future you create in your mind.
Weak.
No we've already seen the bible thumpers go after planned parenthood to try to cut funding and stop them from being able to give out free birth control. Mississippi only has one PP facility in the entire state left.
This post was edited on 7/14/18 at 4:50 pm
Posted on 7/14/18 at 4:49 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Would you define that as a positive or negative right?
I guess I'd have to say it's a negative right currently. Certainly I'd like to prosecute people who smoke and drink while they know they're pregnant, but we can't, so I suppose I can't claim it's a positive right.
That obviously leaves the door open for the mother to starve herself or consume any number of potentially dangerous substances.
Posted on 7/14/18 at 4:52 pm to CptRusty
quote:
I guess I'd have to say it's a negative right currently. Certainly I'd like to prosecute people who smoke and drink while they know they're pregnant, but we can't, so I suppose I can't claim it's a positive right.
That obviously leaves the door open for the mother to starve herself or consume any number of potentially dangerous substances.
As you've already mentioned, at which point we define it as a negative right, it makes things interesting. I see no reason why any "abortion" that was simply an ejection/disconnection from the mother would be an issue. Are you willing to make that concession?
Posted on 7/14/18 at 4:52 pm to Ole Messcort
quote:
Ole Messcort
STILLLLLLL WAAAAAIIIITTTTTTINNNNGGGG
Posted on 7/14/18 at 4:53 pm to beerJeep
quote:
I’m STILL waiting. And I find it odd I’ve had to post this several times now for you just to not answer
I'm in this thread right now. I posted my question in that one to spark debate on it. I don't think we've seen the last of the Russians stealing the vote for Trump and his subsequent payoff to them for it so once everything finally gets out I do believe you'll agree with me that Russia has committed an act of war on our country. Just be careful being so blatantly pro-Trump right now as you may regret that for the rest of your life if I see this going how I think it will. Now you can stop asking and can copy and paste my reply over there. Thanks.
Posted on 7/14/18 at 4:55 pm to CptRusty
quote:So, you oppose the “morning after” pill, which puts you in a minority. But you are actually in the minority of the Pro-Life camp that I respect most, because you actually ARE consistent in your binary view of the world.
easy: fertilization.
At that point there (is) now a unique organism (life) which did not exist prior.
I am guessing that you see humanity (with its 23 chromosome pairs) as being unique and special. I do not.
We are just another animal species. The thing that makes us “unique” is NOT our chromosomes (which are not terribly different from the other Great Apes), but rather our ability to engage in abstract thought and our ability to grow and develop over time.
A fetus does not yet have abstract thought, and it has not yet accumulated the experiences that make it a “person.” It is just a blank slate, and not terribly-different than the embryo of any other higher mammal. As such, I do not see it as having any more “inherent rights” than any other mammal.
I see those rights vesting as it develops the ability to engage in abstract thought and accumulates those experiences which make it “sentient.”
Yes, I understand that this analysis would ultimately support infanticide, but I am not an ideologue and I have the maturity to admit that I am not omniscient.
I think the end of the first trimester is a reasonable compromise between the rights of the mother (a known “person”) and whatever rights may vest in a fetus (which is clearly not YET a person). No, there is no OBJECTIVE justification for “first trimester.” That is the definition of “compromise.”
Posted on 7/14/18 at 4:55 pm to beerJeep
quote:
STILLLLLLL WAAAAAIIIITTTTTTINNNNGGGG
I read this in the Caddyshack old man voice. I like your Jeep/Beer logo btw. Read above and you won't have to keep waiting any longer.
Posted on 7/14/18 at 4:55 pm to Ole Messcort
quote:
I'm in this thread right now.
Got it, pussy. Scared to answer.
How. Do. You. Feel. About. American. Intervention. In. Other. Countries. Political. Affairs.
Posted on 7/14/18 at 4:57 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Anything else?
Yes, you KNOW what the TRUTH is....don't let pride blind you to it.
You were a fetus once, when you were, were you not a person?
Page 8 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News