Is Roe v. Wade at Risk???

You said: ""It's not insensitive to say that convenience to women does not justify killing a life.""

So the obvious follow up question would be: What other reason would there be?.....

But if you want to dodge that question you did a good job


...and since you obviously can't answer that question, once again, you have no point and no argument.


Did you think RvW would be overturned ( the topic) by the "convenience" factor?




FoxHastings said: ↑
Judging from the weak/non-existent "arguments" ( like the convenience factor) the righties have presented in this thread I doubt RvW is at any risk

 

Well you're saying that there ARE other reasons aren't you?

 

You didn't read the cite, did you?

 

Your tone and language reflects insensitivity to women struggling with pregnancy.

 

Of that I am sure.

Are you really telling me this needs explanation? When mommy is pregnant, her baby is living inside her and tjerefore have to be wherever mommy is. Once it is born, anyone anywhere can take care of it.

What kind of future do you live in where female x can take care of female y's fetus?

No, it is still only a pote tial hu,an. But, the only thing that actually matters are the first three months since this is when most abortions are pergormed and if you are going to argue a friggen embryo is an infant, you are the who has to explain.

No, the context which we are discussing is very clear -- We are talking about women who have decided that they do not want to be mothers for whatever reasons they may have.

And quite clearly raising a child was not one of their values, so whether they were capable of it or not is completely irrelevant.

Bro, Iran is the utopia of every anti-abortionist; a theocratic hellscape.

So, you are saying that A is B?

Sorry. But, a fetus is not an infant.

 

I think you lost your thread many, many, many posts ago. Do ypu even know what you are talking about anymore?

Bingo. Fetus is inside mommy's body, i.e not physically individuated.

Do you even English? Did not think somone who speaks English only as a fourth language would have to teach a native speaker how to speak his own language.

Whst do you mean? Of course they are.

The real question here is why the heck we are discusding comatose patients in the abortion sub.

It is not an analogy, Einstein. I gave you the definitions you asked for using a very simple example.

 

He's a Christian; struggling is a beautiful virtue to him.

 

Awww, what happened? I thought you Conservatives were supposed to be all for fAcTs and LoGiC. How come you are disagreeing with reality all of a sudden?

Nope. Check your premises and the implications of your arguments -- That is exactly what you are saying.

She is not living the life she desires. Only because some religious zealot decided a clump of cells living inside her is worth more than her.

You do realise fetuses are not born, right?

Yes, it is and even for a parent it is the right way to live. If you are not selfish as a parent it means you would rather look after some stranger's kid than your own and that is just r-arded.

Yeah.

Aha. Do you argue for the opposite?

Don't you think you went to the grocery store to buy your food has something to do with grocery stores being an available option? The option that just hsppens to be tne EASIEST option (why not be a subsistence farmer?) and you just take the easy way out?

I am not interested in your silly speculations of what could have maybe been, I am only interested in what actually is.

The woman who chooses abortion.

 

No, I SAID:

You said: ""It's not insensitive to say that convenience to women does not justify killing a life.""

So the obvious follow up question would be: What other reason would there be?.....


""""" I asked YOU if you knew of any other reasons...it is in English...."""""""


But if you want to dodge that question you did a good job


...and since you obviously can't answer that question, once again, you have no point and no argument.

Missed question:
Did you think RvW would be overturned ( the topic) by the "convenience" factor?




FoxHastings said: ↑
Judging from the weak/non-existent "arguments" ( like the convenience factor) the righties have presented in this thread I doubt RvW is at any risk

 

There are many reasons that women get elective abortions. None of them are reasons to kill the life.

 

Maybe not to YOU but YOU don't get to decide

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
OK, let's discuss "selfish" since you seem to have a kindergartener's impression of it.

Being selfish is another way of surviving....in primitive times whoever selfishly ate the most survived.

When a person decides to do something that they want to do they are being selfish...it's not a naughty no-no like you were taught in kindergarten....

When one decides to have kids they VERY SELFISHLY DO NOT ASK THE CHILDREN IF THEY WANT TO BE BORN.

They have kids because THEY want what THEY want....it's all selfishly about them and what THEY want...


YES people SELFISHLY want a good life.....and that does NOT include YOU telling them what a "good life" is...

Being selfish is only thinking of yourself and wanting to impose your ideas on others...so selfish!!!!

Why would I do that?

What TF does your post have to do with the post of mine you quoted ( or the Supreme Court !!! ) ? As usual, NOTHING....a Big Zero....

 

I never said that I DID.

 

You don't understand what 'selfish' means. Selfish is lacking consideration for other people. When people decide to have a kid, they are doing it because they WANT it, not because they're selfish, because that decision doesn't involve lacking consideration for other people, because there's nobody who NEEDS to be considered, because nobody will be impacted by them having a kid.

 

It's YOUR reality that the unborn is only a "potential life."

Are you sure that you mean that it's a potential LIFE, and not a potential PERSON? I swear that earlier in the thread you acknowledged that it is a human being.

I certainly consider it a potential FULLY DEVELOPED life.

You're talking about what women WANT again, even though you are against it!
A woman who wants to kill her BORN kid because life has become to hard, is not living the life she desires. Yet her kid isn't allowed to be killed.

When is it no longer merely a "clump of cells living inside her?" Let me guess... only when it's born!

Yes, but that only matters to pro-abortion people like yourself.

What the hell does parental selfishness have to do with the desire to look after some stranger's kid rather than your own?

I realise that may have come across as ridiculous, because of course people who choose abortion do not want a child. I didn't word it right. It all goes back to this question you asked: "Why do you want kids to be raised by parent(s) who do not want them?" Well, I do NOT want kids to be raised by parent(s) who do not want them. You then went on to say: "I am sure there are many unplanned pregnancies that are carried to term, but this just means that the mother/couple wants or at least are not against parenthood." Now, don't you think that if elective abortion was banned, there would be MANY MORE unplanned pregnancies that are carried to term, because the mother/couple wants or at least are not against parenthood? Or do you think that millions of children would be sent into the adoption system?

Absolutely!

It seemed that YOU were speculating on what could have maybe been, which is that if abortion didn't exist, parents who had unplanned pregnancies would have carried to term not wanting a child and would continue to not want a child after birth. If you're not speculating this, then fine.

And if elective abortion was banned, who would be responsible if a woman got pregnant via consensual sex and didn't want to have a child and wasn't able to abort? I wonder if you will continue to dodge this! Who knows, MAYBE you'll surprise me! I doubt it though!

What the hell does suicide have to do with 'pro-life?'

 

Haha, nice attempt to try and get out of something very inconvenient! It's simple: you have acknowledged that comatose patients DO NOT have "volitional consciousness." Yet you used it as an argument for how they are distinct from fetuses! Also, are you actually saying that fetuses do not have consciousness until birth?

No, fetuses are absolutely distinguishable from the mother. They have a different DNA!

So a ZEF is not physically individuated because it is physically attached to its mother, but a comatose patient IS physically individuated, even though they are physically attached to the machines?

Oh dear, is the comatose patient argument getting a bit too much for you, so you have to pretend to care that comatose patients are not related to abortion? You talked about tea bags - why the heck are we discussing tea bags in an abortion thread? Of course, I don't care what you bring into the discussion to argue your point, and you shouldn't care what I bring into the discussion to argue my point. You've been okay with the comatose patient stuff up to now, so I have to believe that you will be competent enough to continue with it!

Well unfortunately you decided to use an inanimate object for your example. When a tea bag becomes tea, that's all that it can ever be! It has reached it's MAXIMUM potential. However, a baby has NOT reached their maximum potential in life, but we don't think that we can kill them.

 

How convenient that you can say that it's NOT murder, but you cannot say what it should be!

The alternative caretaker for the fetus is not another female, it's a MACHINE at a certain point after viability! So how is a baby distinguished from a post-viability fetus if they both have alternative caretakers?

Don't you distinguish human being and person?

It's not an infant, but that's not what pro-life people argue! That's a strawman!

Then why did you specify, "thus having her give up all her dreams, goals investments and joys?"

You said, "you can move to some theocratic hellhole like Iran where it is LEGAL." I guess you meant ILLEGAL.

 

Mothers struggle with motherhood, but this doesn't mean that the kid can be killed. I'm sure that you are against mothers having their kids killed - so are you being insensitive towards them?

 

I did, and I replied here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/is-roe-v-wade-at-risk.588151/page-66#post-1072707576

MEANWHILE, you have dodged some pretty inconvenient posts!

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
OK, let's discuss "selfish" since you seem to have a kindergartener's impression of it.

Being selfish is another way of surviving....in primitive times whoever selfishly ate the most survived.

When a person decides to do something that they want to do they are being selfish...it's not a naughty no-no like you were taught in kindergarten....

When one decides to have kids they VERY SELFISHLY DO NOT ASK THE CHILDREN IF THEY WANT TO BE BORN.

They have kids because THEY want what THEY want....it's all selfishly about them and what THEY want...

.

No, it isn't...you need to throw the dictionary that you wrote, out.

It is wrong.

Lacking consideration for others is lacking consideration for others.

because of what THEY want (doing what YOU want is selfish, that doesn't mean it's BAD, it just means it's selfish)......did they consult the kid to see if it's what the kid wants? No.

,

DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...


EXCEPT THE KID !!! The KID is impacted....


Who they did NOT ask if they would mind being part of what THEY, the parents, want...



HILARIOUS line of crap: YOU: ""because there's nobody who NEEDS to be considered, because nobody will be impacted by them having a kid.""""



YOU are not impacted when women have abortions so what's your problem ???
Nobody will be impacted by them not having a kid.

 

Why do you obsess on mothers killing their children.?

Are you a mother?

Having bad feelings about your kids?????

 

This is about pregnancy, not motherhood.

 

Once you're pregnant, you're a mom. If you kill you're kid, you simply have no kids.

 

Hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing as "my reality" and "your reality" -- there is only reality. And in reality a fetus is only a potential human.

Well, it sure is a life and so are skin cells, cancer cells, bacteria and viruses. But, we do not say that all lives are equal do we?

Yes, that is exactly what it is.

No, I am not.

It is born and has the right to live. Killing it is murder.

Well, that is the only cirrect answer your question, sweetheart.

It matters to those who are right.

A selfish parent looks after their own kid.

If abortion is banned we get boatloads of unfit parents and unwanted children and a black market for abortions.

Exactly.

Why do you want parenthood to be forced rather than a choice?

Responsible for what?
]

 

You reply (see above) is nonsense.

The report conclusion...

"It is clear that many obstetric complications are associated with increased risk of long-term maternal morbidity."​

As I've said, I don't think you're showing much concern for women.