I'm Pro-Life | Persuade Me

Plaffelvohfen

@Dylan

You have not read through my earlier post... I demonstrate that the right to life simply does not entail having the right to someone else’s body and that we can thus conclude that the right to life guarantees only the right not to be arbitrarily killed.   

Death is an unintended but necessary side-effect of abortion... The intent is to remove the fetus not to kill it, the death of the fetus is NOT the goal, the goal is to remove it from the uterus, yes the fetus dies but that is because science is not advanced enough to allow for a "transplant" from the uterus to "in vitro"... As soon as science can do that, there will be no need for the fetus to die... 

John_C_87

@Plaffelvohfen ;

The Constitutional right for a woman to control her own body has an obstacle of demand to be allowed to enter the united states Congressional armed forces. A women’s body by way of life and death no longer belongs to just them. Addressing woman held as united state by constitution in principle, the object they insisted on serving, protecting and defending till death if necessary. Resting a united state pf all woman on pregnancy abortion does not provide the adequate privacy prescribed by the Supreme court ruling. Addressing a requirement of a resolution to the state of the improper union.

All woman as united state can be described as stopping illegal immigration into the United States of America by the termination of the “abortion” caused on their ovulation as a united group. The constitutional united state is a detailed translation of basic principle, legal precedent placing all woman together in such a way that can best place all woman as equal to all other woman who may need to adjust a state of pregnancy. With the use of lethal force when necessary by medical definition, but also with legal understanding of returning a possible citizen to its country of origin.

It is pregnancy abortion not female specific amputation which has all woman who admit a crime by self-incrimination also incriminating the second creator father of a child, placing men as a target to crime that is used as alibi justification to an public admitted murder, only possibly untrue, were the woman take part.

Death is an unintended but necessary side-effect of abortion

In whole truth Death is a unintended side-effect of birth as a united state, Every living egg which is set for fertilization in the woman dies until a couple makes effort to move from physical conditioning in preparation to child birth, to the state of achieving pregnancy as the end goal.

AmericanFurryBoy

@MayCaesar
Using that logic, would a human. In a vegetative state, relying upon machines and or other humans to survive, be the same? Could we abort people in vegetative state?

Dylan

@Plaffelvohfen

Death is an unintended side-effect of abortion? What do you mean? Anyone having an abortion is well aware that the process involves killing the fetus since there is no other way of getting it out. One of the most common arguments I hear for abortion from people is that the baby would just have a bad life growing up with parents that don't want them or that they would live in foster care and that you should be able to kill them so they don't have to live like that. It's not like the baby just hijacks the mother's body one day and starts forcing the mother to nurture them, in 99.5% of cases no one forced them to have sex and they did it knowing very well it could lead to getting pregnant. The irresponsibility of the parent is not the baby's fault and they shouldn't be killed for it, their actions are what led to the child being conceived in the first place. 

Plaffelvohfen

@Dylan

The death of the fetus is not the intent, the intent is to stop it from unlawfully using the woman's body... The only way we have for the moment is to remove it from the uterus.

But when science will be able to allow the transfer of fetuses from the uterus to an incubator, abortion will not imply death... 

Plaffelvohfen

@Dylan

no one forced them to have sex and they did it knowing very well it could lead to getting pregnant. 

This is so ridiculous... It the same basic argument for rape: "Well, the way she dressed was an invitation, she deserved it...". It's beyond ridiculous really...

In what cases does the fetus have the right to use the mother’s body? Rape?  Clearly Not.

Sex using birth control?  No...

" ... suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective." 

Implicit Argument:

1)  The fetus has the right to use my body only if it is reasonable to hold me responsible for my pregnancy.
2)  If I tried to prevent pregnancy through the use of contraception, then it is not reasonable to hold me responsible for my pregnancy.
3)  Therefore, if I tried to prevent pregnancy through the use of contraception, then the fetus does not have the right to use my body.

Ordinary consensual sex without contraception?

"If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and the burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, 'Ah, now he can stay, she's given him the right to the use of her house, for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle." 

Objection:  A fetus is innocent, not a burglar trying to do you harm.  But, this makes no difference:  I have the right to eject an innocent person from my home, if that person falls through my window.  

YeshuaBought

ZeusAres42 said:

I don't like the terms pro-life or pro-choice which I think just create ever more polarization. As I've said before, the idea of abortion rests on a multitude of ethical and moral dilemmas with many different individual circumstances.

I respect where you are coming from. I look at prolife, and prochoice, as opposite ends of an ideaological spectrum, and consider myself to be personally opposed to abortion, but supportive of exceptions for the mother. No rape victim should be forced to do anything, even if life does begin at conception.

YeshuaBought

I am the product of an abusive marriage, and while I have no issue with being alive, I believe my mother had the right to abort me prior to viability. My reason is no one should be forced to parent unwanted children, and there are no legal protections for mothers who have been abused by the father of their baby. I think prolifers should make it easier to choose life, or stfu about abortion. JMO.

John_C_87

Plaffelvohfen said:

@Dylan

The death of the fetus is not the intent, the intent is to stop it from unlawfully using the woman's body... The only way we have for the moment is to remove it from the uterus.
But when science will be able to allow the transfer of fetuses from the uterus to an incubator, abortion will not imply death... 

No it's not the united state between a woman and governing is to stop an illegal immigration into the united states. We are talking about creating all woman as equal under a single purpose in basic principle.  

But when science will be able to allow the transfer of fetuses from the uterus to an incubator, abortion will not imply death... Woman are in a congrestional aremed service and may nbot have the right to make that chioce as a united state becuase of that service to America.

John_C_87

@Plaffelvohfen ;

The planed death of then egg is not greater than the planed death of the fetus. Sorry for the explicit constitutional explanation.

John_C_87

The planed death of then egg is no greater than the planed death of the fetus. Sorry for the explicit constitutional explanation.

Examples:

Woman can date a male, multiple men, she is ovulating and does not want to practice birth with some men, or all males, by methods thereof. The death the woman, any woman creates while holding a united state of immigration policy with a nation, is not in whole truth greater than death created had she undertook the idea of practice for a general welfare share with all woman. Allowing s course of nature to take place.

The United state that is ignored by every state in the Constitutional union is while in any armed Serves assembled by the Congress of these United States a woman is exposed to impregnation as a weapon of War. This is not rape by law, in united states as risk was known and addressed prior to entry into this Constitutional service of this nation. In combat this issue of pregnancy can become life threatening for many reasons. Not all will be explained as the potential to exposure to attack by combat is not limited as a united state in Congressional Armed Services. Here again it is citizen ship which is the posture of common defense to the general welfare as basic principle.

How is my defending and preserving the United state in Constitution, understandable now?

RyanHough

A baby is human and when it is killed in the eyes of god it is murder. Thou shall not kill. However, an exception is if you will die from having the child. if you don't want the child, at least let it live a happy life with a new family. People are happy to adopt and there are a lot of babies but there are families who want children that can't have them naturally so they want to adopt.

Plaffelvohfen

@RyanHough

Until such a time as God is scientifically proven to exist, it has no place in this debate...At least, not in a legal sense, your personal opinions are your own of course...

RyanHough

The proof of God is all around us. How could all of this exist on accident? There has to be A god otherwise nothing could exist. The big bang is because the world could not have happened from nothing. That is the proof

Plaffelvohfen

What you believe you see is not proof... People report seeing and being abducted by aliens, these testimonies are proof too? 

Until you can scientifically prove that gods (any) exists, they have no place in any argumentation...

AdamJ

Plaffelvohfen said:

@Dylan

1)  The fetus has the right to use my body only if it is reasonable to hold me responsible for my pregnancy.

2)  If I tried to prevent pregnancy through the use of contraception, then it is not reasonable to hold me responsible for my pregnancy.
3)  Therefore, if I tried to prevent pregnancy through the use of contraception, then the fetus does not have the right to use my body.

Ordinary consensual sex without contraception?

"If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and the burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, 'Ah, now he can stay, she's given him the right to the use of her house, for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle." 

Objection:  A fetus is innocent, not a burglar trying to do you harm.  But, this makes no difference:  I have the right to eject an innocent person from my home, if that person falls through my window.  

With #2, you tried to prevent pregnancy using a method that does not have a 100% chance of preventing pregnancy. No contraceptive is 100% effective, so you chose to run the risk of that 1% (I don't know the actual percentage but I'm assuming it is small) chance that the contraceptive would fail, and the 1% happened. So since you went in knowing the risks, you should be held responsible for the pregnancy, so your #3 is wrong. An analogy for this: I throw my little brother up and down into the air because it is fun for both of us. I know of the risk of him getting injured (let's say it's 1% again). I trust my ability to catch him and I think it is very unlikely that I will drop him. Regardless, it is still possible for me to drop him, (which is why my mom hates it when I do that), and if that 1% ever happened, I would be held responsible.

John_C_87

@RyanHough ;
A baby is human and when it is killed in the eyes of god it is murder. A woman kills a baby every month unless pregnant and by asking to be forgiven that child and all children like them do not die. They are to be taken into the kingdom of God. To which the  can not provide enough evidence to the court of law.Lets stick to our earthly achievements and create all woman as equal. 

MayCaesar

RyanHough said:

The proof of God is all around us. How could all of this exist on accident? There has to be A god otherwise nothing could exist. The big bang is because the world could not have happened from nothing. That is the proof

What kind of proof is that? "I cannot imagine how this all can exist without god, hence god exists".

I would beg to differ and say that it is the idea of god being primal that does not withstand the slightest scrutiny. You cannot go around asking the question, "Well, who created the god then?", and the answer that "the god has always existed" simply means that the god is the Universe, and you have not done anything other than redefine the term "god".

For intelligence to exist, there must also be lack of intelligence, otherwise the term "intelligence" loses its meaning. If you claim that the god has always existed, but our world has not, then the god is not intelligent, it is just a structure of the Universe, and in that case calling it "god" is a mere substitution of terms.

P.S. Not sure what problem Debra has with this post.

Plaffelvohfen

@AdamJ

With #2, you tried to prevent pregnancy using a method that does not have a 100% chance of preventing pregnancy.

Nothing is 100% proof... No court would recognize such a standard of due diligence for anything... It's completely absurd and laughable...

John_C_87

You are lying you are not pro-life. Why Pregnancy abortion would be described as illegal by legislation has nothing to do with being Pro-life or Pro-choice. It could be about the admission made as a united state against all woman. By woman. There is a obligation to create all woman as equal. By the placement of Congress into the Armed Service of a Nation.

As a basic principle being pro-life, if true would mean you are in favor of all woman aborting the ovulation process, becoming pregnant until they are deemed unmedically unfit to bear children as it is a threat to their life. This means some woman in good health could be expected to birth as many as 10 or more children.

Pregnancy Abortion had been found to be an invasion of civil privacy. The most common way this occurs is by admissions to crime that are not addressed properly.

John_C_87

medically unfit sorry

TKDB

I'm pro adoption.

Dylan

Plaffelvohfen said:

"If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and the burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, 'Ah, now he can stay, she's given him the right to the use of her house, for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle." 

Objection:  A fetus is innocent, not a burglar trying to do you harm.  But, this makes no difference:  I have the right to eject an innocent person from my home, if that person falls through my window.  

That's not the same. It's not as if the baby just magically appeared and declared that the mother will now be forced to nurture them all the way to birth out of the blue, they themselves are the ones that put that child there.

RyanHough said:

The proof of God is all around us. How could all of this exist on accident? There has to be A god otherwise nothing could exist. The big bang is because the world could not have happened from nothing. That is the proof

Look man I'm Pro-Life myself but religion should not have a place in this discussion, this isn't a debate about whether or not god is real.

Plaffelvohfen

@Dylan

That's not the same. It's not as if the baby just magically appeared and declared that the mother will now be forced to nurture them all the way to birth out of the blue, they themselves are the ones that put that child there.

The argument that "there was a chance of" does not stand to legal liability standards. The argument "But there is a chance of" is as irrelevant as the "But there's no guarantee of"...

John_C_87

Dylan said:

As you can see from the title, I'm Pro-Life when it comes to the topic of abortion. I think this would be an interesting topic to bring up with the new abortion ban in Alabama so I decided to make this. I'm open to having my mind changed, so go for it. 

Definition of pro-life

: opposed to abortion

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-life ;

So you berlieve that woman should not have the chioce to refuse fertilization of an egg during ovulation?
You belive a woman can not donate an egg to medical science?
Do you understand the united state abortion holds with all woman?

Dylan

@John_C_87
I'll clarify my stance again. I'm Pro-Life with the exception of rape, incest, and cases where the life of the mother is at risk which are an astronomically low margin of all abortions.


@Plaffelvohfen
I'm not making an argument saying "but there is a chance of", I honestly think it's the other way around since you're bringing up marginal cases to make a point when you would support it across the board regardless. The argument I'm making is that an unborn child is a human life that you should not have the right to kill unless under the extreme circumstances I previously mentioned. I'm under the belief that if you conceived a child due to your own actions you shouldn't be able to just kill them because you don't want to deal with them or you made a mistake, especially when there are alternatives that don't involve killing the child.   

Plaffelvohfen

@Dylan

Yes you are... You did say that the very fact of having sex, is enough to bestow responsibility for a pregnancy... Well it's not, legally it does not meet any liability standards...

Then you say that a fetus is a human life that you should not have the right to kill... To this I already answered a few times, that death is not the intent of abortion but an unintended but necessary consequence of removing the fetus from the uterus at this time, and that the right to life simply does not entail having the right to someone else’s body. See the violinist argument by analogy, I wrote earlier... 

It may well be that we'll find a way to transplant zygotes and fetuses from the uterus to an incubator of some sort, when science reach this point, then there would actually be a valid argument to be made against "killing the baby" because it would then be an unnecessary consequence. The point of an abortion is NOT to kill, but to prevent someone from using somebody else's body part without consent... It's a basic human right to have full ownership of our own body.

You know, your position on abortion is valid, I mean If all you're saying is that you don't like abortion and would never even consider having one then fine, nothing wrong with that, kudos man! Be happy and all...

But if you're saying that you or anyone else, has a right to my body parts without my consent, then you're more than wrong...

John_C_87

Dylan said:

@John_C_87
I'll clarify my stance again. I'm Pro-Life with the exception of rape, incest, and cases where the life of the mother is at risk which are an astronomically low margin of all abortions.

I understand you are in favor of description of guilt as admission in united state for all woman which by legal precedent violates a right of privacy, not just on woman but with men and children as well, provided the idea of self-defense is present.

Again, do you fully understand the united state that is created with an admission of guilt when self-incrimination is let loose on the public?

Are you accounting for the legal and illegal immigration created in basic principle by a women’s pregnancy as all woman are created equal on this basic principle as well?

In basic principle and whole truth, we are just elaborately interpreting on the use of lethal force by woman. When a woman refuses entry into the nation of her origin by giving birth, she is in truth returning the changing egg to its place of origin. This is not murder as the egg is placed where it started and was to end by the same official stop of life.. The woman who creates the egg alone has this position with all woman as a united state. Creating them as equals.

Do you understand a rape does not occur when a woman makes an accusation against a man to sexual assault, it takes place after a conviction of the crime is made in court of law? In plain English it is after a woman has enough evidence to prove she was raped to a jury, then that sexual assault was the cause of immigration into the united states. The only time this process can change is when the person who commits the sexual assault agrees the accusation is true.

The First honorable thing you may here on this topic.

Pro-choice and Pro-life incriminate the public in the crime which made pregnancy abortion illegal from its creation. The loss of privacy as a united state. You are in favor of Female specific amputation, this determination can be made by no other reason than you have conditions on the belief of a public admission to crime made by abortion.

 https://www.britannica.com/event/Roe-v-Wade

https://prochoice.org/education-and-advocacy/about-abortion/history-of-abortion/

In a state of the union it is not our job to make it legla or illegal it is our job to deswcribe it in  united state of Consitution.