Do you stand with Planned Parenthood, in protecting Title X? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Do you stand with Planned Parenthood, in protecting Title X?
in Politics

By YeshuaRedeemedYeshuaRedeemed 389 Pts



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • AlofRIAlofRI 212 Pts
    I stand with Planned Parenthood in protecting the lives of women, and, wait for it, …… children! 

    Last I checked the U.S. was rated 174th out of 193 countries in "infant death after live birth" … that with THEE most expensive health care in the world! Much of that comes from women who can't afford pre and post natal care … or to feed the newborn well AFTER birth. The strange thinking people that take the only care available away from those women are responsible for much of the number of born (and unborn) children's deaths. The numbers were before the ACA, and AFTER the closings of PP's around the country by "well meaning", conscientious, but poorly thought out actions of citizens. 

    We could save MORE babies by bringing PP BACK, and supporting the ACA.
  • ethang5ethang5 140 Pts
    Hell no, I do NOT stand with Planned Parenthood to murder unborn beautiful little innocent babies!

    Hell no.
  • TKDBTKDB 187 Pts
    I'm pro unborn baby.

    And I'm pro adoption.


    Zombieguy1987ethang5
  • ethang5ethang5 140 Pts
    >I'm pro unborn baby.
    And I'm pro adoption.

    Me too! I'm also anti baby murder.

    And I'm not a fan of calling it other dishonestly deceptive things like,
    Choice, healthcare, and planned parenthood.
  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    A woman’s body a woman’s choice , maybe people should mind they’re own business regarding what choices women make regarding bodily autonomy 
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 187 Pts
    @Dee

    What about the babies voice?

    What about the father's voice? 

    Because if it takes two individuals to create an unborn baby, shouldn't they, get to have some sort of a voice as well, in the conversation? 
  • ethang5ethang5 140 Pts
    The same people championing a woman's choice here, are against a woman's choice in prostitution, pornography, and incest, and if women begin to abort only female babies.

    The issue here is there are two bodies, not one. The woman is welcome to her choices concerning her own body. The baby's body is another thing.

    Choosing to kill a fellow innocent citizen of mine is indeed my business. I will stay out of your "bedroom", but when you start murdering people in your bedroom because you think that because they're in your bedroom, you're have a right to kill them, you will hear from me.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @TKDB


    You say ......What about the babies voice?

    My reply ......What what are the unborn saying?

    You say .....What about the father's voice? 

    My reply .....I care not as it’s nothing to do with what I said 

    You say ......Because if it takes two individuals to create an unborn baby, shouldn't they, get to have some sort of a voice as well, in the conversation? 

    My reply .....No they shouldn’t 
  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @ethang5

    You say .....he same people championing a woman's choice here, are against a woman's choice in prostitution, pornography, and incest, and if women begin to abort only female babies.

    My reply .....When did you ask my opinion on these topics or are you gifted with psychic powers?

    You say ......The issue here is there are two bodies, not one.

    My reply .....No one has the right to use someone’s body without permission 

    You say .....The woman is welcome to her choices concerning her own body.

    My reply .....Abortion is a right she is exercising her right  

     You say......

    The baby's body is another thing.

    My reply ......The implied rights of a fetus are of no concern to me regarding the matter in hand 

    You say .......Choosing to kill a fellow innocent citizen of mine is indeed my business.

    My reply .....Don’t do it then. A fetus is not a “citizen” 

     You say .....I will stay out of your "bedroom", but when you start murdering people in your bedroom because you think that because they're in your bedroom, you're have a right to kill them, you will hear from me.

    My reply .....That statement is merely a typical emotional outburst void of anything meaningful 
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 187 Pts
    @Dee

    (What about the babies voice?

    What about the father's voice? 

    Because if it takes two individuals to create an unborn baby, shouldn't they, get to have some sort of a voice as well, in the conversation?)


    "You say ......What about the babies voice?

    My reply ......What what are the unborn saying?

    You say .....What about the father's voice? 

    My reply .....I care not as it’s nothing to do with what I said 

    You say ......Because if it takes two individuals to create an unborn baby, shouldn't they, get to have some sort of a voice as well, in the conversation? 

    My reply .....No they shouldn’t"

    "A woman’s body a woman’s choice , maybe people should mind they’re own business regarding what choices women make regarding bodily autonomy."


    "Do you stand with Planned Parenthood, in protecting Title X?"


    I googled the above, and the below was the primary response;

    "Tell Congress you stand with Planned Parenthood The federal government is in the hands of extremist lawmakers who have tried for years to shut down Planned Parenthood health centers and cut patients off from care. ... Tell Congress you're ready to fight like hell to protect reproductive health and rights in this country."

    A sad reality about two individuals creating a baby, in the after process of being intimate?

    Both individuals have forms of birth control, that could have been used to prevent, an undesired pregnancy?

    So either the some of the consenting adults, are missing the point about practical birth control, or abortion is being looked at, as an after measure, that happens because some were mindfully lazy, when it came to the utilization of OTC birth control, by either of the consenting adults, before becoming intimate?

    Because, if an unborn baby isnt being given a voice, or the father of the unborn baby, isn't being given a voice, as well, in the light of the abortion conversation, than the lacking of those two missing voices, goes to show, that the abortion conversation, needs to be broadened then, to accomodate those additional voices?

    Thus making the abortion conversation, more fair, and equal.



    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987Dee
  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @TKDB

    I haven’t a clue what you’re attempting to say , I take it my advice on curtailing your alcohol consumption has fallen on deaf drunken ears yet again 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 484 Pts
    edited July 10
    ethang5 said:
    1: The same people championing a woman's choice here, are against a woman's choice in prostitution, pornography, and incest, and if women begin to abort only female babies.

    2:  The issue here is there are two bodies, not one. The woman is welcome to her choices concerning her own body. The baby's body is another thing.

    3: Choosing to kill a fellow innocent citizen of mine is indeed my business. I will stay out of your "bedroom", but when you start murdering people in your bedroom because you think that because they're in your bedroom, you're have a right to kill them, you will hear from me.

    1: Oh really?? Got anything to back that up?? As usual, probably not... 
    2: I would even go further and say that there is 2 "person", not one... It doesn't change a thing as the number of bodies is not the issue... 
    3: A) I can grant you that the fetus is a person no problem, but it certainly isn't a citizen... B ) People have abortions in their bedrooms now, really??  

    What the fetus is (a person, a baby, a citizen, whatever) is irrelevant, the only relevant fact is what is it doing? The answer to that question is: The baby is using another person body, that is undeniable... 

    The question then becomes a matter of consent, does the woman continuously consent or not, to her body being used? That's the only thing that matters... And that choice to consent or not, is hers alone to make...

    So, here's a challenge for you, if you can actually demonstrate that A) the right to life, infers  B ) a right to use someone body without their consent...
    Then I would have no choice but to actually change my position on this, as this is my strongest argument...  No one has been able to, yet... Up for it?
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1702 Pts
    I do not think the government has any business in this matter. Planned Parenthood is tax-exempt for no reason other than the government officials believing in its cause. I am all for not taxing corporations, but only if it applies to all corporations equally, not only to the ones nitpicked by the government.

    I am all for Planned Parenthood; it is a good organisation. I am just against it being coddled by the government. If the government is to coddle anything at all, let it be things like technological innovation that benefit all people, rather than a small minority. After all, the taxes are paid by everyone, so exempting an organisation from taxes should not benefit people preferentially.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 187 Pts
    @Dee

    I'll create another forum, and pose the same questions, and see how the citizens of the United States, go about participating in the conversation.

    Have a good day Dee.
  • ethang5ethang5 140 Pts
    @Dee

    The same people championing a woman's choice here, are against a woman's choice in prostitution, pornography, and incest, and if women begin to abort only female babies.

    >When did you ask my opinion on these topics...

     You'll know when I address a post to you. Every issue I mentioned concerns a woman's use of her body, something you say you are for.

    The issue here is there are two bodies, not one. 

    >No one has the right to use someone’s body without permission

    Does not address my point that there are 2 bodies.

    The woman is welcome to her choices concerning her own body.

    >Abortion is a right she is exercising her right  

    Owning blacks as slaves was once a "right". I do not recognize evil as rights.

    The baby's body is another thing.

    The implied rights of a fetus are of no concern to me regarding the matter in hand

    Exactly as your opinion is to me.

    Choosing to kill a fellow innocent citizen of mine is indeed my business.

    >Don’t do it then. A fetus is not a “citizen” 

    Like a black man once wasn't? I do not recognize evil as rights.

    I will stay out of your "bedroom", but when you start murdering people in your bedroom because you think that because they're in your bedroom, you're have a right to kill them, you will hear from me.

    >That statement is merely a typical emotional outburst void of anything meaningful

    Then you are wasting your time. Buh-bye.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • ethang5ethang5 140 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    >1: Oh really?? Got anything to back that up?? As usual, probably not...

    To back what up?

    >2: I would even go further and say that there is 2 "person", not one... It doesn't change a thing as the number of bodies is not the issue...

    I count 2 bodies. Both bodies are the issue.

    >3: A) I can grant you that the fetus is a person no problem, but it certainly isn't a citizen...

    All persons within the borders of my country get their right to life protected.

    >B ) People have abortions in their bedrooms now, really??  

    I would not be surprised. But interesting that you, a dyed in the wool liberal, doesn't know the bedroom analogy.

    >What the fetus is (a person, a baby, a citizen, whatever) is irrelevant,

    I disagree. A person has undeniable rights.

    >the only relevant fact is what is it doing?

    I reject that as ad-hoc nonsense.

    >The answer to that question is: The baby is using another person body, that is undeniable...

    That depends on what you mean by "using". But I will note that the baby did not invade the mother's body. The baby was invited in.

    >The question then becomes a matter of consent, does the woman continuously consent or not, to her body being used?

    Abject nonsense. You cannot invite a person in, where their life and or safety depends on you, and then change your mind where it results in the person's death.

    What about a doctor operating on a patient? Can he quit mid operation because it is his body performing the operation?

    >That's the only thing that matters... And that choice to consent or not, is hers alone to make...

    You want that to be the only thing that matters. But that is certainly not the only thing that matters. The inalienable rights of the baby matters too.

    >So, here's a challenge for you, if you can actually demonstrate that A) the right to life, infers  B ) a right to use someone body without their consent...

    Easy. I cannot morally or legally leave a person to drown if I find him shipwrecked in the ocean. I cannot abandon flying a plane with passengers because I change my mind. I cannot go and take back a kidney I donated to someone if taking it will result in their death. Your "continuous consent" is made up stupidity you give validity only in the case of women.

    >Then I would have no choice but to actually change my position on this, as this is my strongest argument...  No one has been able to, yet... Up for it?

    It is actually a very weak argument. My guess is you will dodge the analogies.

    You may have a slight case in those instances where the woman did not invite the baby in, but even then, the babies right to life trumps the woman's right to choice.

    Consider this analogy. You volunteer to give me a blood transfusion directly from your circulatory system, and change your mind mid transfusion. If you stop the transfusion, I die. Here are my questions.

    1. Do I need your "continuous" consent?
    2. Once we start, do you have a responsibility to continue due to my life being on the line?
    3. Can you tell us another situation where your concept of continuous consent is viable AND where a life is in the balance?

    You are going through these mental contortions to avoid the clear logic of the matter. You simply want to be able to be rid of the baby. That is all.

    Your strongest argument is, "because I want to". There is no logic on the side of abortionists.
    TKDB
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 484 Pts
    edited July 11
    @ethang5
    >So, here's a challenge for you, if you can actually demonstrate that A) the right to life, infers  B ) a right to use someone body without their consent...

    Easy. I cannot morally or legally leave a person to drown if I find him shipwrecked in the ocean. I cannot abandon flying a plane with passengers because I change my mind. I cannot go and take back a kidney I donated to someone if taking it will result in their death. Your "continuous consent" is made up stupidity you give validity only in the case of women.
    You haven't demonstrated anything as I correctly presumed... You tried to argue about the Duty to rescue principle, but there is no federal level laws regarding that in the US, and a majority of states do not either... 

    In an 1898 case, Buch v. Amory Mfg. Co., 69 N.H. 257, 44 A. 809, 1897 N.H. LEXIS 49 (N.H. 1898), the New Hampshire Supreme Court unanimously held that after an eight-year-old boy negligently placed his hand in the defendant's machinery, the boy had no right to be rescued by the defendant. Beyond that, the trespassing boy could be held liable for damages to the defendant's machine.

    In the 1907 case People v. Beardsley, Beardsley's mistress, Blanche Burns, passed out after overdosing on morphine. Rather than seek medical attention, Beardsley instead had a friend hide her in the basement, and Burns died a few hours later. Beardsley was tried and convicted of manslaughter for his negligence. However, his conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court of Michigan saying that Beardsley had no legal obligation to her.

    Some states such as Minnesota, Vermont, and Rhode Island make it a misdemeanor offence if it is known that someone is in serious danger and someone can intervene safely or call 911 and they do not (Trinh, Li, 2015).

    There are Good Samaritan laws though, but those protect the helper from liability resulting from the help provided... If someone is bleeding on the side of the road you can legally move on without doing anything, you'd be an asshole sure but in any state this would be an nonindictable offense... There are criminal laws addressing that elsewhere in the world, but not in the US...

    You haven't even got close to addressing the problem: How to you go from A to B... From a right to life to a right to use someone body without consent... Still going to evade I guess...
    >What the fetus is (a person, a baby, a citizen, whatever) is irrelevant, 
    I disagree. A person has undeniable rights.
    Comprehension problems I see, unsurprising but I'll try to explain it like to a 5 year old: It's irrelevant because I already granted the fetus a legal person status, with all the rights a full grown adult may have... 

    When a crime is committed, who or what the perpetrator is, is irrelevant in assessing the guilt or not.. Do you agree? Whether a murderer is white, black, jewish, Buddhist, tall, small, fat, republican or democrat, doesn't matter at all right? It's in this sense that what the fetus is, is irrelevant... The only thing that matters is what this person is doing or has done...
    A) I can grant you that the fetus is a person no problem, but it certainly isn't a citizen...
    All persons within the borders of my country get their right to life protected.
    Funny, you used "person" this time instead of "citizen", changing your terminology during the course of an argument now? LOL
    A person and a citizen are not the same...  A citizen is a born person, there is no unborn citizens by definition... 
     the baby did not invade the mother's body. The baby was invited in.
    The association between pregnancy and sexual intercourse is a mere construct born of our traditional ways of thinking about gender and reproduction. Note that the US Supreme Court has maintained the view that specifically, "a man’s impregnation of a woman causes her pregnant condition”... The man is currently the responsible party under the law, not the woman... But I challenge that view that either of the man or woman are responsible... 

    Whereas a man can cause a woman to engage in a sexual relationship with him, a man cannot cause a woman’s body to change from a nonpregnant to a pregnant condition; the only entity that can do that is a fertilized ovum when it implants itself in a woman’s uterus.

    The action of the man in “Moving sperm into a woman’s body” during the act of intercourse, certainly represents one of the “factual sequential links” leading to pregnancy. But I maintain, however, that this action is not the legal, or most important, cause of a woman’s pregnant condition. It is merely a preceding factual cause that puts her at risk for becoming pregnant, like choosing to get out of bed in the morning is a factual sequential link to anything that may happen to you on any given day...

    This is so because “pregnancy is a condition that follows absolutely from the presence of a fertilized ovum in a woman’s body.” Not a nanosecond before... This being the case, we can identify the fertilized ovum to be the factual cause of a woman’s pregnancy state. In the eyes of the law, too, therefore, the fertilized ovum should be the legal cause of a woman’s pregnancy. Not the man nor the woman...

    Men and women who contribute to a situation in which it is foreseeable that a fertilized ovum might be conceived and make a woman pregnant against her will contribute no more to the woman’s harm than does a woman who walks down a street late at night contribute to her own rape ... Men and women who engage in sexual intercourse, therefore, cannot be held as contributing to the harm imposed on a woman by a fertilized ovum making her pregnant without consent.
     
    Your "continuous consent" is made up stupidity you give validity only in the case of women
    Absolutely not, this principle is valid for anyone at anytime, I don't make exceptions for woman, you do... By denying her a right that everyone else has, the right to bodily integrity/autonomy...

    Consider this analogy. You volunteer to give me a blood transfusion directly from your circulatory system, and change your mind mid transfusion. If you stop the transfusion, I die. Here are my questions.
    1. Do I need your "continuous" consent?
    2. Once we start, do you have a responsibility to continue due to my life being on the line?
    3. Can you tell us another situation where your concept of continuous consent is viable AND where a life is in the balance?
    1: Yes. I can rescind my consent at any time for any reason... Unless we actually did sign a formal legal contract, then I would be guilty of a breach of contract... I would agree that it would make me a despicable asshole for doing so but being a despicable asshole is not illegal anywhere...
    2: See 1...   
    3: Sure, I verbally agree to give you a vital organ (any) that'll help you survive, the morning of the operation before we go in surgery I can rescind this consent for whatever reason, you will die and I'll have to live with it but it still would be legal, even if questionable, yes (See 1)... It might be difficult to rescind it during the surgery obviously, because I won't be conscious then but at this point it's purely rhetoric...  

    Now, you deflect and evade but have yet to directly make the connections between A ) The right to life,  and B ) A right to use someone else body without consent...  

    I guess you'll play around the bush and will not directly address my question as usual? 
    DeeZombieguy1987
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @ethang5


    You say ...... You'll know when I address a post to you. Every issue I mentioned concerns a woman's use of her body, something you say you are for.


    My reply .....  A woman may prostitute herself if she wants indulge in porn if she wants , where did I say I’m in favour of incestous relationships?


    You say .....The issue here is there are two bodies, not one. 


    My reply .....It’s not , the issue is no one has the right to use your body without consent 



    You say ......Does not address my point that there are 2 bodies.


    My reply ......It does read what I said again regards consent 



    You say ......Owning blacks as slaves was once a "right". I do not recognize evil as rights.


    My reply .....Yet you totally accept biblical slavery as entirely just and fair , you said before that owning people as property was evil yet the Bible clearly states your slaves are your property, you fled last time when confronted with this as you clearly have no defence.


    Disallowing women’s rights was once an evil now it’s a right, suck it up 


    You say ......The baby's body is another thing.


    My reply .....Your point being as it’s there without permission




    You say ......Like a black man once wasn't? I do not recognize evil as rights.


    My reply .......I do not recognize stupidity as reason , a fetus is still not a citizen.


    Abortion is legal in most places  get over it 

  • ethang5ethang5 140 Pts
    edited July 12
    @Dee

    >A woman may prostitute herself if she wants indulge in porn if she wants , where did I say I’m in favour of incestous relationships?

    It is still a woman's body in incest. You said you supported a woman deciding how to use her body.

    The issue here is there are two bodies, not one. 

    >It’s not , the issue is no one has the right to use your body without consent

    First, the woman give her consent when she opened her legs, and the baby was invited in, it is not an invader.

    Does not address my point that there are 2 bodies.

    >It does read what I said again regards consent 

    The baby does not consent to be hacked to pieces.

    Owning blacks as slaves was once a "right". I do not recognize evil as rights.

    >Yet you totally accept biblical slavery as entirely just and fair,

    No, that is just you spinning because you can't debate the point.

    >you said before that owning people as property was evil yet the Bible clearly states your slaves are your property, 

    I will just have to accept that you're either too dishonest or too stupid to get my argument.

    >you fled last time when confronted with this as you clearly have no defence.

    Yet here I am with you dodging the fact that I said the bible says the person's service is what is bought. You have even dodged my analogy of sport stars and athletes being property.

    Stupidly, you want us to pretend with you that the word "property" has only one meaning.

    >Disallowing women’s rights was once an evil now it’s a right, suck it up 

    No woman has a "right" to kill another person no matter what any court says. For example, blacks were still men even when the supreme court said they weren't.

    The baby's body is another thing.

    >Your point being as it’s there without permission

    It is there because it was invited in. And 50% of the baby is the woman.

    Like a black man once wasn't? I do not recognize evil as rights.

    I do not recognize stupidity as reason , a fetus is still not a citizen.

    Even if we grant that, the baby retains the right to life, as does any person.

    >Abortion is legal in most places  get over it 

    Then you have no problem with homosexuality being illegal in most places?

    The question here is not about the legality, but abut the morality.

    This absurdist argument that the baby needs continuous consent from the woman is an unwelcome invader is ...... absurd.

    If a woman doesn't want a baby, let her keep her legs closed. She had control of her body before the baby right?
  • ethang5ethang5 140 Pts
    >You haven't demonstrated anything as I correctly presumed...

    Lol. Confirmation bias.

    You tried to argue about the Duty to rescue principle,

    No. This is based on the same principle used to prosecute businesses that refused to serve minorities. A responsibility is created when one causes a person to place themselves in their care.

    If the person needs to be "rescued", and it is you who caused them to need rescuing, then it is you with the responsibility to rescue them.

    >but there is no federal level laws regarding that in the US, and a majority of states do not either... 

    The question is not whether there is a law. We all know Roe vs Wade exists. The question is one of inalienable rights. Of morality.

    >...unanimously held that after an eight-year-old boy negligently....


    False analogy. The boy was negligent and trespassing. Neither is true of a baby.

    In the 1907 case People v. Beardsley, Beardsley's mistress, Blanche Burns,....

    False analogy. Beardsley did not cause Burn's overdose, and Burns did not require Beardsley to use his body.

    >Some states such as Minnesota, Vermont, and Rhode Island make it a misdemeanor offence if it is known that someone is in serious danger and someone can intervene safely or call 911 and they do not (Trinh, Li, 2015).

    Do you know why?

    >There are Good Samaritan laws though, but those protect the helper from liability resulting from the help provided... If someone is bleeding on the side of the road you can legally move on without doing anything, you'd be an asshole sure but in any state this would be an nonindictable offense...

    Do you know why moving on without doing anything makes you an asshole? What about the case where you caused the person to be bleeding? Can you simply move on?

    >You haven't even got close to addressing the problem: How to you go from A to B... From a right to life to a right to use someone body without consent... Still going to evade I guess...

    First, your silly test does not show in any way that abortion is correct. I just wanted to show you the sloppiness of your thinking. Going from A to B is just an absurd ad hoc argument you've put up.

    My showing you your poor logic does not mean I accept your silliness that a baby is using the mothers body without consent, or that a baby needs the "continuous consent" of the mother.

    >What the fetus is (a person, a baby, a citizen, whatever) is irrelevant, 
    I disagree. A person has undeniable rights.
    Comprehension problems I see, unsurprising but I'll try to explain it like to a 5 year old: It's irrelevant because I already granted the fetus a legal person status, with all the rights a full grown adult may have... 

    When a crime is committed, who or what the perpetrator is, is irrelevant in assessing the guilt or not.. Do you agree?

    No, I disagree, because I do not allow my biases to make me stupid. No crime has been committed. That is the fakery you're trying to slip past us.

    >Whether a murderer is white, black, jewish, Buddhist, tall, small, fat, republican or democrat, doesn't matter at all right?

    When did we decide a murder had taken place? If you don't see the fakery, you are dense, and dishonest otherwise.

    >It's in this sense that what the fetus is, is irrelevant...

    What sense is that slick? The baby being a criminal? Lol. You must think I'm as dense as one of your liberal mates.
    A) I can grant you that the fetus is a person no problem, but it certainly isn't a citizen...
    All persons within the borders of my country get their right to life protected.
    >Funny, you used "person" this time instead of "citizen", changing your terminology during the course of an argument now? LOL

    The words can be synonymous.

    >Person and a citizen are not the same...  A citizen is a born person, there is no unborn citizens by definition... 

    Who's definition? Both of them have a right to life that should be respected by the authority of the jurisdiction.
     the baby did not invade the mother's body. The baby was invited in.
    The association between pregnancy and sexual intercourse is a mere construct born of our traditional ways of thinking about gender and reproduction.

    Let me stop you here, because your argument is so ridiculous I hesitate to respond least I break the forums civility code.

    But your argument instantly absolves every murderer who used a tool to kill a person. I can see now that you're one of those people who values debate over honesty.

    >But I maintain, however, that this action is not the legal, or most important, cause of a woman’s pregnant condition.

    You can "maintain" any stupidity you want, but when you leave logic behind, Ethan cannot remain with you.

    >like choosing to get out of bed in the morning is a factual sequential link to anything that may happen to you on any given day...

    False. There is no causal link between getting out of bead and being killed by a drunk driver, whereas there is a direct causal link between being inseminated and becoming pregnant. I blush to have to point out something so silly to you.

    >This is so because “pregnancy is a condition that follows absolutely from the presence of a fertilized ovum in a woman’s body.” Not a nanosecond before...

    I reject this as absurdist nonsense, for then no rapist could be convicted of impregnating a victim, and no deadbeat dad can be held for non support.

    >This being the case, we can identify the fertilized ovum to be the factual cause of a woman’s pregnancy state.

    This is not the case. Logic will be required here.

    >In the eyes of the law, too, therefore, the fertilized ovum should be the legal cause of a woman’s pregnancy. Not the man nor the woman...

    But lucky for me, the law tends to be logical and completely disagrees with you.

    >Men and women who contribute to a situation in which it is foreseeable that a fertilized ovum might be conceived and make a woman pregnant against her will contribute no more to the woman’s harm than does a woman who walks down a street late at night contribute to her own rape

    False. There is no direct causal link between a naked woman walking down a street at night and rape, as is with consensual sex of a man and a woman and pregnancy.

    >... Men and women who engage in sexual intercourse, therefore, cannot be held as contributing to the harm imposed on a woman by a fertilized ovum making her pregnant without consent.
     
    So please tell us, how would a woman "consent" to a fertilized ovum making her pregnant?
    Your "continuous consent" is made up stupidity you give validity only in the case of women
    >Absolutely not, this principle is valid for anyone at anytime, I don't make exceptions for woman, you do...

    I do not. My wife does not need "continuous consent" in making love to me. Marrying her is consent enough. My doctor does not need "continuous consent" in operating on me. My signature on the consent form is enough. My pilot does not need my "continuous consent" to keep flying me. The fact that I purchased a ticket is consent enough.

    I asked you to tell us another situation where your concept of continuous consent is viable AND where a life is in the balance and you dodged the question.

    >By denying her a right that everyone else has, the right to bodily integrity/autonomy...

    No one is denying her that right. The baby's body is not hers.
    Consider this analogy. You volunteer to give me a blood transfusion directly from your circulatory system, and change your mind mid transfusion. If you stop the transfusion, I die. Here are my questions.
    1. Do I need your "continuous" consent?
    2. Once we start, do you have a responsibility to continue due to my life being on the line?
    3. Can you tell us another situation where your concept of continuous consent is viable AND where a life is in the balance?
    >1: Yes. I can rescind my consent at any time for any reason... Unless we actually did sign a formal legal contract, then I would be guilty of a breach of contract... I would agree that it would make me a despicable asshole for doing so but being a despicable asshole is not illegal anywhere...

    We aren't talking legality. Some actions constitute a legal contract within themselves. You are wrong about the legality in this particular case, and right about being a despicable asshole.

    >2: See 1...

    Untrue. You do. "Once we start".

    >3: Sure, I verbally agree to give you a vital organ (any) that'll help you survive, the morning of the operation before we go in surgery I can rescind this consent for whatever reason, you will die and I'll have to live with it but it still would be legal, even if questionable, yes (See 1)

    You have dodged my question. You changed your mind BEFORE the surgery. And thus my life is on the line because of my illness which you didn't cause. But during surgery, if you change your mind, I die due to the surgery having to be abandoned mid stream. You are wrong.

    >... It might be difficult to rescind it during the surgery obviously, because I won't be conscious then but at this point it's purely rhetoric..

    No it isn't. You just wish to dodge it. The question is theoretical and can be answered.

    >Now, you deflect and evade but have yet to directly make the connections between A ) The right to life,  and B ) A right to use someone else body without consent... 

    I need make no such connection because I do not accept...
    1. That the baby lacks consent, and.... 
    2. That the baby needs "continuous consent", and....
    3. That a baby is "using" the woman's body in the way you mean "using" here

    >I guess you'll play around the bush and will not directly address my question as usual?

    People are forced to have their bodies used all the time. Under court orders, or by police action, or by immanent domain of a state when it would result in lives being saved.

    I have addressed your fakery, but my guess is that you won't like it, and you won't notice my questions you dodged.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987Dee
  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @ethang5


    You say ......It is still a woman's body in incest. You said you supported a woman deciding how to use her body.


    My reply ......I said I supported a woman’s right to bodily autonomy bodily  autonomy meansa person has control over whom or what uses their body, for what, and for how long.

    Your rant about incest is a typically stupid red herring 


    You say .........First, the woman give her consent when she opened her legs, and the baby was invited in, it is not an invader.


    My reply ......She gave permission which may be withdrawn at her will 


    You say .....The baby does not consent to be hacked to pieces.


    My reply .....The fetus is still there by permission 


    You say ......No, that is just you spinning because you can't debate the point.


    My reply ......No spin on my part , you don’t debate you rant 


    You say ........I will just have to accept that you're either too dishonest or too stupid to get my argument.


    My reply .....But that’s typically you when you are trapped by your own stupidity, you claimed owning people as property was evil , the Bible clearly states slaves are your property .....ouch ......still no defence have you?


    You say .......Yet here I am with you dodging the fact that I said the bible says the person's service is what is bought. You have even dodged my analogy of sport stars and athletes being property.


    My reply ......Actually the Bible does not state that , the Bible states clearly In several different verses slaves are your property , you need to get a Bible mate


     .......Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version (NIV)

    44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.



    I never read your “sports star analogy”there only so much of your stupidity one can tolerate 


    You say ......Stupidly, you want us to pretend with you that the word "property" has only one meaning.


    My reply .....Who is us? I never said that but neat little twist to aid your dishonesty , I said Slave had one meaning as in .....owning another as property.....lost again E T 


    You say .....No woman has a "right" to kill another person no matter what any court says. For example, blacks were still men even when the supreme court said they weren't.


    My reply .....A fetus is now a person? But you agree with slavery if the Bible is doing it , make your mind up will you?


    You say ......It is there because it was invited in. And 50% of the baby is the woman.


    My reply .....The invite can be withdrawn. So what?


    You say .....Even if we grant that, the baby retains the right to life, as does any person.


    My reply ....It doesn’t , Abortion is legal 


    You say ......Then you have no problem with homosexuality being illegal in most places?


    My reply .....That makes no sense 


    You say .......The question here is not about the legality, but abut the morality.


    My reply .....I get it you don’t like the law if you disagree with it , I don’t agree with the right to carry a gun in the U S so your point is?


    Regarding morality what makes you demanding a woman give birth without consent moral? 


    You say .....This absurdist argument that the baby needs continuous consent from the woman is an unwelcome invader is ...... absurd.


    My reply .....Nonsense, your argument that women must give birth because you say so makes you a bully and a tyrant 


    You say .......If a woman doesn't want a baby, let her keep her legs closed. She had control of her body before the baby right?


    My reply ......Spoken like a true Victorian misogynist 

    Plaffelvohfen
  • ethang5ethang5 140 Pts
    edited July 12
    @Dee

    There is still a woman's body in incest. You said you supported a woman deciding how to use her body.

    >I said I supported a woman’s right to bodily autonomy  bodily   autonomy means a person has control over whom or what uses their body, for what, and for how long.

    Like incest. You have to accept the consequences of your argument dee dee.

    >Your rant about incest is a typically stupid red herring 

    Lol. OK. You support a woman's right to use her body for whatever she wants except incest.

    First, the woman give her consent when she opened her legs, and the baby was invited in, it is not an invader.

    >She gave permission which may be withdrawn at her will

    She can withdraw all she wants, she just cannot kill the baby. She has no "right" to do so.

    The baby does not consent to be hacked to pieces.

    >The fetus is still there by permission 

    So is a French immigrant in America, but the government cannot kill him.

    No, that is just you spinning because you can't debate the point.

    >No spin on my part , you don’t debate you rant 

    I ask questions, you dodge. I explain my positions, you pretend I didn't and repeat your lame addressed claims. I think the Gentle Readers know who is empty.

    I will just have to accept that you're either too dishonest or too stupid to get my argument.

    >But that’s typically you when you are trapped by your own stupidity, you claimed owning people as property was evil , the Bible clearly states slaves are your property .....ouch ......still no defence have you?

    It is most likely stupidity

    Yet here I am with you dodging the fact that I said the bible says the person's service is what is bought. You have even dodged my analogy of sport stars and athletes being property.

    >Actually the Bible does not state that, 

    Actually it does, you are just willfully ignorant.

    >the Bible states clearly In several different verses slaves are your property , you need to get a Bible mate

    And you need a dictionary.

    >I never read your “sports star analogy” there only so much of your stupidity one can tolerate 

    Lol. OK. But you really should read posts you intend to reply.

    Stupidly, you want us to pretend with you that the word "property" has only one meaning.

    >Who is us? 

    Does it matter to your pretense?

    >I never said that but neat little twist to aid your dishonesty , I said Slave had one meaning as in .....owning another as property.....lost again E T 

    Slave has more than one meaning slick. And I said "property" has more than one meaning too. You kept harping on property. Get thee to a dictionary.

    No woman has a "right" to kill another person no matter what any court says. For example, blacks were still men even when the supreme court said they weren't.

    >A fetus is now a person?

    When is a person not a person? Do you think calling a person a fetus makes them not a person?

    >But you agree with slavery if the Bible is doing it , make your mind up will you?

    I've decided. You're stupid.

    It is there because it was invited in. And 50% of the baby is the woman.

    >The invite can be withdrawn. So what?

    Not morally. That's what.

    Even if we grant that, the baby retains the right to life, as does any person.

    >It doesn’t , Abortion is legal 

    Human laws do not affect inalienable rights. Look up the bolded word with a dictionary.

    Then you have no problem with homosexuality being illegal in most places?

    >That makes no sense 

    Sorry, I keep thinking your IQ is average.

    The question here is not about the legality, but abut the morality.

    >I get it you don’t like the law if you disagree with it , I don’t agree with the right to carry a gun in the U S so your point is?

    Abortion is immoral because it is the willful murder of a person.

    >Regarding morality what makes you demanding a woman give birth without consent moral? 

    I have demanded no such thing.

    This absurdist argument that the baby needs continuous consent from the woman and is an unwelcome invader is ...... absurd.

    >Nonsense, your argument that women must give birth because you say so makes you a bully and a tyrant 

    That is not what I say.

    If a woman doesn't want a baby, let her keep her legs closed. She had control of her body before the baby right?

    >Spoken like a true Victorian misogynist

    My acknowledgment that a woman has control over her body and should exercise that control, is misogynistic?

    I dismiss your silly politically correct illogic. If a woman doesn't want a baby, she should not do what creates one.

    Actions have consequences, if she feels she controls her body, then the time for that control is before she let's some doofus knock boots with her.

    She has no right to kill another person.

  • @ethang5

    Projecting a lot I see, typical...
    The question is not whether there is a law. We all know Roe vs Wade exists. The question is one of inalienable rights. Of morality.
    We're talking about rights, therefore by necessity, the discussion is set in a legal framework, if you don't acknowledge this, that is your problem, not mine...
    False analogy. The boy was negligent and trespassing. Neither is true of a baby.
    False analogy. Beardsley did not cause Burn's overdose, and Burns did not require Beardsley to use his body.
    I wonder if you're even able to understand that it wasn't an analogy about bodily autonomy but about the absence of Duty to rescue laws in the US... 
     your silly test does not show in any way that abortion is correct.
    It isn't meant to, it is meant to show that it is legitimate... Morality being subjective, whether it is good or bad, is for the pregnant woman to decide, no one else... 
    >It's in this sense that what the fetus is, is irrelevant...
    What sense is that slick? The baby being a criminal?
    Yes... Whether you accept it or not, the fetus is using someone body, at the moment consent is withdrawn, a crime is being committed... All persons being equal in rights, if you allow for a fetus to use someone body in whole or in part without this person consent, then you also allow for other person, regardless of age, sex, etc, to use anyone body part without consent too... 
    >Person and a citizen are not the same...  A citizen is a born person, there is no unborn citizens by definition... 
    Who's definition? Both of them have a right to life that should be respected by the authority of the jurisdiction.
    The US Constitution?? You should look it up... 14th amendment, first sentence of the first section : "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."  

    There are no unborn citizens... Don't play the equivocation fallacy, doesn't work with me...
    Both of them have a right to life that should be respected by the authority of the jurisdiction.
    I completely agree, where did I state that the baby didn't have a right to life?? Multiple times now I have stated that I grant every rights an adult have to the fetus... You on the other hand, deny women theirs...
    >This is so because “pregnancy is a condition that follows absolutely from the presence of a fertilized ovum in a woman’s body.” Not a nanosecond before...
    I reject this as absurdist nonsense, for then no rapist could be convicted of impregnating a victim, and no deadbeat dad can be held for non support.
    ?? Wow... If you actually think that rapists are convicted for "impregnating" someone then you are farther into delusion then I thought... This notion of yours implies that there is no rape if there is no pregnancy... Now THAT is nonsense... And you are actually denying basic biological facts... No woman can be pregnant without a fertilized eggs implanted in her uterus... That is literally what it means to be pregnant, to have a fertilized human egg implanted in your uterus... If the ovum is NOT fertilized, you are not pregnant, if the fertilized ovum is NOT implanted in the uterus, you are not pregnant... Those are 2 imperative conditions to be pregnant, biology 101... Did you skip class in school? It would explain a few things...
    >This being the case, we can identify the fertilized ovum to be the factual cause of a woman’s pregnancy state.
    This is not the case. Logic will be required here.
    Please explain to everyone how can a woman be pregnant without the presence of a fertilized ovum in her uterus... This will be interesting...
    So please tell us, how would a woman "consent" to a fertilized ovum making her pregnant?
    By letting it stay there obviously... Like a fly on your arm, you may not have consented to it landing there, but by doing nothing you consent to its continued presence until you withdraw this consent if you want to...
    People are forced to have their bodies used all the time. Under court orders, or by police action, or by immanent domain of a state when it would result in lives being saved.
    "Immanent" domain??? Don't use words you don't understand boy...  It's eminent, and it refers to the power of a state or the federal government to take private property for public use while requiring "just" compensation to be given to the original owner. No body can be used for any purpose under eminent domain... Educate yourself...

    Someone bodily integrity can indeed be suspended, but it is not inferred from a right to life... It can be inferred from a public safety imperative (vaccines) and such, but it cannot be inferred from a right to life... 
    I need make no such connection because I do not accept...
    1. That the baby lacks consent, and.... 
    2. That the baby needs "continuous consent", and....
    3. That a baby is "using" the woman's body in the way you mean "using" here
    Of course you do, if you are to invoke the right to life as an argument against abortion... What does the baby's consent has to do with anything? His body is not being used, the woman body is...

    You have a right to your opinion but not to your alternative facts...  So far, all you've brought forth are opinions... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @ethang5


    You say ......Like incest. You have to accept the consequences of your argument dee dee.


    My reply .....Your obsession with incest is “interesting “ , a woman has consensual incest yes that’s fine with me .....anymore “gotchas”?



    You say ......Lol. OK. You support a woman's right to use her body for whatever she wants except incest.


    My reply .....I’m good to go on incest once it’s consensual , also stop being so offensively silly



    You say .......She can withdraw all she wants, she just cannot kill the baby. She has no "right" to do so.


    My reply ......She can , and legally and morally it’s not a crime to do so 


    You say .....The baby does not consent to be hacked to pieces.


    My reply .....But who’s asking the unborn for an opinion it cannot give only you


    You say .......So is a French immigrant in America, but the government cannot kill him.


    My reply ......An immigrant is there by rights granted by the American government that right may be withdrawn , why would they kill a person who has been granted life by his mother?


    You say .....I ask questions, you dodge. I explain my positions, you pretend I didn't and repeat your lame addressed claims. I think the Gentle Readers know who is empty.


    My reply .....The only dodging is by you as in your total collapse and non defense of biblical slavery. I see you are doing your same tired old stupid dance with others also 

     

    You say .....I will just have to accept that you're either too dishonest or too stupid to get my argument.


    My reply ......Says ET the compulsive liar with the I Q of a sea sponge 



    You say ......Yet here I am with you dodging the fact that I said the bible says the person's service is what is bought. 


    My reply .....More lies from ET here you go yet again buddy slaves as property as sanctioned by god


     .....Leviticus 25:44-46(NASB) : 44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.


    Where does that their “service “ is bought? Read that again dummy a slave is your “possession” , bet you run yet again


    You say......You have even dodged my analogy of sport stars and athletes being property.


    My reply .....You never made an “analogy “ and wait a sports star on 20 million a year is equivalent to a biblical slave is that it Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha 


    So tell me ET do sports managers in the U S beat their sports stars as in the Bible .....Exodus 21:20-21(NASB): 20If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

    Exodus 21:26-27(NASB): 26If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. 27And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.


    Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha 


    You say .....Actually it does, you are just willfully ignorant.


    My reply .....Yet I’m demonstrating your ignorance using your Bible that you’ve obviously still never read 



    You say ......Slave has more than one meaning slick. 


    My reply .....Only in your thick skull , the Bible is clear a slave is your property let me again educate you


     ......…20 If a man strikes his manservant or maidservant with a rod, and the servant dies by his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21However,ifthe slave gets upafter a dayortwo,the owner shall notbe punished,sincethe slave ishis property.22If men who are fighting strike a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband demands and as the court allows.…


    Ring any bells Doofus?



    You say .....And I said "property" has more than one meaning too. You kept harping on property. Get thee to a dictionary.


    My reply .....Not according to your god maybe correct your god mate?


    You say ......No woman has a "right" to kill another person no matter what any court says. For example, blacks were still men even when the supreme court said they weren't.


    My reply ....Which is why it’s legal making it a right. No one has the right to bear arms no matter what a court says .....see how that works. Regarding blacks and slavery you’re all for it when god approves 


    You say .....When is a person not a person? 


    My reply ....When it’s a fetus and lacks personhood 


    You say .....Do you think calling a person a fetus makes them not a person?


    My reply .....But why would anyone call a person a fetus?



    You say ......Even if we grant that, the baby retains the right to life, as does any person.


    My reply ....It doesn’t legally or morally 

     

    You say ......Human laws do not affect inalienable rights. Look up the bolded word with a dictionary.


    My reply ....Yet your government and constitution disagree with your opinion piece maybe you need to get a copy of your constitution?


    You say ......Sorry, I keep thinking your IQ is average.


    My reply .....This coming from a Doofus who denies what what’s written in the Bible is amusing to say the least 



    You say ......Abortion is immoral because it is the willful murder of a person.


    My reply .....Abortion is moral because it grants a women autonomy over her own body despite your misogynistic views 


    You say .......I have demanded no such thing.


    My reply ......Yes , it’s merely your opinion which is like most your opinions merely Victorian style moralizing 


    You say ......That is not what I say.


    My reply .....It is 



    You say .......My acknowledgment that a woman has control over her body and should exercise that control, is misogynistic?


    My reply ......Nonsense , as in your inflated opinion of “exercise control” which is as usual a denial of abortion rights for a woman 


    You say .....I dismiss your silly politically correct illogic. If a woman doesn't want a baby, she should not do what creates one.


    My reply ....Dismiss away Moses your religious moralizing is tiresome 


    You say ......Actions have consequences, if she feels she controls her body, then the time for that control is before she let's some doofus knock boots with her.


    My reply .....Ah you mean your idea of control not hers , what gives you the right to tell a woman she has to give birth against her wishes you tool?



    You say ......She has no right to kill another person.


    My reply .....The implied rights of a fetus do not trump those of a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, get over it mate 

    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 187 Pts
    What's more offensive?

    Adoption, abortion, or a lady giving birth to a baby?
  • ethang5ethang5 140 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    >Projecting a lot I see, typical...

    Little silly comments like this work against the air of scholarship you try to build for yourself.

    The question is not whether there is a law. We all know Roe vs Wade exists. The question is one of inalienable rights. Of morality.

    >We're talking about rights, therefore by necessity, the discussion is set in a legal framework, if you don't acknowledge this, that is your problem, not mine...

    The one with the problem is the one talking about it. The discussion is not set in a legal framework. We already know the legal framework. Laws are built on morality, and just as I reject a law telling me black people aren't fully human, I reject a law telling me that babies can be killed because the mother feels like killing them.

    False analogy. The boy was negligent and trespassing. Neither is true of a baby.

    False analogy. Beardsley did not cause Burn's overdose, and Burns did not require Beardsley to use his body.

    >I wonder if you're even able to understand that it wasn't an analogy about bodily autonomy but about the absence of Duty to rescue laws in the US... 

    Duty to rescue laws have nothing to do with what we're talking about. You are trying to dig a rabbit hole.

     your silly test does not show in any way that abortion is correct.

    >It isn't meant to, it is meant to show that it is legitimate... Morality being subjective, whether it is good or bad, is for the pregnant woman to decide, no one else... 

    It is not legitimate, and morality is not subjective. I am not trying to have someone else decide for the woman, I am saying the decision to murder the baby is immoral.

    >It's in this sense that what the fetus is, is irrelevant...

    What sense is that slick? The baby being a criminal?

    Yes... Whether you accept it or not, the fetus is using someone body, at the moment consent is withdrawn, a crime is being committed... All persons being equal in rights, if you allow for a fetus to use someone body in whole or in part without this person consent, then you also allow for other person, regardless of age, sex, etc, to use anyone body part without consent too... 

    Only if we accept your insipid argument first. And we don't. The baby has consent, does not need continuous consent, and is not “using” the mother. Those are all ad-hoc arguments made up by you out of whole cloth.

    >Person and a citizen are not the same...  A citizen is a born person, there is no unborn citizens by definition... 

    Who's definition? Both of them have a right to life that should be respected by the authority of the jurisdiction.

    >The US Constitution?? You should look it up... 14th amendment, first sentence of the first section : "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."  

    >There are no unborn citizens... Don't play the equivocation fallacy, doesn't work with me...

    It doesn't matter to my argument. Both of them have a right to life that should be respected by the authority of the jurisdiction.

    >I completely agree, where did I state that the baby didn't have a right to life??

    When you stupidly said the woman could murder the child anytime she wanted.

    >Multiple times now I have stated that I grant every rights an adult have to the fetus... You on the other hand, deny women theirs...

    A non existent right cannot be withheld. A woman has no “right” to kill anyone, especially a baby.

    >This is so because “pregnancy is a condition that follows absolutely from the presence of a fertilized ovum in a woman’s body.” Not a nanosecond before..

    I reject this as absurdist nonsense, for then no rapist could be convicted of impregnating a victim, and no deadbeat dad can be held for non support.

    >?? Wow... If you actually think that rapists are convicted for "impregnating" someone then you are farther into delusion then I thought... This notion of yours implies that there is no rape if there is no pregnancy...

    Please stop being stupid. A rapist can be convicted of rape and of causing a pregnancy.

    >Now THAT is nonsense... And you are actually denying basic biological facts... No woman can be pregnant without a fertilized eggs implanted in her uterus... That is literally what it means to be pregnant, to have a fertilized human egg implanted in your uterus... If the ovum is NOT fertilized, you are not pregnant, if the fertilized ovum is NOT implanted in the uterus, you are not pregnant... Those are 2 imperative conditions to be pregnant, biology 101... Did you skip class in school? It would explain a few things...

    You obviously did not miss PC stupidity 101. A woman is pregnant when one of her eggs is fertilized inside of her. And eggs that implant in her tubes instead of her womb are still pregnancies, but are called entopic pregnancies.

    >This being the case, we can identify the fertilized ovum to be the factual cause of a woman’s pregnancy state.

    This is not the case. Logic will be required here.

    >Please explain to everyone how can a woman be pregnant without the presence of a fertilized ovum in her uterus... This will be interesting...

    Stop trying to be slick. What is not the case is the stupidity you're hawking that it is not the man that causes a woman to become pregnant.

    So please tell us, how would a woman "consent" to a fertilized ovum making her pregnant?

    >By letting it stay there obviously... Like a fly on your arm, you may not have consented to it landing there, but by doing nothing you consent to its continued presence until you withdraw this consent if you want to...

    And how would a woman know it is there BEFORE it implants in her womb? Or will you dodge that one slick?

    People are forced to have their bodies used all the time. Under court orders, or by police action, or by immanent domain of a state when it would result in lives being saved.

    >"Immanent" domain??? Don't use words you don't understand boy...  It's eminent, and it refers to the power of a state or the federal government to take private property for public usewhile requiring "just" compensation to be given to the original owner. No body can be used for any purpose under eminent domain... Educate yourself...

    >Is it not you calling a woman's body her private property? You must accept the consequences of your illogical argument slick.

    >Someone bodily integrity can indeed be suspended, but it is not inferred from a right to life... It can be inferred from a public safety imperative (vaccines) and such, but it cannot be inferred from a right to life... 

    Sure it can. A police officer can justly shoot you if you are about to seriously harm a baby. How does that not qualify?

    I need make no such connection because I do not accept...
    1. That the baby lacks consent, and.... 
    2. That the baby needs "continuous consent", and....
    3. That a baby is "using" the woman's body in the way you mean "using" here

    >Of course you do, if you are to invoke the right to life as an argument against abortion... What does the baby's consent has to do with anything? His body is not being used, the woman body is...

    I submit that using the babies body to make ground beef qualifies as using.

    >You have a right to your opinion but not to your alternative facts...  So far, all you've brought forth are opinions...

    Facts remain facts even when you don't like them. Semantics also doesn't save your lame and tortured argument. Let the woman decide for her body, and let the baby's body alone.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • ethang5ethang5 140 Pts
    edited July 15
    @Dee

    Like incest. You have to accept the consequences of your argument dee dee.

    >Your obsession with incest is “interesting “,

    That you call it an obsession is interesting.

    >a woman has consensual incest yes that’s fine with me .....anymore “gotchas”?

    A few, but from your initial reluctance to answer here, a heads up would only cause you to run.

    Lol. OK. You support a woman's right to use her body for whatever she wants except incest.

    >I’m good to go on incest once it’s consensual , also stop being so offensively silly

    Beating you on a point is being offensive? Lol. OK.

    She can withdraw all she wants, she just cannot kill the baby. She has no "right" to do so.

    >She can , and legally and morally it’s not a crime to do so

    It is immoral to do so, even when it isn't a crime.

    The baby does not consent to be hacked to pieces.

    >But who’s asking the unborn for an opinion it cannot give only you

    The right to life is assumed for all persons and is inalienable regardless of the persons opinion.

    So is a French immigrant in America, but the government cannot kill him.

    >An immigrant is there by rights granted by the American government that right may be withdrawn,...

    And still the immigrant cannot be killed upon the withdrawal.

    >...why would they kill a person who has been granted life by his mother?

    The baby was not “granted” life by the mother. And that life cannot be morally taken by the mother.

    I ask questions, you dodge. I explain my positions, you pretend I didn't and repeat your lame addressed claims. I think the Gentle Readers know who is empty.

    >The only dodging is by you as in your total collapse and non defense of biblical slavery. I see you are doing your same tired old stupid dance with others also

    If I gave you answers and you pretend I didn't, and simply repeat your debunked claims, I'm pretty sure the Gentle Readers see that. Winners do not pretend not to see rebuttals.

    I will just have to accept that you're either too dishonest or too stupid to get my argument.

    >Says ET the compulsive liar with the I Q of a sea sponge 

    Responses like that don't do for you what you apparently think they do.

    Yet here I am with you dodging the fact that I said the bible says the person's service is what is bought. 

    >More lies from ET here you go yet again buddy slaves as property as sanctioned by god

    Saying it a million times will not change it into your silly argument. You seem to think that simply posting a verse is proof of your argument. Bible thumpers think that way too.

    >Where does that their “service “ is bought? Read that again dummy a slave is your “possession” , bet you run yet again

    Run how? I told you that “possession” does not mean owning the person and you jumped to “slavery”. The word possession can mean more than one thing.

    You have even dodged my analogy of sport stars and athletes being property.

    >You never made an “analogy “ and wait a sports star on 20 million a year is equivalent to a biblical slave is that it Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha

    That is your rebuttal I'm supposed to be dodging? The evil laugh? The sports star is considered the property of the club. That is one meaning of “property”. The club owns his talent, not his person.

    >So tell me ET do sports managers in the U S beat their sports stars as in the Bible .....Exodus 21:20-21(NASB): 20If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.

    This law prohibits the beating of a biblical slave.

    >Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha 

    The evil laugh argument fits you.

    Actually it does, you are just willfully ignorant.

    >Yet I’m demonstrating your ignorance using your Bible that you’ve obviously still never read 

    You always crown yourself winner. I don't worry about it.

    Slave has more than one meaning slick. 

    >Only in your thick skull , the Bible is clear a slave is your property let me again educate you

    And property does not mean the ownership of the person, but of his debt.

    >Ring any bells Doofus?

    The bell of stupidity that you're mightily ringing yes.

    And I said "property" has more than one meaning too. You kept harping on property. Get thee to a dictionary.

    >Not according to your god maybe correct your god mate?

    According to my God is not you posting a verse in your ignorance.

    No woman has a "right" to kill another person no matter what any court says. For example, blacks were still men even when the supreme court said they weren't.

    >Which is why it’s legal making it a right. No one has the right to bear arms no matter what a court says .....see how that works. Regarding blacks and slavery you’re all for it when god approves

    You stupidly saying that God approves means nothing. The right to bear arms is not an inalienable right. Please get a dictionary.

    When is a person not a person? 

    >When it’s a fetus and lacks personhood 

    A human being is always a person, this is why the supreme court was wrong in the Dredd Scott case, and is wrong in the Roe case.

    Do you think calling a person a fetus makes them not a person?

    >But why would anyone call a person a fetus?

    A fetus is a stage of development, like “child” or “adult.” But some murderers want to avoid the emotional truth that they are advocating the murder of a human child, so they pretend that calling a baby a fetus makes murder OK.

    Even if we grant that, the baby retains the right to life, as does any person.

    >It doesn’t legally or morally

    It does legally in some places, and morally everywhere.
     
    Human laws do not affect inalienable rights. Look up the bolded word with a dictionary.

    >Yet your government and constitution disagree with your opinion piece maybe you need to get a copy of your constitution?

    “We hold these truths to be self evident….”
    Do you know where that’s from? The US Declaration of Independence. Our constitution was built on it.

    Sorry, I keep thinking your IQ is average.

    >This coming from a Doofus who denies what what’s written in the Bible is amusing to say the least

    I do not deny what is written, I deny what you say it means.

    Abortion is immoral because it is the willful murder of a person.

    >Abortion is moral because it grants a women autonomy over her own body despite your misogynistic views 

    Your pc logic fails. The body in question is not the woman's. The woman's autonomy is not hampered by being pregnant, plus, no one has complete autonomy over their body. All rights are limited when it comes to harming others.

    I have demanded no such thing.

    >Yes , it’s merely your opinion which is like most your opinions merely Victorian style moralizing 

    OK. I have demanded no such thing, but if you need to lie to continue, be my guest.

    That is not what I say.

    >It is 

    Then you should have quoted me. What? You can't? The board lost where I said so?

    My acknowledgment that a woman has control over her body and should exercise that control, is misogynistic?

    >Nonsense , as in your inflated opinion of “exercise control” which is as usual a denial of abortion rights for a woman

    How is a woman declining unprotected sex when she doesn't want a baby a denial of abortion rights for a woman?

    I dismiss your silly politically correct illogic. If a woman doesn't want a baby, she should not do what creates one.

    >Dismiss away Moses your religious moralizing is tiresome 

    You would lose less respect if you just admitted that you have no answer to the point.

    Actions have consequences, if she feels she controls her body, then the time for that control is before she let's some doofus knock boots with her.

    >Ah you mean your idea of control not hers , what gives you the right to tell a woman she has to give birth against her wishes you tool?

    I did not say she has to give birth against her wishes idiot. I said that the time to express her wish is before she is pregnant. That way, she does not have to give birth against her wishes.

    She has no right to kill another person.

    >The implied rights of a fetus do not trump those of a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, get over it mate

    I have no clue what an “implied right” is to you, but I know that once the baby exists the right to life is real, and very few rights trump the right to life.

    Killing an innocent little baby never gives a woman bodily autonomy. Killing a baby and autonomy aren't even related. You and every abortionist want to kill babies simply because you find them inconvenient.

    So just say so, all the semantics and mental calisthenics are not necessary.
  • ethang5ethang5 140 Pts
    edited July 15
    @TKDB

    >What's more offensive?

    >Adoption, abortion, or a lady giving birth to a baby?

    Abortion hands down. Adoption and birth are not offensive at all.

    But listen to these doofuses calling a baby an invader, a user, a criminal or an immigrant and one  wonders where good sense ran off to.
  • Abortion is murder for a few simple logical deductions.

    1.pregnancy, is naturally suppose to last until birth.

    Abortion is therefore the unnatural result of an external force acting on or intervening in a natural process.

    2. A person is defined as anyone who is an individual

    3. An individual is anyone who is, by definition, 1.
    a single human being as distinct from another human being.

    4.the potential of human life is equivalent to human life.

    As Human development, insinuates a human developes, not that a fetus develops.

    Terminating what would otherwise be a person, terminates the person that would be born.

    The words I'm using are more sentimental. If a purely logical assessment is required it can be made.
  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @ethang5


    You say ......A few, but from your initial reluctance to answer here, a heads up would only cause you to run.


    My reply ....Yet here I am stupid , do you know what the term run even means?



    You say .......Beating you on a point is being offensive? Lol. OK.


    My reply ......That’s something you can only dream about 



    You say ......It is immoral to do so, even when it isn't a crime.


    My reply .....It’s not , why then are women not given life in jail for as you put it murdering a baby?   You don’t like the law or woman having rights ahhhhhhhh poor ET 




    You say ......The right to life is assumed for all persons and is inalienable regardless of the persons opinion.


    My reply .....You don’t like your 14th amendment , tough. Were you missing from school on the day they talked about this?



    You say .......The baby was not “granted” life by the mother. 


    My reply ......Grant .....Allow.....permit .......you really are offensively stupid 


    You say ......And that life cannot be morally taken by the mother.


    My reply .....You can and it is taken morally 



    You say  .....If I gave you answers and you pretend I didn't, and simply repeat your debunked claims, I'm pretty sure the Gentle Readers see that. Winners do not pretend not to see rebuttals.


    My reply ....The bible says slaves are your property you have no defence , your deflections are all you have 



    You say ......Responses like that don't do for you what you apparently think they do.


    My reply .....My response is a statement of fact 


    You say .......Yet here I am with you dodging the fact that I said the bible says the person's service is what is bought. 


    My reply .....So slaves are your property really means the person is being paid to do a job , one of your least inventive lies so far 


    You say ......Saying it a million times will not change it into your silly argument. You seem to think that simply posting a verse is proof of your argument. Bible thumpers think that way too.


    My reply .....Slaves are your property is plain enough except to nutters like you 


    You say ......Run how? I told you that “possession” does not mean owning the person and you jumped to “slavery”. The word possession can mean more than one thing.


    My reply .......No, Slaves are your property exactly as it says in the Bible your dodging continues , you can get help if you wish 


    You say .....That is your rebuttal I'm supposed to be dodging? The evil laugh? The sports star is considered the property of the club. That is one meaning of “property”. The club owns his talent, not his person.


    My reply .....Where in any sports stars contract does it say they are the clubs property you dummy?


    You say ......This law prohibits the beating of a biblical slave.


    My reply .....The law as sanctioned by god permitted the beating of slaves and gave instructions on how to do so 



    You say ......Slave has more than one meaning slick. 


    My reply .....If you could say that to the black slaves you guys had in the U S or the biblical slaves I’m sure they would be delighted at this ET spin on their dire position , takes a special type of “Christian “ to defend the brutalization of fellow humans but hey your Bible is your guide to “morality” 



    You say ......And property does not mean the ownership of the person, but of his debt.


    My reply .....It does actually, the Bible clearly state slaves are your property that’s ownership you idiotic troll , the Bible clearly states one may buy slaves.


    You say ......The bell of stupidity that you're mightily ringing yes


    My reply ......Yes , where I live we have such a bell and I do indeed ring it to let the locals know stupid on stilts as in E T is approaching 


    You say .......And I said "property" has more than one meaning too. You kept harping on property. Get thee to a dictionary.


    My reply ......Still playing  your stupid little avoidance games .......Slaves are your property .....exactly as your Bible  says .....get thee to a Bible 


    You say .....According to my God is not you posting a verse in your ignorance.


    My reply ......A verse in ignorance?? Slaves are your property......four words you still don’t comprehend .....are you social needs?



    You say .......You stupidly saying that God approves means nothing


    My reply ......It does which is why you have no defence .....again 


    You say ........The right to bear arms is not an inalienable right. Please get a dictionary


    My reply ........Please read your 14th amendment and why women are legally entitled to have abortions despite your hurt feelings 


    You say ......A human being is always a person, this is why the supreme court was wrong in the Dredd Scott case, and is wrong in the Roe case.


    My reply .....Thankfully your biblical moralizing does not make laws 


    You say ......A fetus is a stage of development, like “child” or “adult.” But some murderers want to avoid the emotional truth that they are advocating the murder of a human child, so they pretend that calling a baby a fetus makes murder OK.


    My reply .....But you don’t believe women who abort are murderers nor does anyone else if the opposite were true they would all be doing life for the murder of a baby , stop trying to play the weepy , over emotional idiots role that’s fits easily with you 


    You say ......It does legally in some places, and morally everywhere.


    My reply ......Maybe you should move to one of these “someplaces” no doubt in the Bible Belt , morally everywhere yet another lie from E T 

     


    You say .......Your pc logic fails. The body in question is not the woman's. The woman's autonomy is not hampered by being pregnant, 


    My reply .....The fetus is there still by permission, the woman’s autonomy is being hampered you idiot 


    You say .......plus, no one has complete autonomy over their body. All rights are limited when it comes to harming others.


    My reply .....No one has the right to live of another without permission 



    You say ......How is a woman declining unprotected sex when she doesn't want a baby a denial of abortion rights for a woman?


    My reply .....How is a woman deciding she does not want to carry a fetus to term told by bible thumpers like you she cannot do that, how is that not a denial of her rights?


    You no doubt want forced births against a woman’s wishes , you’re a tyrant and bully


    You say .......You would lose less respect if you just admitted that you have no answer to the point.


    My reply ......No one craves your respect Moses , you want forced births that’s the answer to your stupidity 



    You say ......I did not say she has to give birth against her wishes idiot


    My reply .....So you agree with abortion if it goes against her wishes? Make your mind up Doofus


    You say .....I said that the time to express her wish is before she is pregnant. That way, she does not have to give birth against her wishes.


    My reply ......But Why would she give birth against her wishes Moses Unless people like you are forcing her?


    You say .....I have no clue what an “implied right” is to you, but I know that once the baby exists the right to life is real, and very few rights trump the right to life.


    My reply .....Yes I should have taken your stupidity into account , you assume a right for the fetus that it doesn’t have 


    You say ......Killing an innocent little baby never gives a woman bodily autonomy. Killing a baby and autonomy aren't even related. You and every abortionist want to kill babies simply because you find them inconvenient.


    My reply ......Why not ask women the reasons they abort you bible thumping moralist instead of your Little house on the prairies style moralizing 



    If you get a minute or two between K K K duties maybe buy a bible and read up on slavery 

  • Dee, I've realized you don't take into consideration quite a few things.

    Law, doesn't determine morality.

    Rather, morality should determine  law.

    A law is subject to two conditions
    Introduction and legislation.

    If it passes legislation a law could be made banning people from having teeth. Does that then determine the moral standard of law is the law itself?

    Is morality based on consensus or is morality based on the condition that something's moral?

    I have a profound confusion with people.

    It's like when they say there's no such thing as truth yet the statement itself would have to be true in order for their statement to be true.......

    Laws can be moral, or lack morality, as morality may not be the basis of a law.

    For example
    Administrative laws may be for the benefit of a government or institution.

    I remember Hitler enacting plenty of laws.......

    curiously do you even know the definition of the word law?
  • Laws are intended to deal with crimes...... And crimes are justifiably defined as crimes when they infringe of the rights or Well being of others.

    Since, murder is defined sensibly as a crime....... a criminal, is someone who has violated both the moral aspect of a law and the law itself.......

    Do you know the actual definition of murder Dee?
  • Unless the law is immoral, someone is a criminal when they take a life, or a murderer. Serial killers start out killing animals. Killing anything justifiably makes you a murderer. Fetus, dog,cat, whatever.
  • To make it easy for you to understand, no one has a right, to commit a crime; anything that effects the overall health,causes injury to ( wound, bruise, cut, gash, tear, rent, slash, gouge, scratch, graze, laceration, abrasion, contusion, lesion,)  ( you people talk about emotional abuse but don't consider abortion murder) , effects the well being , safety of anything living.
  • ethang5ethang5 140 Pts

    A few, but from your initial reluctance to answer here, a heads up would only cause you to run.

    >Yet here I am stupid , do you know what the term run even means?

    You run behind petty insults and dumb references to the KKK.

    Beating you on a point is being offensive? Lol. OK.

    >That’s something you can only dream about

    Yet you find it offensive.

    It is immoral to do so, even when it isn't a crime.

    >It’s not , why then are women not given life in jail for as you put it murdering a baby?   You don’t like the law or woman having rights ahhhhhhhh poor ET

    No one is put into jail for immorality Cletus.

    The right to life is assumed for all persons and is inalienable regardless of the persons opinion.

    You don’t like your 14th amendment , tough. Were you missing from school on the day they talked about this?

    The 14th amendment does not contradict the right to life genius.
    The baby was not “granted” life by the mother.

    >Grant .....Allow.....permit .......you really are offensively stupid

    Disagreement with you is not stupidity, no matter how offended you are snowflake. The mother dose not allow/permit/grant life.
    And that life cannot be morally taken by the mother.

    >You can and it is taken morally
     
    If it was, you would not be in this convo.

    If I gave you answers and you pretend I didn't, and simply repeat your debunked claims, I'm pretty sure the Gentle Readers see that. Winners do not pretend not to see rebuttals.

    >The bible says slaves are your property you have no defence, your deflections are all you have

    If “property” does not mean owning the person but his debt, then I guess I don't care whether you call it a deflection or a defense.

    ....Responses like that don't do for you what you apparently think they do.

    >My response is a statement of fact

    Every half-baked idiot on the net insulting others thinks that way.

    Yet here I am with you dodging the fact that I said the bible says the person's service is what is bought.

    >So slaves are your property really means the person is being paid to do a job , one of your least inventive lies so far

    No idiot. The person is working off a debt.

    Saying it a million times will not change it into your silly argument. You seem to think that simply posting a verse is proof of your argument. Bible thumpers think that way too.

    >Slaves are your property is plain enough except to nutters like you

    Right. You don't want to debate it because you want “property” to have only one meaning. I asked you, how did a person become a slave to an Israelite? You ran.
    I told you that “possession” does not mean owning the person and you jumped to “slavery”. The word possession can mean more than one thing.

    >No, Slaves are your property exactly as it says in the Bible your dodging continues , you can get help if you wish

    You cannot win an argument by stupid insistence. No wonder you always have to crown yourself winner.

    That is your rebuttal I'm supposed to be dodging? The evil laugh? The sports star is considered the property of the club. That is one meaning of “property”. The club owns his talent, not his person.

    >Where in any sports stars contract does it say they are the clubs property you dummy?

    Ever hear of the artist formally known as Prince? Read his story as an example.

    This law prohibits the beating of a biblical slave.

    >The law as sanctioned by god permitted the beating of slaves and gave instructions on how to do so

    The verse you posted said a master beating a slave to death would be punished.

    Slave has more than one meaning slick.

    >If you could say that to the black slaves you guys had in the U S or the biblical slaves I’m sure they would be delighted at this ET spin on their dire position , takes a special type of “Christian “ to defend the brutalization of fellow humans but hey your Bible is your guide to “morality”

    Please stop being stupid. Many black slaves were Christians. The slavery practiced in the American south was not the same thing in the bible. In the south, blacks were thought of as less than men, and owned by their masters. In Israel, slaves were not owned and were considered to be fully men. The slaver in the American south had no restriction on what he could do to his slave. The Israelites had strict restrictions on how they were to treat slaves.

    And property does not mean the ownership of the person, but of his debt.

    >It does actually, the Bible clearly state slaves are your property that’s ownership you idiotic troll , the Bible clearly states one may buy slaves.

    His debt was bought, not his person. Football players are bought and sold between clubs too.

    The bell of stupidity that you're mightily ringing yes

    >Yes , where I live we have such a bell and I do indeed ring it to let the locals know stupid on stilts as in E T is approaching

    Yeah. That proves you aren't stupid. Thanks.

    And I said "property" has more than one meaning too. You kept harping on property. Get thee to a dictionary.

    >Still playing  your stupid little avoidance games .......Slaves are your property .....exactly as your Bible  says .....get thee to a Bible 

    Stupidity cannot win an argument loser. Words have different meanings depending on usage and context.

    "According to my God" is not you posting a verse in your ignorance.

    >A verse in ignorance?? Slaves are your property......four words you still don’t comprehend .....are you social needs?

    You are an idiot who so wants to be right, you are refusing to accept one of the basics of language. Words can have more than one meaning.

    You stupidly saying that God approves means nothing

    >It does which is why you have no defence .....again

    The Gentle Readers see my defense. You are either too dishonest or too dumb to see it. I'm leaning towards dumb.

    The right to bear arms is not an inalienable right. Please get a dictionary

    >Please read your 14th amendment and why women are legally entitled to have abortions despite your hurt feelings

    Everyone knows women can legally get an abortion in America idiot, we are debating the morality, not the legality.

    A human being is always a person, this is why the supreme court was wrong in the Dredd Scott case, and is wrong in the Roe case.

    >Thankfully your biblical moralizing does not make laws 

    As I said, laws are inferior to morality. There was a time when abortions were illegal. Would you support such a law?

    A fetus is a stage of development, like “child” or “adult.” But some murderers want to avoid the emotional truth that they are advocating the murder of a human child, so they pretend that calling a baby a fetus makes murder OK.

    >But you don’t believe women who abort are murderers nor does anyone else if the opposite were true they would all be doing life for the murder of a baby , stop trying to play the weepy , over emotional idiots role that’s fits easily with you

    I do believe abortion is murder, because it is. And I don't really care how you view that.

    It does legally in some places, and morally everywhere.

    >Maybe you should move to one of these “someplaces” no doubt in the Bible Belt , morally everywhere yet another lie from E T

     I'll just take it as you being ignorant of objective morality.

    Your pc logic fails. The body in question is not the woman's. The woman's autonomy is not hampered by being pregnant,...

    >The fetus is there still by permission,…

    The baby does not need permission.

    >...the woman’s autonomy is being hampered you idiot

    How?

    ...plus, no one has complete autonomy over their body. All rights are limited when it comes to harming others.

    >No one has the right to live of another without permission

    The baby does not need permission.

    How is a woman declining unprotected sex when she doesn't want a baby a denial of abortion rights for a woman?

    >How is a woman deciding she does not want to carry a fetus to term told by bible thumpers like you she cannot do that, how is that not a denial of her rights?

    I have never said that. I said she should secure her right to bodily autonomy before she is pregnant. Is that not practical and sensible?

    >You no doubt want forced births against a woman’s wishes , you’re a tyrant and bully

    And you are just stupid. A person's action betrays their desires. If she did not want a baby, she would not have gone out to get one. She cannot kill a human being simply because she wants to.

    You would lose less respect if you just admitted that you have no answer to the point.

    >No one craves your respect Moses , you want forced births that’s the answer to your stupidity

    The only person wanting forced births are the idiots who deliberately get preggers when they don't want babies. If you don't want a baby, fine. Good. It's your body. But after that egg is fertilized, its another’s body, and your right to autonomy ends where that baby's life begins.

    I did not say she has to give birth against her wishes idiot

    >So you agree with abortion if it goes against her wishes? Make your mind up Doofus

    The life of another person should not depend on her wishes.

    I said that the time to express her wish is before she is pregnant. That way, she does not have to give birth against her wishes.

    >But Why would she give birth against her wishes Moses Unless people like you are forcing her?

    No one forced her to open her legs idiot. No one was there when she shacked up. If you don't want to give birth, don't get pregnant.

    I have no clue what an “implied right” is to you, but I know that once the baby exists the right to life is real, and very few rights trump the right to life.

    >Yes I should have taken your stupidity into account , you assume a right for the fetus that it doesn’t have

    Sure it does. The right to life is universal and inalienable for humans.

    Killing an innocent little baby never gives a woman bodily autonomy. Killing a baby and autonomy aren't even related. You and every abortionist want to kill babies simply because you find them inconvenient.

    >Why not ask women the reasons they abort you bible thumping moralist instead of your Little house on the prairies style moralizing

    I have a mother, sisters, a wife, and daughters. The reason “because I don't want to” doesn't cut it. It must be a reason that trumps the right to life of the child.

    >If you get a minute or two between K K K duties maybe buy a bible and read up on slavery

    Too bad I have no advice for you that will alleviate your stupidity.
  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    edited 6:57AM
    @ethang5

    Posting  up a wall of insults and gibberish only makes you look more like the angry bible thumping egotist you are , I cannot read through that wall of nonsense but have summed up your repetitive gibberish and have left you some  notes to further your education .....What? .....You’re welcome 


    Your  interpretation of slavery  wouldn't work at all for Leviticus 25:46, which specifically allows that slaves are property who may be inherited by the owner's children and kept for life. This passage makes no sense unless they are discussing slavery — permanent ownership of one human by another — as we know it today.


    • Jesus' Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18:23) makes no sense if said "servant" is not a slave, since the master has the power to sell both the "servant", his wife and his children (Matthew 18:25).


    • It also makes little sense in the case of Matthew 24:51 in which these "servants" may be not only beaten by their master (as in Luke 12:47), but that the master "shall cut him asunder" in the words of the King James translation.


    You obviously only cheery pick the parts regarding Hebrew slaves who were treated differently. So tell me Doofus is owning another as property to you moral?



    You claiming something is immoral because you say so is your subjective opinion and I reject it as such , also from a guy who supports slavery I don’t think you should be lecturing others on morality 


    1) I don't believe in fetal personhood and think the rights of a woman take precedence over an embryo/fetus that has no cognition, consciousness, self-awareness, emotions, or ability to feel pain.

    2) I believe in the right to bodily autonomy.


    3)I believe that it is both normal and moral to desire and to engage in sex divorced from any procreative intent, and that having consensual sex does not obligate a person to carry a resultant pregnancy to term.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @jesusisGod777


    You say ......Dee, I've realized you don't take into consideration quite a few things.


    Law, doesn't determine morality.


    My reply .....Who said it did?


    You say .......Rather, morality should determine  law.


    My reply .....Who’s morality should determine law?


    You say .......A law is subject to two conditions

    Introduction and legislation.


    My reply ......Are you delivering a law lecture if so what’s your point?


    You say .......If it passes legislation a law could be made banning people from having teeth. Does that then determine the moral standard of law is the law itself?


    My reply ......Why whos saying that?


    You say .......Is morality based on consensus or is morality based on the condition that something's moral?


    My reply ......Whos morality are you talking about?


    You say ......I have a profound confusion with people.


    My reply ......As they most likely have with you 


    You say .....It's like when they say there's no such thing as truth yet the statement itself would have to be true in order for their statement to be true.......


    My reply .....Who are they?


    You say ......Laws can be moral, or lack morality, as morality may not be the basis of a law.


    My reply .......Who decides?


    You say ......For example

    Administrative laws may be for the benefit of a government or institution.


    I remember Hitler enacting plenty of laws.......


    My reply ......I remember god in the Bible approving of slavery , your point?


    You say ......curiously do you even know the definition of the word law?


    My reply ......I do , do you know the definition of the word  stupid as I think you would be in that category 

  • Dude have you ever read anything academic?

    Have you ever read anything about the psychological nature of the human mind?

    You do realize senses are define as an innate capacity.......

    You do realize a moral sense of right and wrong are the result of a person's conscience and that people who are not abnormal share common psychological traits and a basic understanding of morality that serves as the basis for interpersonal interaction.

    Apparently your dumbass still can't read much less comprehend.

    The well fare and well being of people and their safety is a PLEASE LOOK UP THIS WORD natural....... Inclination, by which people are inclined to act and behave.

    behaviour is effected by personal attitudes, that doesn't mean people determine morality it simply means morality as a natural sense by which people understand right and wrong is the cause of moral inclination.

    You people are jackasses. I can't even talk to you. 
  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @jesusisGod777

    Another typical piece of gibberish that makes no sense .....run back to your crayons and colouring book
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch