Would It Still Be An Abortion If...

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
That is a question for a lawyer. I am not a lawyer. Suffice it to say, Christians do not object to math or chemistry. What they may object to, however, are when science teachers or math teachers jump to conclusions and then attempt to weigh in on philosophical or religious matters.
No,(some) Christians object to their children being taught facts because those Christians don't like those facts or find them uncomfortable. Obvious examples are evolutionary theory and sex education.

Actually--that is exactly what your side attempts to do. Both sides attempt to control the curriculum to reflect their belief systems.
If you want to term "an acceptance of reality, including scientific discovery" a belief system, sure. That's what the left tries to get taught in schools, despite all the right can do.

It isn't sex education persey--that one would object to.
Of course it is, and Christians object to it constantly.

It is the implicit VALUES being taught that one might object to. If parents are trying to teach their children that sex is a sacred act between one man and one woman united in the covenant of marriage, you can understand why they would object to some government employee telling children to practice "safe sex" if they are going to shack up. That undermines the values parents are trying to teach their children.
That's simply false. Methods of contraception are facts. To teach them is not to teach any value system; it is to teach facts. (Some) Christians do not want their children to learn those facts because they would rather lie to them and attempt to keep them in line through terror and ignorance. Again, the left wants children to learn facts, not be lied to and kept ignorant.

And I'll remind you that the places in the nation with the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STDs are those where the teaching of abstinence-only sex education are predominant. If the aim is to reduce teen pregnancy and STDs, then the Christians' approach does not work. But - again - they are much more interested in posturing and being holier-than-thou than they are in actually helping their children.

What laws are Christians trying to change? What freedoms are Christians attempting to take away?
The obvious example is the right to abort.

There are atheists who are pro-life, sir.
There are. A miniscule number compared to the Christians who are pro-life. It is the Christians who are driving the fight against the right to abort. It is the Christians doing what they have done for so long - try to take the rights of others away.

School "choice" meaning the right to choose your school and have the tax dollars go to that school. You talk about the poor. Why would you not want to empower them by helping them attend--elite schools only the rich can afford?
I do not understand how this paragraph relates to anything I said.

You just answered your question above.
My 'question' above was rhetorical, meant to reflect your question about paying for someone else's abortion when you had nothing to do with it. In the same vein, why should I pay for someone else's schooling when I had nothing to do with it?

The answer to both questions is because we live in a society; we all pay for what is deemed to be advantageous to that society.

Sir, abortion is baby killing. That is why pro-lifers object to it. Now, it is just that--I do not think it is terribly helpful to our cause to call abortion supporters "Baby killers." If you are trying to win someone over to your side, you should avoid insulting them like that.
That is one reason some pro-lifers object to it. As I've already stated, it's not even the main reason.

But abortion supporters are just as guilty--calling pro-lifers misogynist, or otherwise making them look stupid and against women.
I'm sorry, but abortion supporters are against women. That's obvious. If they weren't, they would allow women the choice.

What is so hard about avoiding pregnancy in the first place through responsible sex?
Yet again, what you term 'responsible' does not make it so.

Pregnancy is NOT an "adverse consequence" of sex. That is what you do not seem to get. A Crash is a potential "adverse effect" of driving. Pregnancy is NOT a disease, sir. It is not an "adverse consequence." Pregnancy is what happens when people have sex---assuming nothing is defective or wrong with the body, or people are beyond childbearing age.
Pregnancy can, indeed, be an adverse consequence of sex. That is what you do not seem to get. If a pregnancy is not desired, then by definition it is an adverse consequence. Again, the fact that in a small percentage of cases sex results in pregnancy does not change that fact.

No. I am saying that abortion is objectively wrong. THis is a fact. Those who support abortion do not understand this becasue they are blind or simply do not want to. It is analogous to the alcoholic who despite all evidence to the contrary insists they are not an alcoholic and they do not have a problem.
No, it is not a fact. It is your opinion. No more. You cannot demonstrate that it is a fact, you can offer nothing to support your claim that it is a fact. You can't even offer a theoretical method in which such a claim could ever be evaluated for accuracy.

All morality is opinion and nothing more. Neither you nor anybody else has ever been able to demonstrate a single objective moral rule.

And please, you're better than the "if you disagree you're blind or simply do not want to." I can as easily say precisely the same thing about those who do not share my opinions. Whether you say it or I do, it is useless.

Sir, again, WHEN in any of my posts did you see me argue that we need to outlaw abortion becasue 1) my god or gods say so, 2) my holy book says so, 3) my religion says so, 4) my religious leaders say so, 5) Matt Slick of CARM says so?
Nowhere. If you claim that your morality is independent of what your god says, I'll happily withdraw may statement. I doubt very much that you will do so, however.

I am not so stupid as to try and argue like that--when I know I am arguing with people who may not be Christian or even theist. Please give me more credit than that!
But that is ultimately the source of your morality. Objective morality exists (in the claim of those Christians who hold that it exists) solely because there is an object morality giver. I have lost count of the Christians who have told me that if I discard God, I discard any basis for an objective morality.

What do you make of pro-life atheists? Abortion, like racism, is not solely a religious issue. True--Christians and Catholics are anti-abortion, and against racism--but one need not be religious to be anti-abortion, just like one need not be religious to be against racism.
That's correct - one need not be religious to be pro-life. But, as stated above, the vast majority of pro-lifers are Christian (in the US, that is). But atheists tend to lean to the left; it is a minority of atheists who are pro-life.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Part I've no idea, I've lost count.
You confuse opinions with objectivity. Just becasue in one's opinion abortion is not morally wrong, facts do not care about feelings.
I'm sorry, it's you who confuse opinions with objectivity. You cannot demonstrate that any objective moral exists; you cannot demonstrate that your opinion on any moral issue is any more than that - an opinion, worth no more - and no less - than mine, or his, or that bloke across the road's.

One may be of the opinion that the sky is black. The sky is blue. The sky is not black becasue someone with an opinion says so.
Exactly. You may think morality is objective. Morality is not objective. Morality is not objective because someone with an opinion says so.

Again, I point out that posting truisms like the above that have exactly same weight if said by either side is useless. We might as well just scream "You're wrong!" "No, YOU're wrong!" at each other. I get enough of that idiocy from others on here.

If they work as an abortifacient, yes. HOWEVER, let's leave that discussion aside for now.
I'm not sure I understand this. My original statement was in response to one of your statements that if someone falls pregnant, nothing has gone wrong (in comparison to a car crash, where obviously something has gone wrong). My statement was that in many cases, when someone falls pregnant, a method of contraception has gone wrong. I wasn't touching on the issue of which methods of contraception are and are not actual abortificants.

Sir, pregnancy is NOT a disease. When one gets pregnant, something did not go wrong.
Again, so what? I keep asking this and you keep failing to address it. What does it matter that it's not a disease, that it's a natural process? How does that affect the debate? As I pointed out in a previous post, there are any number of natural things that happen that we eschew and/or work against. Disease, as you've mentioned, is one. Aging is another. They're both natural, so should we abandon attempts to stop them or mitigate their consequences? Conversely, there are myriad things that are not natural that we embrace, such as flying and computers. "It's natural" or "nothing went wrong" lends nothing to the debate.

All it does is allow women to lie to themselves.
No, it allows women to control their own bodies.

Well, sir, that is what self governance is. That is a consequence of the way America is set up. We are founded on the idea of self-governance. Thus, if, for example, the people of New York or CA love abortion, they can have it. On the other hand, if a majority of the people in Texas do not like abortion, they can restrict it or outlaw it. Self-governance is not going to make everyone happy.
I do not see how this addresses my point, which is that restrictions on abortion always hit the poor the hardest.

Nevertheless, I'll address what you said. I understand the principle you outline, and understand the idea of states' rights. But everybody knows that there are some rights that the country holds to be sufficiently basic/important/crucial that they have been ruled to be in place everywhere within these united states. The right to not be a slave is the most obvious, when it was ruled that the states that wanted self-determination in the area of enslaving black people could not have it. The issue is not whether or not states' rights and their right to self-determination exist, but rather whether the right to abort is sufficiently basic/important/crucial for it to be ruled to be in place everywhere, and that no state has a right to self-determination in that area. For the last 50 years that has been the case, and it looks likely that conservatives will shortly reverse that policy, to the detriment of the United States, the rest of the world and humanity itself.

There are options however. Use a condom. Condoms are not expensive. Or--the rich elites who support abortion can found a charity or charities where they give free birth control to the poor--and the rich elites can use THEIR MONEY rather than everyone else's to support their cause.
It's not our cause. It's yours. YOU are the ones who want abortion stopped. YOU should be giving to help reduce its rate. But you don't. You want us to pay for what you want.

Or Planned Parenthood can exist in states where abortion is banned and give out free birth control. If abortion is outlawed, it isn't like Planned Parenthood has to shut down you know. That just means they cannot provide abortions in states where abortion is illegal.
That's right, Planned Parenthood doesn't have to shut down...until the conservatives can change that. Which they have been desparately trying to do for decades. The largest service in the country for women's health, and conservatives want it shut down. And you complain when pro-lifers are said to be anti-women?

Spoken like a true liberal abortion supporting Democrat. "We cannot trust people to do the right thing." Ironically all the while insisting that "the right thing" is just a matter of opinion anyway.
...except that I nowhere said anything about "the right thing" - that is your invention, and a dishonest one if I may add, since I neither said nor implied it. Nor did I say anything about "we cannot trust people..." Please do not begin to invent strawmen to argue against - again, that's something we get plenty of from the less intelligent pro-lifers on this board.

But I would argue that not being able to count on people doing (whatever is considered to be) the right thing is entirely the reason for laws in the first place. You don't trust women not to abort - so you want to illegalise it. Nobody trusts people to not steal or rape - which is why we have laws against it. To say that being concerned about others not doing (whatever is considered to be) the 'right thing' is a liberal tendency/policy is just disingenuous.

Are you sure abortion supporters aren't just projecting? In other words---they insist on high taxes becasue THEY do not contribute to charities. They think by paying taxes they are doing their part and can assuage their guilty conscience?
Who's insisting on high taxes? It's conservatives who are all for lower taxes on the rich at the expense of the poor.

What does that have to do with anything? Whether I have a child, children or not has no bearing on the question.
It obviously has a great deal to do with your perception of "Why can't the woman bring the child to term".

Single mothers are heros. They should be lauded for choosing life. As a Catholic, I stand for support of single mothers and I tell people that if they are pro-life, they cannot sit in judgement of single mothers. Pro-life Catholics are against sex outside of marriage, but as I have told people----once someone is pregnant, that isn't the time to scold them or judge them. They are with child--it is too little too late for the "Should have, could have, would have" Monday morning quarterbacking. The only question now is--how do we move forward in a positive way that respects life?
None of which even relates to what I said.

In the end, however, there is ALWAYS the option for adoption, sir. Abortion should not be necessary. That is what you continue not to grasp.
On the contrary I not only grasp it, I am quite eager to preach it. The difference is that you want to stop it by denying women the choice; I want to stop it by making having to choose unnecessary.

I am a male, but my gender has nothing to do with whether abortion is right or wrong.
It has everything to do with how you view pregnancy and how good (or bad) a judge you are of a woman's decision to not go through with it.

Do I need to be the victim of racism to condemn it? Do I need to have had cancer to be against cancer?
We're not talking about abortion here; we're talking about pregnancy. And yes, you absolutely need to have gone through one before you try to tell women that they should do so. By the same token, you would need to have been the victim of racism to tell someone else that it's not a big deal and they should just accept being a victim of racism. Same for cancer.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Part I've no idea, I've lost count.

I'm sorry, it's you who confuse opinions with objectivity. You cannot demonstrate that any objective moral exists; you cannot demonstrate that your opinion on any moral issue is any more than that - an opinion, worth no more - and no less - than mine, or his, or that bloke across the road's.


Exactly. You may think morality is objective. Morality is not objective. Morality is not objective because someone with an opinion says so.

Again, I point out that posting truisms like the above that have exactly same weight if said by either side is useless. We might as well just scream "You're wrong!" "No, YOU're wrong!" at each other. I get enough of that idiocy from others on here.


I'm not sure I understand this. My original statement was in response to one of your statements that if someone falls pregnant, nothing has gone wrong (in comparison to a car crash, where obviously something has gone wrong). My statement was that in many cases, when someone falls pregnant, a method of contraception has gone wrong. I wasn't touching on the issue of which methods of contraception are and are not actual abortificants.


Again, so what? I keep asking this and you keep failing to address it. What does it matter that it's not a disease, that it's a natural process? How does that affect the debate? As I pointed out in a previous post, there are any number of natural things that happen that we eschew and/or work against. Disease, as you've mentioned, is one. Aging is another. They're both natural, so should we abandon attempts to stop them or mitigate their consequences? Conversely, there are myriad things that are not natural that we embrace, such as flying and computers. "It's natural" or "nothing went wrong" lends nothing to the debate.


No, it allows women to control their own bodies.


I do not see how this addresses my point, which is that restrictions on abortion always hit the poor the hardest.

Nevertheless, I'll address what you said. I understand the principle you outline, and understand the idea of states' rights. But everybody knows that there are some rights that the country holds to be sufficiently basic/important/crucial that they have been ruled to be in place everywhere within these united states. The right to not be a slave is the most obvious, when it was ruled that the states that wanted self-determination in the area of enslaving black people could not have it. The issue is not whether or not states' rights and their right to self-determination exist, but rather whether the right to abort is sufficiently basic/important/crucial for it to be ruled to be in place everywhere, and that no state has a right to self-determination in that area. For the last 50 years that has been the case, and it looks likely that conservatives will shortly reverse that policy, to the detriment of the United States, the rest of the world and humanity itself.


It's not our cause. It's yours. YOU are the ones who want abortion stopped. YOU should be giving to help reduce its rate. But you don't. You want us to pay for what you want.


That's right, Planned Parenthood doesn't have to shut down...until the conservatives can change that. Which they have been desparately trying to do for decades. The largest service in the country for women's health, and conservatives want it shut down. And you complain when pro-lifers are said to be anti-women?


...except that I nowhere said anything about "the right thing" - that is your invention, and a dishonest one if I may add, since I neither said nor implied it. Nor did I say anything about "we cannot trust people..." Please do not begin to invent strawmen to argue against - again, that's something we get plenty of from the less intelligent pro-lifers on this board.

But I would argue that not being able to count on people doing (whatever is considered to be) the right thing is entirely the reason for laws in the first place. You don't trust women not to abort - so you want to illegalise it. Nobody trusts people to not steal or rape - which is why we have laws against it. To say that being concerned about others not doing (whatever is considered to be) the 'right thing' is a liberal tendency/policy is just disingenuous.


Who's insisting on high taxes? It's conservatives who are all for lower taxes on the rich at the expense of the poor.


It obviously has a great deal to do with your perception of "Why can't the woman bring the child to term".


None of which even relates to what I said.


On the contrary I not only grasp it, I am quite eager to preach it. The difference is that you want to stop it by denying women the choice; I want to stop it by making having to choose unnecessary.


It has everything to do with how you view pregnancy and how good (or bad) a judge you are of a woman's decision to not go through with it.


We're not talking about abortion here; we're talking about pregnancy. And yes, you absolutely need to have gone through one before you try to tell women that they should do so. By the same token, you would need to have been the victim of racism to tell someone else that it's not a big deal and they should just accept being a victim of racism. Same for cancer.
Not really 😉
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Again, so what? I keep asking this and you keep failing to address it. What does it matter that it's not a disease, that it's a natural process? How does that affect the debate? As I pointed out in a previous post, there are any number of natural things that happen that we eschew and/or work against. Disease, as you've mentioned, is one. Aging is another. They're both natural, so should we abandon attempts to stop them or mitigate their consequences? Conversely, there are myriad things that are not natural that we embrace, such as flying and computers. "It's natural" or "nothing went wrong" lends nothing to the debate.
It matters becasue in all the analogies you have given--such as "car crash" they fail. When a car crashes, this is not a natural consequence of driving. Pregnancy IS a natural consequence of sex. It is what happens when people have sex. Crashes on the other hand is what happens when something goes wrong. Crashes are not supposed to happen, they are NOT a natural consequence of driving.

Sex exists for reproduction. Driving exists to transport people fast and efficiently. Driving does NOT exist for crashes.
No, it allows women to control their own bodies.
Who has a problem with women controlling their own bodies? The problem is what the woman wants to do to someone else's body.

In the second place, are you for or against vaccine mandates? Because this is where I find abortion supporter hypocrisy to be at its highest. If the principle of sovereignty means a woman gets to kill her unborn child at will, then that same sovereignty has to apply to the vaccine mandates. If I am not allowed in a woman's womb, then YOU are not allowed in my immune system.
I do not see how this addresses my point, which is that restrictions on abortion always hit the poor the hardest.
Why should restrictions hit the poor the hardest? Let Planned Parenthood educate the poor and continue to do what they do. It is just that in states where abortion is illegal, they can't do abortions. They can still educate about safe sex, give out free birth control and condoms.
Nevertheless, I'll address what you said. I understand the principle you outline, and understand the idea of states' rights. But everybody knows that there are some rights that the country holds to be sufficiently basic/important/crucial that they have been ruled to be in place everywhere within these united states. The right to not be a slave is the most obvious, when it was ruled that the states that wanted self-determination in the area of enslaving black people could not have it. The issue is not whether or not states' rights and their right to self-determination exist, but rather whether the right to abort is sufficiently basic/important/crucial for it to be ruled to be in place everywhere, and that no state has a right to self-determination in that area. For the last 50 years that has been the case, and it looks likely that conservatives will shortly reverse that policy, to the detriment of the United States, the rest of the world and humanity itself.
You are right. Show me where the Constitution grants the right to abortion and you win the debate.
It's not our cause. It's yours. YOU are the ones who want abortion stopped. YOU should be giving to help reduce its rate. But you don't. You want us to pay for what you want.
Suppose slavery was still legal. Suppose I was arguing that we need to end slavery. If a pro-slavery person said "You want slavery to end--so YOU pay for that. If you don't want to take care of slaves or work to reduce the need for slaves, then you aren't really for ending slavery." Would that constitute a good reason or good argument to continue with slavery?
That's right, Planned Parenthood doesn't have to shut down...until the conservatives can change that. Which they have been desperately trying to do for decades.
I can only speak for myself as a conservative. My main problem with Planned Parenthood is abortion. I do not care about sex education, free birth control, etc. If Planned Parenthood wants to give sex education and free birth control fine. Those are far better than abortion.
The largest service in the country for women's health, and conservatives want it shut down. And you complain when pro-lifers are said to be anti-women?
I want abortion shut down. Anything else Planned Parenthood does is their business.
...except that I nowhere said anything about "the right thing" - that is your invention, and a dishonest one if I may add, since I neither said nor implied it. Nor did I say anything about "we cannot trust people..." Please do not begin to invent strawmen to argue against - again, that's something we get plenty of from the less intelligent pro-lifers on this board.
You said--if taxes were cut--people would not donate more money to charity--they would---egad, spend the money on themselves. How do you know that? They may, they may not.
But I would argue that not being able to count on people doing (whatever is considered to be) the right thing is entirely the reason for laws in the first place. You don't trust women not to abort - so you want to illegalize it. Nobody trusts people to not steal or rape - which is why we have laws against it. To say that being concerned about others not doing (whatever is considered to be) the 'right thing' is a liberal tendency/policy is just disingenuous.
And redefining abortion as "choice" is just as disingenuous.
Who's insisting on high taxes? It's conservatives who are all for lower taxes on the rich at the expense of the poor.
No. Conservatives are for fairness. Suppose we have a flat tax--10%. Now, a person who makes 10K a year would pay 1K in taxes. A person who makes 100K a year would pay 10K in taxes, a person who makes $1,000,000 a year would pay 100K in taxes. In such a case--everyone is paying 10%--but the "rich" are still paying a greater share in such a case. But this is far because everyone is paying the same rate. The less you make, the less you pay, the more you make, the more you pay.

Business is the life-blood of the economy. Given this, it makes sense to have policies that encourage the proliferation of business. This is good for people becasue they have jobs. This is good for the government becasue the more people that have good paying jobs, the more taxes the government gets--even IF a business is given tax breaks. The employees of the business are still paying income taxes.

Democrats hate business, unless the business is CNN, MSNBC, or---unless the business is an abortion mill. Then they love business.
It obviously has a great deal to do with your perception of "Why can't the woman bring the child to term."

Well, why can't they? And again, I remind you--it doesn't matter whether I can or cannot get pregnancy.
On the contrary I not only grasp it, I am quite eager to preach it. The difference is that you want to stop it by denying women the choice; I want to stop it by making having to choose unnecessary.
Fine. Then let's have a two pronged approach: 1) an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Let's ensure to have policies that encourage women to choose life and not to abort. 2) Make abortion illegal.
It has everything to do with how you view pregnancy and how good (or bad) a judge you are of a woman's decision to not go through with it.
I am judging abortion, sir. Abortion is the issue, not choice.
We're not talking about abortion here; we're talking about pregnancy. And yes, you absolutely need to have gone through one before you try to tell women that they should do so.
I am telling a woman she isn't allowed to kill her unborn child. Outside of that--I do not care what a woman wants to do with her body.

Again, if you are pro-abortion, I fail to see how you can be pro-vaccine mandates. Stay out of my immune system!
By the same token, you would need to have been the victim of racism to tell someone else that it's not a big deal and they should just accept being a victim of racism. Same for cancer.
What of pro-life women who have gone through difficult pregnancies? What of pro-life women who have been raped? Are they credible?
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
No,(some) Christians object to their children being taught facts because those Christians don't like those facts or find them uncomfortable. Obvious examples are evolutionary theory and sex education.
Sir, not all Christians are fundamentalists. By this I mean---not all Christians hate the theory of evolution. I have no problem with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution tells us how life developed. All well and good. And if biology teachers would limit themselves to telling us about the biological aspects of the theory, there is no problem. You know---this is DNA, this is RNA, this is the cell wall, blah, blah, blah, All fine and good. The problem I have is when the biology teacher or professor attempts to draw theological or philosophical conclusions based on the biology.

For example: "The 'S'cience (capital S) shows that homosexuality may be genetic. Therefore homosexuality is normal, healthy and we can have gay marriage." As a Christian, I have no problem with the "The 'S'cience (capital s) shows that homosexuality may be genetic." Fine. All well and good. Great. Homosexuality has a biological basis. Whatever.

I DO have a problem with the biology teacher jumping to conclusions and making moral judgements based on the biology. (Again that is just an example.) This is what I as a Christian would object to.

Another example: "The 'S'cience (capital S) shows that gravity caused the universe." Okay. Fine. No problem. Great. It is nice to know that gravity somehow caused the universe. What I as a Christian have a problem with is "Therefore there is no God because we now know how the universe came to be." In other words---if scientists would stick to "S"cience (capital S) and leave the philosophy and theology to philosophers and theologians, there would be no problem--as far as I am concerned.
Of course it is, and Christians object to it constantly.
You cannot lump all Christians together. There are so many sects and varieties of Christian. I am not a fundamentalist. I love Science--so long as scientists stick to Science.
That's simply false. Methods of contraception are facts. To teach them is not to teach any value system; it is to teach facts. (Some) Christians do not want their children to learn those facts because they would rather lie to them and attempt to keep them in line through terror and ignorance. Again, the left wants children to learn facts, not be lied to and kept ignorant.
No, it is that some Christians believe that sex is sacred and a great act of love--which means when people have sex, it is a mutual self gift. When one contracepts, one is not making a complete gift of self becasue they are holding back their reproductivity.

But--really---how much biology does one need to know "Sex = pregnancy" "No sex = no pregnancy?" How much biology does one need to know to comprehend "If I don't have sex, I can't get pregnant?"
And I'll remind you that the places in the nation with the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STDs are those where the teaching of abstinence-only sex education are predominant. If the aim is to reduce teen pregnancy and STDs, then the Christians' approach does not work.
If the liberal Democrat solution worked----there should be no "unintended pregnancy" either. It seems to me neither solution works.
But - again - they are much more interested in posturing and being holier-than-thou than they are in actually helping their children.
And liberal Democrats are more interested in virtue signaling and being woker-than-thou. There is hypocrisy on BOTH sides, sir.
There are. A miniscule number compared to the Christians who are pro-life. It is the Christians who are driving the fight against the right to abort. It is the Christians doing what they have done for so long - try to take the rights of others away.
Abortion is NOT a right, sir. Even IF you want to argue that it is, if you are claiming it is a right in America, you need to show where the Constitution specifically grants that right. So---your task is simple. Show me where the Constitution explicitly grants the right to abortion--and you win.

I enjoy the debate, sir, but this is getting to long so let's leave it there.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
It matters becasue in all the analogies you have given--such as "car crash" they fail. When a car crashes, this is not a natural consequence of driving. Pregnancy IS a natural consequence of sex. It is what happens when people have sex. Crashes on the other hand is what happens when something goes wrong. Crashes are not supposed to happen, they are NOT a natural consequence of driving.
Yes, you keep repeating that. But you never say or show why it makes a difference. That something happens naturally says nothing at all about how we can, should or are to deal with it. Again, why does the fact that pregnancy happens naturally change the fact that, like a car crash is a sometime consequence of driving, pregnancy is a sometime consequence of sex?

Sex exists for reproduction. Driving exists to transport people fast and efficiently. Driving does NOT exist for crashes.
I'll leave aside the "sex exists for reproduction" line, which seems meaningless. With respect to the rest of your statement - again, so what?

Who has a problem with women controlling their own bodies? The problem is what the woman wants to do to someone else's body.
The right has a problem with women controlling their own bodies. Otherwise they wouldn't be opposed to the right to abortion.

In the second place, are you for or against vaccine mandates? Because this is where I find abortion supporter hypocrisy to be at its highest. If the principle of sovereignty means a woman gets to kill her unborn child at will, then that same sovereignty has to apply to the vaccine mandates. If I am not allowed in a woman's womb, then YOU are not allowed in my immune system.
Not at issue.

Why should restrictions hit the poor the hardest? Let Planned Parenthood educate the poor and continue to do what they do. It is just that in states where abortion is illegal, they can't do abortions. They can still educate about safe sex, give out free birth control and condoms.
Restrictions hit the poor the hardest because where abortion is illegal, it takes money to get one.

You are right. Show me where the Constitution grants the right to abortion and you win the debate.
Read the Roe decision.

And redefining abortion as "choice" is just as disingenuous.
That's just a red herring that doesn't address the point.

No. Conservatives are for fairness.
..............................................................
Sorry, I had to take a pause there to get over the idea that anybody, ever, could type the above statement and expect it to be taken seriously.

Suppose we have a flat tax--10%. Now, a person who makes 10K a year would pay 1K in taxes. A person who makes 100K a year would pay 10K in taxes, a person who makes $1,000,000 a year would pay 100K in taxes. In such a case--everyone is paying 10%--but the "rich" are still paying a greater share in such a case. But this is far because everyone is paying the same rate. The less you make, the less you pay, the more you make, the more you pay.
...except that Conservatives don't even want that. Billionaires pay a fraction of the percentage I pay.

Business is the life-blood of the economy. Given this, it makes sense to have policies that encourage the proliferation of business. This is good for people becasue they have jobs. This is good for the government becasue the more people that have good paying jobs, the more taxes the government gets--even IF a business is given tax breaks. The employees of the business are still paying income taxes.
That is such a terrible explanation. Elon Musk does not need tax breaks to run his business. Amazon isn't in danger of going broke unless it can continue to pay virtually no tax.

Democrats hate business, unless the business is CNN, MSNBC, or---unless the business is an abortion mill. Then they love business.
What absolute rubbish. I guess all those democrats running businesses out there are just illusions.

Well, why can't they? And again, I remind you--it doesn't matter whether I can or cannot get pregnancy.
Already answered.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Fine. Then let's have a two pronged approach: 1) an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Let's ensure to have policies that encourage women to choose life and not to abort. 2) Make abortion illegal.
If you have 2 you don't need 1 - don't bother even making the policies. Another danger you don't even see.

I am judging abortion, sir. Abortion is the issue, not choice.
You are certainly judging women who choose to abort.

I am telling a woman she isn't allowed to kill her unborn child. Outside of that--I do not care what a woman wants to do with her body.
I see. Apart from caring what a woman wants to do with her body, you don't care what a woman wants to do with her body. Makes sense.

Again, if you are pro-abortion, I fail to see how you can be pro-vaccine mandates. Stay out of my immune system!
Nobody is 'pro-abortion'. The majority of the country are 'pro-choice'.

Vaccines are not at issue here.

What of pro-life women who have gone through difficult pregnancies? What of pro-life women who have been raped? Are they credible?
What of pro-life women who have, hypocritically, had an abortion?

Sir, not all Christians are fundamentalists.
Thankfully, or we'd still be in the dark ages and the only people with any rights at all would be white landowners.


By this I mean---not all Christians hate the theory of evolution. I have no problem with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution tells us how life developed. All well and good. And if biology teachers would limit themselves to telling us about the biological aspects of the theory, there is no problem. You know---this is DNA, this is RNA, this is the cell wall, blah, blah, blah, All fine and good. The problem I have is when the biology teacher or professor attempts to draw theological or philosophical conclusions based on the biology.

For example: "The 'S'cience (capital S) shows that homosexuality may be genetic. Therefore homosexuality is normal, healthy and we can have gay marriage." As a Christian, I have no problem with the "The 'S'cience (capital s) shows that homosexuality may be genetic." Fine. All well and good. Great. Homosexuality has a biological basis. Whatever.

I DO have a problem with the biology teacher jumping to conclusions and making moral judgements based on the biology. (Again that is just an example.) This is what I as a Christian would object to.

Another example: "The 'S'cience (capital S) shows that gravity caused the universe." Okay. Fine. No problem. Great. It is nice to know that gravity somehow caused the universe. What I as a Christian have a problem with is "Therefore there is no God because we now know how the universe came to be." In other words---if scientists would stick to "S"cience (capital S) and leave the philosophy and theology to philosophers and theologians, there would be no problem--as far as I am concerned.

You cannot lump all Christians together. There are so many sects and varieties of Christian. I am not a fundamentalist. I love Science--so long as scientists stick to Science.
This is all a strawman. Why aren't scientists allowed to use facts to draw moral conclusions? You are allowed to; I am allowed to. Both of us use the science we know as part of the basis for those conclusions. Why are scientists not allowed to?

No, it is that some Christians believe that sex is sacred and a great act of love--which means when people have sex, it is a mutual self gift. When one contracepts, one is not making a complete gift of self becasue they are holding back their reproductivity.
That's completely irrelevant to the fact that they exist. Again, teach children facts and let their parents sort out their moral instruction. To leave children ignorant because their parents think that the knowledge is somehow scary is insulting to the children and, of course, ultimately harmful to them.

But--really---how much biology does one need to know "Sex = pregnancy" "No sex = no pregnancy?" How much biology does one need to know to comprehend "If I don't have sex, I can't get pregnant?"
Thanks for demonstrating why conservatives and religionists should not be allowed to have input into what goes into sex education.

If the liberal Democrat solution worked----there should be no "unintended pregnancy" either. It seems to me neither solution works.
Wrong. The liberal Democrat solution never gets tried because of people like you. I don't mean any disrespect there - it's people like you - the conservative religious - who always prevent the liberal Democrat solution from being implemented. You've repeatedly said, for example, that you do not want to pay (out of your taxes) to make contraception more easily available. Above you say that you don't see the need for actual sex education. You and people like you are why the "liberal Democrat solution" never even gets tried.

And liberal Democrats are more interested in virtue signaling and being woker-than-thou. There is hypocrisy on BOTH sides, sir.
When you find liberals being hypocritical about abortion or sex education, let me know.1

Abortion is NOT a right, sir. Even IF you want to argue that it is, if you are claiming it is a right in America, you need to show where the Constitution specifically grants that right. So---your task is simple. Show me where the Constitution explicitly grants the right to abortion--and you win.
In America it is, indeed, a legal right, granted by the Constitution. That may soon change.

You surely know that the Constitution does not need to explicitly grant a right for it to exist.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
I'll leave aside the "sex exists for reproduction" line, which seems meaningless. With respect to the rest of your statement - again, so what?
So it is meaningless to say that sex exists for reproduction? If you believe that, then you also probably believe that things like gender are meaningless too. And if you believe that---I do not even see how we can have a rational conversation about anything.
The right has a problem with women controlling their own bodies. Otherwise they wouldn't be opposed to the right to abortion.
See---this is what I am talking about. You conflate abortion with the right to control one's body.

I do not care what a woman wants to do to her body, sir. If she goes to the doctor and wants her Loop of Henle, her gallbladder, a breast, the liver, a lung, her Aorta, whatever, operated on or otherwise taken out, no one cares. That is between her and her doctor.

The problem with abortion---is that the object of abortion is not the woman's body, the object of the abortion is the body of her child. So the issue with abortion is not what the woman wants to do to her body, it is what she wants to do to the body of her child.
Not at issue.
Not an issue? And you do not see that statement is not just a little hypocritical?

One the one hand, you turn abortion into an absolute right--becasue---a woman has absolute sovereignty over her body. But you are very willing to turn around and tell the exact same woman that you just said has absolute sovereignty over her body that she in fact does not actually have sovereignty over her body--because you are more than willing to force this woman to take a vaccine she may not want.

Why do women get absolute sovereignty over their womb, but not their immune system? If you support abortion, how can you support vaccine mandates with a straight face--and NOT be a hypocrite?

You are so typical of abortion supporters. "Pro-choice" is just a euphemism for "pro-abortion." When pressed, you find abortion supporters aren't really for choice at all. They are just for abortion. Pro-choice for abortion, but not pro-choice when it comes to vaccines.
Restrictions hit the poor the hardest because where abortion is illegal, it takes money to get one.
How bout this:

1) Use birth control

2) Use a condom

3) If you get pregnancy anyway, bring the child to term and put it up for adoption
Read the Roe decision.
Sir, even the Notorious RBG thought the logic of Roe was silly. And you know RBG was no sympathizer with the rights of the unborn. She was a pro-abortion as they come.

Roe argued that the right to abortion is implicit in the right to privacy. Fine. Then the right NOT to take a vaccine is also implicit in the exact same right to privacy.
That's just a red herring that doesn't address the point.
It does address the point. Abortion supporters conflate "choice" with "abortion" all the time. They never really get around to talking about abortion, preferring instead to bring up "choice" as though it is somehow relavent.
Sorry, I had to take a pause there to get over the idea that anybody, ever, could type the above statement and expect it to be taken seriously.
RIght. Conservatives are about control, but liberal Democrats with their infernal lock-downs, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, are for freedom and choice. By the way--I have no problem with vaccine mandates. I received three so far. But I am not the one arguing that abortion is a Sacrament absolutely protected by the Constitution either.
...except that Conservatives don't even want that. Billionaires pay a fraction of the percentage I pay.
Oh? And if you were a billionaire, you would not hire an army of lawyers and accountants to take advantage of whatever tax loopholes you could?

We are getting off topic anyway. Though I do want to ask you: how much more should we all be paying in taxes?
 
Last edited:

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
You are certainly judging women who choose to abort.
No, I am judging abortion.
I see. Apart from caring what a woman wants to do with her body, you don't care what a woman wants to do with her body. Makes sense.
Who or what is the object of abortion? The woman or the child? What or who dies in the abortion--the woman or the child, sir?
Nobody is 'pro-abortion'. The majority of the country are 'pro-choice'.
So you are pro-choice are you? Well, let's just see how pro-"choice" you really are, shall we?

Do you believe that I have the right to choose to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self-defense of life, limb, and loved ones? Yes or no?

Do you believe that I have the right to choose weather or not to wear a mask? Yes or no?

Do you believe that I have the right to choose weather to take a vaccine? Yes or no?

Do you believe that parents have the right to choose to send their children to the school of their choice with their tax dollars? Yes or no?

Note: if your answer is "Not at issue here" I will take that is a giant "NO" in answer to all my questions. If that is the case, I have to ask you--"In what sense, sir, are you pro-choice?"
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
So it is meaningless to say that sex exists for reproduction? If you believe that, then you also probably believe that things like gender are meaningless too. And if you believe that---I do not even see how we can have a rational conversation about anything.
Yes, it's meaningless. Literally. I've no idea what it means to say that sex is "exists for" something.

And no, I don't believe that "things like gender" are meaningless.

See---this is what I am talking about. You conflate abortion with the right to control one's body.
Abortion is the right to control one's body. If the right to determine what happens to, with and inside one's body isn't the right to control one's body, nothing else can be.

I do not care what a woman wants to do to her body, sir. If she goes to the doctor and wants her Loop of Henle, her gallbladder, a breast, the liver, a lung, her Aorta, whatever, operated on or otherwise taken out, no one cares. That is between her and her doctor.
I only wish that were the case.

The problem with abortion---is that the object of abortion is not the woman's body, the object of the abortion is the body of her child. So the issue with abortion is not what the woman wants to do to her body, it is what she wants to do to the body of her child.
The issue of abortion is entirely and completely what the woman wants to do with her body. She has the right to determine what happens in, with and to it.

Not an issue? And you do not see that statement is not just a little hypocritical?
Not "not an issue" - "not at issue". It is not at issue in this discussion.

One the one hand, you turn abortion into an absolute right--becasue---a woman has absolute sovereignty over her body. But you are very willing to turn around and tell the exact same woman that you just said has absolute sovereignty over her body that she in fact does not actually have sovereignty over her body--because you are more than willing to force this woman to take a vaccine she may not want.
Again, not at issue.

Why do women get absolute sovereignty over their womb, but not their immune system? If you support abortion, how can you support vaccine mandates with a straight face--and NOT be a hypocrite?
Again, not at issue.

You are so typical of abortion supporters. "Pro-choice" is just a euphemism for "pro-abortion." When pressed, you find abortion supporters aren't really for choice at all. They are just for abortion. Pro-choice for abortion, but not pro-choice when it comes to vaccines.
Completely and totally false. We are completely and totally for the woman's right to choose whether or not she remains pregnant.

How bout this:

1) Use birth control

2) Use a condom

3) If you get pregnancy anyway, bring the child to term and put it up for adoption
How about it? It changes nothing about the fact that when abortions are legalised, it is the poor who disproportionately suffer.

Sir, even the Notorious RBG thought the logic of Roe was silly. And you know RBG was no sympathizer with the rights of the unborn. She was a pro-abortion as they come.
Good for her. So what?

Roe argued that the right to abortion is implicit in the right to privacy. Fine. Then the right NOT to take a vaccine is also implicit in the exact same right to privacy.
Not sure how many times I need to tell you that vaccines are not the subject of this discussion.

It does address the point. Abortion supporters conflate "choice" with "abortion" all the time. They never really get around to talking about abortion, preferring instead to bring up "choice" as though it is somehow relavent.
No, it does not address the point. The actual point was lost several posts ago.

Choice, however, is the only thing that is relevant - the woman's right to choose what happens with, in and to her body.

RIght. Conservatives are about control, but liberal Democrats with their infernal lock-downs, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, are for freedom and choice. By the way--I have no problem with vaccine mandates. I received three so far. But I am not the one arguing that abortion is a Sacrament absolutely protected by the Constitution either.
Couldn't care less about vaccines.

Oh? And if you were a billionaire, you would not hire an army of lawyers and accountants to take advantage of whatever tax loopholes you could?
It's not a matter of loopholes. It's a matter of conservatives' disinterest in the fact that the richest people and corporations pay a miniscule amount in taxes compared to the rest of us.

We are getting off topic anyway. Though I do want to ask you: how much more should we all be paying in taxes?
Have you stopped beating your wife?

No, I am judging abortion.
No, you're judging women.

Who or what is the object of abortion? The woman or the child? What or who dies in the abortion--the woman or the child, sir?
The object of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy.

So you are pro-choice are you? Well, let's just see how pro-"choice" you really are, shall we?

Do you believe that I have the right to choose to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self-defense of life, limb, and loved ones? Yes or no?

Do you believe that I have the right to choose weather or not to wear a mask? Yes or no?

Do you believe that I have the right to choose weather to take a vaccine? Yes or no?

Do you believe that parents have the right to choose to send their children to the school of their choice with their tax dollars? Yes or no?

Note: if your answer is "Not at issue here" I will take that is a giant "NO" in answer to all my questions. If that is the case, I have to ask you--"In what sense, sir, are you pro-choice?"
Of course all of those are not at issue. The subject of the discussion is abortion. What is all this nonsense? Do you not know what 'pro-choice' means?

Merriam-Webster:
pro-choice
: favoring the legalization of abortion

Not a word about keeping arms, or vaccines or any of the other red herrings you want to throw out.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
The object of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy.
Right. What is a woman pregnant with and what is being terminated?
Of course all of those are not at issue. The subject of the discussion is abortion. What is all this nonsense? Do you not know what 'pro-choice' means?

Merriam-Webster:
pro-choice
: favoring the legalization of abortion

Not a word about keeping arms, or vaccines or any of the other red herrings you want to throw out.
In other words--you do not support might right to choose to keep and bear arms for self defense, my right to choose not to wear a mask and my right to choose not to take a vaccine.

Yet you claim to be pro-choice. Given that you seem to only support "choice" when it comes to abortion, but not choice any other time, the only logical conclusion is that when you say you are "pro-choice" you do not literally mean that you believe people should be free to make decisions for themselves and their bodies, what you mean is that you are pro-abortion.

Why don't you drop the pretense of "pro-choice" when you clearly are not pro-choice, and just admit you are pro-abortion?

This has always been the problem with abortion supporters. They redefine abortion as "choice" then claim to be "pro-choice" which is a euphemism for "Pro-abortion."
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Nobody is 'pro-abortion'. The majority of the country are 'pro-choice'.
Sir, I have one question for you.

What of people who survived abortion, are alive today, but disfigured as a result of the failed abortion. In other words--they lived when they weren't supposed to.

Should such a person have the right to sue the abortion doctor for their injuries, from your view? Is that malpractice?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Sir, I have one question for you.

What of people who survived abortion, are alive today, but disfigured as a result of the failed abortion. In other words--they lived when they weren't supposed to.

Should such a person have the right to sue the abortion doctor for their injuries, from your view? Is that malpractice?
Actually, a question like this came up in the British courts. A young man, damaged in the uterus by his mother's heavy drinking, sued for damages. The case reached the Supreme Court, where it was dismissed on the grounds that the foetus is not a person and therefore cannot be the victim of a crime. That he subsequently became a person was deemed irrelevant as the supposed crime took place before he was born. I expect that there have been similar cases in the US you could look up.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Right. What is a woman pregnant with and what is being terminated?

In other words--you do not support might right to choose to keep and bear arms for self defense, my right to choose not to wear a mask and my right to choose not to take a vaccine.

Yet you claim to be pro-choice. Given that you seem to only support "choice" when it comes to abortion, but not choice any other time, the only logical conclusion is that when you say you are "pro-choice" you do not literally mean that you believe people should be free to make decisions for themselves and their bodies, what you mean is that you are pro-abortion.

Why don't you drop the pretense of "pro-choice" when you clearly are not pro-choice, and just admit you are pro-abortion?

This has always been the problem with abortion supporters. They redefine abortion as "choice" then claim to be "pro-choice" which is a euphemism for "Pro-abortion."
This is complete rubbish. Different people have different views on different subjects. They might be for arms control and against abortion control pro vaccines and masks and against abortion. To say that someone supports abortion, that they must therefore be totally libertarian on every other issue, is absurd.

Talking of which, the notion that any of the other scenarios could even be an issue could only happen in America. Everywhere else they are regarded as absurd. There are people in the UK who refuse to wear a mask or be vaccinated, but they are a tiny minority of loonies as far as the rest of us are concerned. Their choice is permitted, but they take the consequences of not being able to travel, shop, eat out etc. None of this is relevant to abortion. Your desperation to muddy the water is noted.
 

BMS

Well-known member
No,(some) Christians object to their children being taught facts because those Christians don't like those facts or find them uncomfortable. Obvious examples are evolutionary theory and sex education.


If you want to term "an acceptance of reality, including scientific discovery" a belief system, sure. That's what the left tries to get taught in schools, despite all the right can do.


Of course it is, and Christians object to it constantly.


That's simply false. Methods of contraception are facts. To teach them is not to teach any value system; it is to teach facts. (Some) Christians do not want their children to learn those facts because they would rather lie to them and attempt to keep them in line through terror and ignorance. Again, the left wants children to learn facts, not be lied to and kept ignorant.

And I'll remind you that the places in the nation with the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STDs are those where the teaching of abstinence-only sex education are predominant. If the aim is to reduce teen pregnancy and STDs, then the Christians' approach does not work. But - again - they are much more interested in posturing and being holier-than-thou than they are in actually helping their children.


The obvious example is the right to abort.


There are. A miniscule number compared to the Christians who are pro-life. It is the Christians who are driving the fight against the right to abort. It is the Christians doing what they have done for so long - try to take the rights of others away.


I do not understand how this paragraph relates to anything I said.


My 'question' above was rhetorical, meant to reflect your question about paying for someone else's abortion when you had nothing to do with it. In the same vein, why should I pay for someone else's schooling when I had nothing to do with it?

The answer to both questions is because we live in a society; we all pay for what is deemed to be advantageous to that society.


That is one reason some pro-lifers object to it. As I've already stated, it's not even the main reason.


I'm sorry, but abortion supporters are against women. That's obvious. If they weren't, they would allow women the choice.


Yet again, what you term 'responsible' does not make it so.


Pregnancy can, indeed, be an adverse consequence of sex. That is what you do not seem to get. If a pregnancy is not desired, then by definition it is an adverse consequence. Again, the fact that in a small percentage of cases sex results in pregnancy does not change that fact.


No, it is not a fact. It is your opinion. No more. You cannot demonstrate that it is a fact, you can offer nothing to support your claim that it is a fact. You can't even offer a theoretical method in which such a claim could ever be evaluated for accuracy.

All morality is opinion and nothing more. Neither you nor anybody else has ever been able to demonstrate a single objective moral rule.

And please, you're better than the "if you disagree you're blind or simply do not want to." I can as easily say precisely the same thing about those who do not share my opinions. Whether you say it or I do, it is useless.


Nowhere. If you claim that your morality is independent of what your god says, I'll happily withdraw may statement. I doubt very much that you will do so, however.


But that is ultimately the source of your morality. Objective morality exists (in the claim of those Christians who hold that it exists) solely because there is an object morality giver. I have lost count of the Christians who have told me that if I discard God, I discard any basis for an objective morality.


That's correct - one need not be religious to be pro-life. But, as stated above, the vast majority of pro-lifers are Christian (in the US, that is). But atheists tend to lean to the left; it is a minority of atheists who are pro-life.
Actually in general Christians don't mind evolution theory being taught as long as its taught as a theory and the concept of creation is also taught. Teach evolution in science and creation in religious education. The objections come because its only evolution taught as fact.
BTW, I first had doubts about evolution when I was a humanist and studying geology, and I wasn't the only one, yet now you guys only think its a religious objection.

Now if a woman can be self identified, when you say 'Pregnancy can, indeed, be an adverse consequence of sex' that would be impossible for two men identifying as women, so are they women or not? See? You cant hold to gender ideology and start talking to us about men, women, pregnancy and abortion
 

BMS

Well-known member
This is complete rubbish.
No, its your post that is deranged.

Different people have different views on different subjects.
means nothing. A person who claims a man is a woman has a different view to someone who recognises the reality, so its the evidence that counts not what a sane person says as opposed to an insane one.
To say that someone supports abortion, that they must therefore be totally libertarian on every other issue, is absurd.
So if you don't support abortion. Ok

Talking of which, the notion that any of the other scenarios could even be an issue could only happen in America. Everywhere else they are regarded as absurd.
You mean by a majority, but they aren't by everyone. Indeed as you have been told there seems to be a majority in favour of lowering the limit of 24 weeks in the UK, though no-one questions why so many other countries have 13 weeks; pro-choice abortion is the emperor's new clothes of selfish contempt.

There are people in the UK who refuse to wear a mask or be vaccinated,
Their body their choice? Why your bigotry?
but they are a tiny minority of loonies as far as the rest of us are concerned.
The rest of you lot, but not the rest of us lot because we see the hypocrisy of your lot with this point
Their choice is permitted,
Well they threatened thousands of NHS staff with the sack for non-vaccination but then realised the damage that totalitarian idea would cause
but they take the consequences of not being able to travel, shop, eat out etc. None of this is relevant to abortion. Your desperation to muddy the water is noted.
Your totalitarian extremism is noted once again. You have also been shown to be ignorant since the load is the same for those vaccinated and not vaccinated, and the virus is of course indiscriminate, which means only that the unvaccinated have a considerably higher risk of severe covid and death. Immunity builds up as well amongst even the unvaccinated.

Now if a woman can be self identified, when you say 'Pregnancy can, indeed, be an adverse consequence of sex' that would be impossible for two men identifying as women, so are they women or not? See? You cant hold to gender ideology and start talking to us about men, women, pregnancy and abortion
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
This is complete rubbish. Different people have different views on different subjects. They might be for arms control and against abortion control pro vaccines and masks and against abortion. To say that someone supports abortion, that they must therefore be totally libertarian on every other issue, is absurd.
You are missing the point, sir.

You are the one asserting that you are "pro-choice." In what sense are you pro-choice--if you really do not support "choice?"
Talking of which, the notion that any of the other scenarios could even be an issue could only happen in America. Everywhere else they are regarded as absurd. There are people in the UK who refuse to wear a mask or be vaccinated, but they are a tiny minority of loonies as far as the rest of us are concerned. Their choice is permitted, but they take the consequences of not being able to travel, shop, eat out etc. None of this is relevant to abortion. Your desperation to muddy the water is noted.
Right--so I cannot tell a woman she can't have an abortion--becasue----she has absolute sovereignty over what happens in or to her body, but you have no problem with someone forcing me to mask up or get a vaccine.

Why don't I have sovereignty over my body, sir?
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Actually, a question like this came up in the British courts. A young man, damaged in the uterus by his mother's heavy drinking, sued for damages. The case reached the Supreme Court, where it was dismissed on the grounds that the foetus is not a person and therefore cannot be the victim of a crime. That he subsequently became a person was deemed irrelevant as the supposed crime took place before he was born. I expect that there have been similar cases in the US you could look up.
And yet--in America if someone murders a pregnant woman, they are charged with a double homicide.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
You are missing the point, sir.

You are the one asserting that you are "pro-choice." In what sense are you pro-choice--if you really do not support "choice?"
I support the right of women to choose to have an abortion. That isn't so difficult is it?

Right--so I cannot tell a woman she can't have an abortion--becasue----she has absolute sovereignty over what happens in or to her body, but you have no problem with someone forcing me to mask up or get a vaccine.

Why don't I have sovereignty over my body, sir?
Because not behaving responsibly with regard to a dangerous pandemic is not just harmful to you, but also to others. You are allowed to jump off a cliff. You are not allowed to interfere with a clifftop path so that others are endangered.

That wasn't too difficult either, was it?
 
Top