Would It Still Be An Abortion If...

[romishpopishorganist]

I am not responsible for the schizophrenic nature of American legislation.

Did I say you were?

I was pointing out the hierocracy of the law.

 

[Temujin]

Did I say you were?

I was pointing out the hierocracy of the law.

Noted.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

I support the right of women to choose to have an abortion. That isn't so difficult is it?

It is--because you claim to be "pro-choice" when in fact you aren't "pro-choice" at all.

What you are is "pro-abortion."

Because not behaving responsibly with regard to a dangerous pandemic is not just harmful to you, but also to others.

And abortion is harmful to the woman's child--yet you don't care about that. Abortion harms children--but you believe that a woman's right to sovereignty over her body is more important than the life of the child. In other words--sovereignty trumps the right of the child to live.

Okay--now apply this same logic to the pandemic. The sovereignty I have over my body trumps everything else. You seem to be picking and choosing--based on your own arbitrary standards when the principle of sovereignty applies. When you agree with the cause, we do not have sovereignty over our bodies. When you disagree with the cause, we have sovereignty over our bodies.

Because you like wearing masks, lockdowns, and vaccine mandates----because you agree with mask wearing, lock-downs, and vaccine mandates, you are perfectly willing to sacrifice the right people have to sovereignty over their body. But you do not like restrictions on abortion--so--you appeal to sovereignty of the human body.

There is an old saying: if liberals didn't have double standards, they would have have no standards at all.

You are allowed to jump off a cliff.

No I am not, sir, but I am not the one who is trying to argue that we have absolute sovereignty over our bodies. YOU are. I am not the one arguing that I am "pro-choice." YOU are.

You are not allowed to interfere with a clifftop path so that others are endangered.

See above---

That wasn't too difficult either, was it?

Only when you have double standards--which you do--like every liberal I have ever met.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Noted.

I meant "hypocrisy."

 

[Temujin]

It is--because you claim to be "pro-choice" when in fact you aren't "pro-choice" at all.

What you are is "pro-abortion."

Untrue. I don't decide whether a woman has an abortion or not, she does. Even in the days where I was giving information and assistance to young women about abortions, I was scrupulous about whose choice it ultimately was. That is what pro-choice means, being in favour of the woman being able to choose whether or not to continue her pregnancy. I honestly don't know how anyone with pretensions to civilised behaviour, can not be in favour of this.

And abortion is harmful to the woman's child--yet you don't care about that. Abortion harms children--but you believe that a woman's right to sovereignty over her body is more important than the life of the child. In other words--sovereignty trumps the right of the child to live.

All the woman's rights are more important than the non-existent right of her unborn child to life. Until born, the child has no rights. You think it should have, I get that. But arguing that it does, when in reality it doesn't, is not terribly effective.

Okay--now apply this same logic to the pandemic. The sovereignty I have over my body trumps everything else. You seem to be picking and choosing--based on your own arbitrary standards when the principle of sovereignty applies. When you agree with the cause, we do not have sovereignty over our bodies. When you disagree with the cause, we have sovereignty over our bodies.

Because you like wearing masks, lockdowns, and vaccine mandates----because you agree with mask wearing, lock-downs, and vaccine mandates, you are perfectly willing to sacrifice the right people have to sovereignty over their body. But you do not like restrictions on abortion--so--you appeal to sovereignty of the human body.

There is an old saying: if liberals didn't have double standards, they would have have no standards at all.

No I am not, sir, but I am not the one who is trying to argue that we have absolute sovereignty over our bodies. YOU are. I am not the one arguing that I am "pro-choice." YOU are.

See above---

Only when you have double standards--which you do--like every liberal I have ever met.

This is not the thread to discuss the rights and wrongs of health policy during a pandemic. I will sum up my position by saying that if you want to go mask less and vaccine less, that's your decision, but it doesn't exempt you from the social consequences of that decision. If you become unemployable, unwelcome and disowned as a result of your decision, then presumably you took those probable consequences into account when you made it.

 

[BMS]

Untrue. I don't decide whether a woman has an abortion or not, she does. Even in the days where I was giving information and assistance to young women about abortions, I was scrupulous about whose choice it ultimately was. That is what pro-choice means, being in favour of the woman being able to choose whether or not to continue her pregnancy. I honestly don't know how anyone with pretensions to civilised behaviour, can not be in favour of this.

All the woman's rights are more important than the non-existent right of her unborn child to life. Until born, the child has no rights. You think it should have, I get that. But arguing that it does, when in reality it doesn't, is not terribly effective.

This is not the thread to discuss the rights and wrongs of health policy during a pandemic. I will sum up my position by saying that if you want to go mask less and vaccine less, that's your decision, but it doesn't exempt you from the social consequences of that decision. If you become unemployable, unwelcome and disowned as a result of your decision, then presumably you took those probable consequences into account when you made it.

A woman can only have an abortion if she is a woman.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

This is not the thread to discuss the rights and wrongs of health policy during a pandemic. I will sum up my position by saying that if you want to go mask less and vaccine less, that's your decision, but it doesn't exempt you from the social consequences of that decision. If you become unemployable, unwelcome and disowned as a result of your decision, then presumably you took those probable consequences into account when you made it.

I see.

So judgement of women who have had an abortion is wrong, but judgement of people who exercise their free "choice" to go maskless, not take a vaccine, etc, is fine.

So much for "choice" and "bodily autonomy."

 

[Temujin]

I see.

So judgement of women who have had an abortion is wrong, but judgement of people who exercise their free "choice" to go maskless, not take a vaccine, etc, is fine.

So much for "choice" and "bodily autonomy."

I really don't see any correlation between the two situations. One involves only the woman and has no implications for anyone else. The other involves risking infecting, and subsequently killing, an unknown number of total strangers, as well as your own family. It seems extraordinary that you are so het up about women you don't know killing their unborn child, while being completely blasé at the risk of killing your own grandmother.

Double standards indeed.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

I really don't see any correlation between the two situations. One involves only the woman and has no implications for anyone else.

Yeah------the millions of victims of abortion would beg to differ, as well as abortion survivors.

By the way--what would you tell an abortion survivor who is severely disfigured as a result of the "choice" the mother made? "Oh, well---choice an all." Is that would you would say?

The other involves risking infecting, and subsequently killing, an unknown number of total strangers, as well as your own family.

Who is saying those who like to mask up, or otherwise like restrictions, vaccines, etc, aren't allowed to mask up, get vaccines, or impose whatever restrictions on themselves they want to impose?

The government does not exist to be our parents or nanny. People need to be free to make their own decisions about what risks they are willing to assume. Thus, for those who aren't willing to take risks--they can take whatever steps they feel they need to take to protect themselves.

For example: "I am the Science" Faucci felt that the Correspondents Dinner was a high-risk activity. He used his freedom of choice and did not go. Good for him. Everyone who went to the dinner, choose to assume the risks. This is what it is to live in a free society. People can make choices for themselves.

You see, sir, we either have freedom of choice or we do not. We either have sovereignty over our body or we do not. Even IF, sir, you think abortion affects no one but the woman (not true) masks and vaccines affect everyone forced to wear them. No one should be forced to take a vaccine they do not feel comfortable taking. Note that the vaccines do NOT prevent the spread of the virus--so--taking a vaccine affects no one but the one who does not want the vaccine.

It seems extraordinary that you are so het up about women you don't know killing their unborn child, while being completely blasé at the risk of killing your own grandmother.

Sir, let me remind you: I am not against vaccine mandates. I think the covid theater with the masks is a bit overboard since unless you are wearing an N95 mask, you are not protected, but I am not against vaccine mandates. "I am the Science" Faucci said "Masks do not protect anyone. Trying to stop a virus with a mask is like trying to stop a mosquito with a chain link fence."

But sir, I am not the one insisting that I am "pro-choice" nor am I the one insisting that people must have absolute sovereignty over their body. YOU, sir, and other abortion supporters are the ones making those vacuous, sophomoric, and ridiculous arguments. I am just holding you to your own standards. Do not complain that I hold you to your own standards.

Double standards indeed.

Yeah--on your part.

 

[BMS]

I really don't see any correlation between the two situations. One involves only the woman and has no implications for anyone else.

Double standards indeed.

But does it even involve a woman? It involves an offspring human being but not necessarily a woman

 

[romishpopishorganist]

But does it even involve a woman? It involves an offspring human being but not necessarily a woman

Just the point: abortion supporters keep focusing on the wrong thing: the woman!

What they should be focusing on is her child. It is her child that is the object and victim of the abortion, not the woman.

 

[Temujin]

Yeah------the millions of victims of abortion would beg to differ, as well as abortion survivors.

By the way--what would you tell an abortion survivor who is severely disfigured as a result of the "choice" the mother made? "Oh, well---choice an all." Is that would you would say?

I would say that since I do not support abortion once the foetus is capable of surviving, the notion of an abortion survivor is an oxymoron.

Who is saying those who like to mask up, or otherwise like restrictions, vaccines, etc, aren't allowed to mask up, get vaccines, or impose whatever restrictions on themselves they want to impose?

No one. Nor is anyone imposing the reverse.

The government does not exist to be our parents or nanny. People need to be free to make their own decisions about what risks they are willing to assume. Thus, for those who aren't willing to take risks--they can take whatever steps they feel they need to take to protect themselves.

The government's first, and possibly only duty is to safeguard its citizens. That is what mask and vaccine mandates do.

For example: "I am the Science" Faucci felt that the Correspondents Dinner was a high-risk activity. He used his freedom of choice and did not go. Good for him. Everyone who went to the dinner, choose to assume the risks. This is what it is to live in a free society. People can make choices for themselves.

You see, sir, we either have freedom of choice or we do not. We either have sovereignty over our body or we do not. Even IF, sir, you think abortion affects no one but the woman (not true) masks and vaccines affect everyone forced to wear them. No one should be forced to take a vaccine they do not feel comfortable taking. Note that the vaccines do NOT prevent the spread of the virus--so--taking a vaccine affects no one but the one who does not want the vaccine.

No one is forced to mask up or take vaccines. If they don't there are consequences, but the choice is theirs.

Sir, let me remind you: I am not against vaccine mandates. I think the covid theater with the masks is a bit overboard since unless you are wearing an N95 mask, you are not protected, but I am not against vaccine mandates. "I am the Science" Faucci said "Masks do not protect anyone. Trying to stop a virus with a mask is like trying to stop a mosquito with a chain link fence."

Masks are one of a number of measures, which taken together minimise the risk of virus infection from a wide range of aerosol droplet sizes. No measures protects on its own. Besides, masks are a lot better at keeping droplets in, than out. The aim is as much to stop you infecting others, as stopping others from infecting you.

But sir, I am not the one insisting that I am "pro-choice" nor am I the one insisting that people must have absolute sovereignty over their body. YOU, sir, and other abortion supporters are the ones making those vacuous, sophomoric, and ridiculous arguments. I am just holding you to your own standards. Do not complain that I hold you to your own standards.

You are confused.

 

[Eightcrackers]

And yet--in America if someone murders a pregnant woman, they are charged with a double homicide.

Because that someone does not have the right to end a pregnant woman's pregnancy.
The pregnant woman, though, does.

 

[Temujin]

Because that someone does not have the right to end a pregnant woman's pregnancy.
The pregnant woman, though, does.

That's simple enough. However, I do find it very odd that the killing of a foetus in any circumstance would be a homicide. Is that the case in every state? In the UK it would be grievous bodily harm against the woman. I can only think of one case where an unborn child was considered a murder victim, and that was when twins were virtually at term when the mother was killed by a terrorist bomb. Since no one was tried for that murder, the point is moot.

 

[Eightcrackers]

That's simple enough. However, I do find it very odd that the killing of a foetus in any circumstance would be a homicide. Is that the case in every state? In the UK it would be grievous bodily harm against the woman. I can only think of one case where an unborn child was considered a murder victim, and that was when twins were virtually at term when the mother was killed by a terrorist bomb. Since no one was tried for that murder, the point is moot.

Don't get me started on US law - I don't know how they can consider themselves a country when laws change across a state line.

 

[Temujin]

Don't get me started on US law - I don't know how they can consider themselves a country when laws change across a state line.

I suppose every country has its USP. Besides, I live in the UK. No room for me to complain about odd constitutional arrangements. Most of the people who live here don't know who is actually in Great Britain, the British Isles or the UK. The town of Berwick on Tweed, which is on the border between Scotland and England, is still at war with Napoleon. In Shrewsbury, you are technically allowed to shoot Welsh men with a bow and arrow, on Sundays. While London taxis until very recently, were supposed to carry a bale of hay in the trunk, for the horse.

 

[Eightcrackers]

I suppose every country has its USP. Besides, I live in the UK. No room for me to complain about odd constitutional arrangements. Most of the people who live here don't know who is actually in Great Britain, the British Isles or the UK. The town of Berwick on Tweed, which is on the border between Scotland and England, is still at war with Napoleon. In Shrewsbury, you are technically allowed to shoot Welsh men with a bow and arrow, on Sundays. While London taxis until very recently, were supposed to carry a bale of hay in the trunk, for the horse.

Just seems odd that some people trumpet the "UNITED States of America" one minute, and then demand that the federal government evaporate so that everything reverts to the states, the next...

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Because that someone does not have the right to end a pregnant woman's pregnancy.
The pregnant woman, though, does.

Sir, you seem to miss the point--which is typical of abortion supporters.

Sir, the person is charged with a "double homicide." The person is not charged with "Termination of a pregnancy without the woman's consent."

In other words---the fetus is a "person" when the woman wants her child. When she does not want her child, the child is conveniently redefined as "a clump of cells that will become human."

 

[romishpopishorganist]

I would say that since I do not support abortion once the foetus is capable of surviving, the notion of an abortion survivor is an oxymoron.

No one. Nor is anyone imposing the reverse.

The government's first, and possibly only duty is to safeguard its citizens. That is what mask and vaccine mandates do.

No one is forced to mask up or take vaccines. If they don't there are consequences, but the choice is theirs.

Masks are one of a number of measures, which taken together minimise the risk of virus infection from a wide range of aerosol droplet sizes. No measures protects on its own. Besides, masks are a lot better at keeping droplets in, than out. The aim is as much to stop you infecting others, as stopping others from infecting you.


You are confused.

Good.

Then I will use that logic for abortion:

No pro-lifer wants to force a woman to carry a child to term--it is just that--they want consequences for women who choose to "terminate" their pregnancy.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Sir, you seem to miss the point--which is typical of abortion supporters.

Sir, the person is charged with a "double homicide." The person is not charged with "Termination of a pregnancy without the woman's consent."

Yes - I acknowledged that.
It is homicide except in cases of abortion, because the pregnant woman is granted an exception.

In other words---the fetus is a "person" when the woman wants her child. When she does not want her child, the child is conveniently redefined as "a clump of cells that will become human."

Doesn't matter to me how it is defined - call it a person, if you like; said person is living insider her without her consent, and she should have the right not to have to endure that state.