Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A bill that would make Ohio's abortion laws the strictest in the nation is on its way to Gov. John Kasich's desk just hours after Republicans slipped the "heartbeat bill" into a child welfare bill.

The Ohio House approved Senate amendments to the bill late Tuesday night, mostly along party lines, in a 56-39 vote. Earlier in the day, Senate Republicans added language banning abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, commonly known as the "heartbeat bill," to an unrelated measure. That could be as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, before a woman might find out she's pregnant.

Democrats adamantly opposed the bill, saying it would risk women's health and trigger an expensive lawsuit on the back of taxpayers.

If Kasich signs the bill, Ohio will be the third state to pass such a law. Courts have found Arkansas and North Dakota laws unconstitutional, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld those lower-court rulings, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear further appeal. -snip

Full story: http://www.cleveland.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/12/heartbeat_bill_abortion_ban_cl.html

The party of small government, individual liberty, and fiscal responsibility strikes again!

I guess if you live in Ohio and you don't want a kid? Don't have unprotected sex.

I know, weird right? Now someone please bring up abortions in the case of rape or a risk to the mother in order to side step that discussion.

Birth control isn't 100% effective; they teach you this in high school. You've never had a condom break on you?

This law is written to not allow exceptions for rape or incest.

Originally posted by Robtard
Birth control isn't 100% effective; they teach you this in high school. You've never had a condom break on you?

This law is written to not allow exceptions for rape or incest.

Lol I hate condoms. Any girl I've been with has been on birth control.

But hey so what about changing the law so if you can prove you used BC and it failed you can get an abortion? Would you be down with that?

Women's birth control can fail as well. This is also taught in high school.

1) How would you prove that? 2)Why are we talking about shit that's not going to happen instead of reality. This bill is one signature away from being law.

More importantly, this could spread to other states.

Originally posted by Surtur
I guess if you live in Ohio and you don't want a kid? Don't have unprotected sex.

I know, weird right? Now someone please bring up abortions in the case of rape or a risk to the mother in order to side step that discussion.

This same law was found unconstitutional in two other states, so it will not withstand a court challenge, which their invariably will be. And when the state inevitably loses, the tax payers will be left holding the bill. But who cares about passing blatantly unconstitutional laws that will leave tax payers in the lurch, when we can use government to broadcast how morally superior with think we are because we are not seeking an abortion. If you do not want to get pregnant, keep those legs together, ladies!

Originally posted by Robtard
Women's birth control can fail as well. This is also taught in high school.

1) How would you prove that? 2)Why are we talking about shit that's not going to happen instead of reality. This bill is one signature away from being law.

More importantly, this could spread to other states.

I'm trying to offer alternatives. If you want to use the excuse that BC can fail..you can show you had a prescription for it.

As opposed to just a blanket of "for whatever reason you want, get it" in which we remove 100% of responsibility for any sexual actions.

The problem now, PoE, we have a broken SC because Republicans are blocking Obama from doing his job and Trump gets to appoint the missing judge after he takes office.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you do not want to get pregnant, keep those legs together, ladies!

Originally posted by Robtard
The problem now, PoE, we have a broken SC because Republicans are blocking Obama from doing his job and Trump gets to appoint the missing judge after he takes office.

What specific part of his job are they blocking? Isn't it part of their jobs to..be able to block stuff? Unless they are doing so illegally?

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm trying to offer alternatives. If you want to use the excuse that BC can fail..you can show you had a prescription for it.

As opposed to just a blanket of "for whatever reason you want, get it" in which we remove 100% of responsibility for any sexual actions.

I'm not the one who brought in "well then don't have unprotected sex!" as some sort of argument, you did.

So you want to be able to tell people (namely women) what they can and can't do with their lives and bodies.

Isn't it funny that the same people who want others to be accountable for the sex they're having, are also the ones who oppose sex (same-sex) that can't lead to a pregnancy.

Originally posted by Surtur
What specific part of his job are they blocking? Isn't it part of their jobs to..be able to block stuff? Unless they are doing so illegally?

The president has a constitutional right to nominate and appoint supreme court justices. The Republicans have effectively said "we're not letting Obama pick no matter what, the next president should get to."

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm not the one who brought in "well then don't have unprotected sex!" as some sort of argument, you did.

If the law happens..they need to embrace that lol. It's not 100% protective, sure, but having a 99% chance of stopping pregnancy is better than none at all.



To be truthful I just want men to be able to shirk all responsibility for a child in the same way a female can.



That is funny I guess. Hypocrisy can be funny, like when people whined a bakery didn't wanna serve gays cuz they were gay, but had no problems with people pulling businesses out of a certain state because they wanted people to use the proper bathroom.

But anyways back to what you said, I don't care much about gay marriage. They can marry each other or not. Who'd wanna get married though? If a gay guy can dick over his hubby as badly as women currently can? But if they wanna do it, then go for it.

Originally posted by Robtard
The president has a constitutional right to nominate and appoint supreme court justices. The Republicans have effectively said "we're not letting Obama pick no matter what, the next president should get to."

Okay so what you are saying is they have no legal right to block it? Since if they have a right to do that..well, you see where I'm going with this.

But then if they had no right to block it they..wouldn't be able to block it.

Originally posted by Surtur
If a gay guy can dick over his hubby as badly as women currently can? But if they wanna do it, then go for it.

LoL, dude, your dislike and distrust of women is epic; it's an ongoing thing I've noticed with you. What happened, tell.

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, dude, your dislike and distrust of women is epic; it's an ongoing thing I've noticed with you. What happened, tell.

Oh well you see it started back when they constantly whined about a Patriarchy and all the advantages men have and never seem to whine about the advantages women have or take issue with it.

But dude you realize I've been saying the *exact* same thing about you and your little Poland thing, right? You still haven't told me what happened there. Lets swap traumatic stories. It's only fair for you to go first since I've been asking you what happened for a while.

Poland's a silly little country who corroborated with the Nazis and continues to make poor, sometimes laughable choices for themselves. /endrant

Your turn. Why do you dislike and distrust women so much; to the point of nigh-hatred? What happened?

Originally posted by Robtard
Poland's a silly little country who corroborated with the Nazis and continues to make poor, sometimes laughable choices for themselves. /endrant

So you never called Bardock Germany..because? Gimme reasons, have them make sense.



Well I don't hate women though. I can point out how they can dick over a man in a marriage without hating them, correct?

I've just seem women destroy lives and do shit without getting called on it, when if a man had behaved in that manner..they'd get called on it. I'm tired of the hypocrisy.

If you're asking if a woman destroyed my life? No, but then I've never gotten cancer either and I yet I hate to see others come down with it.

Originally posted by Surtur
So you never called Bardock Germany..because?



Well I don't hate women though. I can point out how they can dick over a man in a marriage without hating them, correct?

I've just seem women destroy lives and do shit without getting called on it, when if a man had behaved in that manner..they'd get called on it. I'm tired of the hypocrisy.

I have in fact referred to Bardock as "Germany" before.

LoL. dude. You openly dislike women. Look how you point out how a woman can "dick over a man" in a marriage, yet refuse to acknowledge that a man can do the same to a woman. That's biased hatred. Deep-seated some would say.

Oh well, was hoping for some unfiltered truth instead of BS. I carried out my end of the bargain. Back to the topic I guess.

I don't doubt some women would say it. But then some women say we live in a rape culture and have a wage gap.

I also didn't see you call him Germany with the same consistency, but hey that's okay. Nobody said you had to be consistent.

Blah. blah. blah. You hatred of women has been noted. /noted

IOW: "If I didn't see it, it never happened."

Any more whine with that cheese? Or shall we get back to topic?

Originally posted by Robtard
Blah. blah. blah. You hatred of women has been noted. /noted

IOW: "If I didn't see it, it never happened."

Any more whine with that cheese? Or shall we get back to topic?

Your hypocrisy has been noted as well. /noted

It's fun to note things. Anything else or shall we get back to the topic? I mean it's not like gay marriage was the topic either, but shh.

I just asked "let's get back to the topic?" and you rant and then ask the same thing. How does that make sense to you.

Umm, you're the one who brought in "gay marriage" into the conversation; not me, sport.

Oh you didn't bring it up? Apologies, I just saw this and..

Originally posted by Robtard
Isn't it funny that the same people who want others to be accountable for the sex they're having, are also the ones who oppose sex (same-sex) that can't lead to a pregnancy.

I thought you meant gay marriage, but you just meant they oppose gay sex. Which of course the topic wasn't about gay sex either.

But it's okay, it's your topic and you can talk about gay sex all you want.

Sex is a topic related to pregnancy/abortions. This is something you should have learned well before high school.

I don't get how your elected officials have this much time on their hands for this idiocy. This Bill has no middle ground so it'll obviously fail when put to court (At least I hope so) and most sane people should know that, and yet here it is. Just seems like a waste of time and taxpayer money.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol I hate condoms. Any girl I've been with has been on birth control.

But hey so what about changing the law so if you can prove you used BC and it failed you can get an abortion? Would you be down with that?

Condoms, birth control and all other contraceptives have a chance of failure. And based on my perusing, this bill does not make any exceptions, even for rape victims and so on.

Even if it did make exceptions for rape victims, there could be many issues that arise that would be unconstitutional imo: A rape victim chooses not to report the crime, finds out later she's impregnated but how is she suppose to prove it was rape and say not a one-night stand? And so on.

Originally posted by Robtard
Sex is a topic related to pregnancy/abortions.

Sex that can't lead to pregnancy would have zero to do with it.



Dude I went to Catholic schools lol.

Originally posted by Surtur


Sarcasm right?

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Sarcasm right?

No, I hate females. I punch my mom in the face every mothers day and she gets a second punch if she doesn't thank me for it.

But no seriously, yeah..if it was up to me I wouldn't pass this kind of bill.

But if this does pass they will indeed need to get more used to the idea of practicing safe sex. I know people might not want to hear that, but it's a reality if this passes. Obviously using protection won't shield you 100%, but I have legitimately known women who weren't too concerned about safe sex because abortions are legal here.

Originally posted by Surtur
No, I hate females. I punch my mom in the face every mothers day and she gets a second punch if she doesn't thank me for it.

But no seriously, yeah..if it was up to me I wouldn't pass this kind of bill.

But if this does pass they will indeed need to get more used to the idea of practicing safe sex. I know people might not want to hear that, but it's a reality if this passes. Obviously using protection won't shield you 100%, but I have legitimately known women who weren't too concerned about safe sex because abortions are legal here.

Hey, I asked instead of assuming didn't I?

And by "they" I hope you mean men AND women who actively engage in sex, and just women. Because I think the consequences of unsafe sex are equally the fault of both parties.

Well yea, women shouldn't be using abortions as the number one option. Prevention is key. Abortions are a hugely invasive procedure that can potentially have serious side-effects. That's a lack of education more than anything imo.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Hey, I asked instead of assuming didn't I?

And by "they" I hope you mean men AND women who actively engage in sex, and just women. Because I think the consequences of unsafe sex are equally the fault of both parties.

Well yea, women shouldn't be using abortions as the number one option. Prevention is key. Abortions are a hugely invasive procedure that can potentially have serious side-effects. That's a lack of education more than anything imo.

Well yes of course both people need to watch out and be safe if this passes. But this does have more consequences for women than men.

Especially if there isn't even a loophole for abortions due to health risks. Though I suppose if push came to shove they could just go to a different state.

Originally posted by Surtur
Well yes of course both people need to watch out and be safe if this passes. But this does have more consequences for women than men.

Especially if there isn't even a loophole for abortions due to health risks. Though I suppose if push came to shove they could just go to a different state.

Yes, because poor women, who are less likely to have access to contraception, and more likely to need abortion services, have the means to just travel to another state.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yes, because poor women, who are less likely to have access to contraception, and more likely to need abortion services, have the means to just travel to another state.

I said if push comes to shove and it's a health risk they could. I never said it'd be easy or something just anyone can do.

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, dude, your dislike and distrust of women is epic; it's an ongoing thing I've noticed with you. What happened, tell.

It reminds me of this:

GEkp7Ovsg6Y

I know Family Guy can be hilarious.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yes, because poor women, who are less likely to have access to contraception, and more likely to need abortion services, have the means to just travel to another state.

Realize you're talking to a guy who openly admitted he never uses* protection and relies on the woman to do it.

*Not that I think he actually has sex and this is why he dislikes women, but the mindset is there regardless.

Originally posted by Robtard
Realize you're talking to a guy who openly admitted he never uses* protection and relies on the woman to do it.

*Not that I think he actually has sex and this is why he dislikes women, but the mindset is there regardless.

People who have healthy relationships with women do not feel the need to limit the choices of women, and people who have healthy sex lives do not feel the need to penalize others for having sex.

Originally posted by Robtard
Realize you're talking to a guy who openly admitted he never uses* protection and relies on the woman to do it.

Yes. I've only had sex with people I've been in a serious relationships with. If I banged random chicks I suppose I would have used one.

That really doesn't make me misogynistic or anything.



Right, and this is the same person trying sarcastically say I'm clever?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
People who have healthy relationships with women do not feel the need to limit the choices of women

Lol, christ almighty. Who said anything about limiting the choices of women? I never said I'd support this bill. I never said I force women I'm with to get on birth control or anything of the sort.



But again I never said I want women penalized for having sex.

Surtur is just saying that you should be a pussy and lie back and accept it when the government forces their cock down your throat. He isn't condoning the bill itself, just saying that you should just accept it like a good little boy or girl.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Surtur is just saying that you should be a pussy and lie back and accept it when the government forces their cock down your throat. He isn't condoning the bill itself, just saying that you should just accept it like a good little boy or girl.

This depends what you mean by "accept it". If the bill is passed I'm not saying nobody should protest it(in a peaceful manner, of course).

I said if this passes then using some form of protection is going to have to be embraced more than it is right now.

You could just throw your girl down the stairs once she finds out she's pregnant.

Originally posted by NemeBro
You could just throw your girl down the stairs once she finds out she's pregnant.

That's messed up man, if she got hurt people would expect me to help take care of her and shit.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol, christ almighty. Who said anything about limiting the choices of women? I never said I'd support this bill. I never said I force women I'm with to get on birth control or anything of the sort.



But again I never said I want women penalized for having sex.

Then what exactly is your issue here? That people should use birth control, even though you've said you personally don't because you hate condoms and you expect your female partner(s) too. You really don't see how laughable your stance is?

Originally posted by Robtard
Then what exactly is your issue here? That people should use birth control, even though you've said you personally don't because you hate condoms and you expect your female partner(s) too. You really don't see how laughable your stance is?

Who said I had an issue? I said if this bill gets passed then people need to remember to use birth control if they don't want kids.

I never specified which type of birth control people should use. I also said if I was the type to bang random women I most likely would have used a condom. My stance would be laughable if I said I'd had unprotected sex because I don't like condoms and the woman wasn't on the pill. I've never done it without protection.

I don't expect anything from women. I don't force them onto it. If I was with someone and she didn't want to get on the pill I never said I'd refuse to bang her or use condoms in that situation.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol, christ almighty. Who said anything about limiting the choices of women? I never said I'd support this bill. I never said I force women I'm with to get on birth control or anything of the sort.

Abortion is a choice available to women. This bill limits that choice. People who respect women recognize that women are capable of making their own choices. People who do not respect women do not think women are capable of making their own choices, and therefore seek to limit the choices of women for their own good. It is pretty straight forward.




Originally posted by Surtur
But again I never said I want women penalized for having sex.

People who claim to be Pro-Life are actually Pro-Birth, because they do not care about the life of the woman who is pregnant, or about the life of the child once it is born. Abortion is less about the sanctity of life, and more about ensuring their are consequences for women who have extra-biblical sex.

Well ya know what they say. If ya don't want the STD known as Babies don't run round letting guys stick they dick in ya.

Cause the Leftists really don't want babies to have any rights.

Unless its the right to be made into soup.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Abortion is a choice available to women. This bill limits that choice. People who respect women recognize that women are capable of making their own choices. People who do not respect women do not think women are capable of making their own choices, and therefore seek to limit the choices of women for their own good. It is pretty straight forward.
Actually it is not that simple.

Abortion should be permitted in exceptional cases only. Otherwise, it is a form of murder and (irresponsible) people have the tendency to abuse this kind of liberty. Keep in mind that the unborn individual becomes alive at some point in the womb.

There is also biological aspect to it. A woman cannot afford to abort an unborn child again and again. Sooner or later, medical complications will arise.

In short, people should act responsibly and not make sex a casual thing. Learn to respect your bodies.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
In short, people should act responsibly and not make sex a casual thing. Learn to respect your bodies. Quite the religious puritan, ain't ya?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Quite the religious puritan, ain't ya?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Quite the religious puritan, ain't ya?

When compared to a secular filthmonger like some people.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Abortion is a choice available to women. This bill limits that choice.

People were acting like I'm taking choices away, as in me personally. To which a big: Nope.



See above.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Actually it is not that simple.

Abortion should be permitted in exceptional cases only. Otherwise, it is a form of murder and (irresponsible) people have the tendency to abuse this kind of liberty. Keep in mind that the unborn individual becomes alive at some point in the womb.

There is also biological aspect to it. A woman cannot afford to abort an unborn child again and again. Sooner or later, medical complications will arise.

In short, people should act responsibly and not make sex a casual thing. Learn to respect your bodies.

Wow. So whether abortion is murder depends on if the case is exceptional or not? That does not sound like any Pro-Life position I have ever heard.

And if women abuse this liberty, so what? People abuse all sorts of liberties, and we do not take them away.

Again, if a woman experiences medical complications, so what? There are risks associated with any medical procedure, and people assume those risks when the choose to undergo that procedure. Why do you think women cannot weigh the costs and benefits themselves? Why do you think you need to interject yourself into their decision-making, because you think you know better than they do?

How about you respect the autonomy of other people, and worry about your own body?

Originally posted by Surtur
People were acting like I'm taking choices away, as in me personally. To which a big: Nope.

Originally posted by Surtur
I guess if you live in Ohio and you don't want a kid? Don't have unprotected sex.

I know, weird right? Now someone please bring up abortions in the case of rape or a risk to the mother in order to side step that discussion.

Sounds like you support limiting the choices of women to me.




Originally posted by Surtur
See above.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm trying to offer alternatives. If you want to use the excuse that BC can fail..you can show you had a prescription for it.

As opposed to just a blanket of "for whatever reason you want, get it" in which we remove 100% of responsibility for any sexual actions.

Sounds like you want to penalize women who have sex to me.

There's one thing I don't understand.

The people who generally oppose abortion also cause a lot of kermuffle around the fact that America will be a white minority in like 10 years.

Do they not realize that banning abortions only hastens this?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Sounds like you support limiting the choices of women to me.








Sounds like you want to penalize women who have sex to me.

Well then you're just not very bright, are you? There really isn't anything else to say, it's utter stupidity. Saying if women live in a state where abortion is made illegal and they don't want kids they shouldn't have unprotected sex..isn't me trying to limit them at all. It's using common sense: if abortion is illegal the only alternative is no sex or to practice safe sex.

If I wanted to limit their choices I'd support the bill, which I've said I don't. Funny that..isn't it? You didn't manage to quote those parts. I'm sure you just missed those comments and you weren't ignorantly trying to misrepresent what I'm saying.

Now I know you'll respond and attempt to spin this once again and I do look forward to it.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Actually it is not that simple.

Abortion should be permitted in exceptional cases only. Otherwise, it is a form of murder and (irresponsible) people have the tendency to abuse this kind of liberty. Keep in mind that the unborn individual becomes alive at some point in the womb.

There is also biological aspect to it. A woman cannot afford to abort an unborn child again and again. Sooner or later, medical complications will arise.

In short, people should act responsibly and not make sex a casual thing. Learn to respect your bodies.

In what scenario(s) does abortion cross from being murder to not being murder in your mind?

Why does rob get so worked up about gay sex and killing the babies of poor people

Originally posted by Raisen
Why does rob get so worked up about gay sex and killing the babies of poor people

Or Poland for that matter.

While I realize you're both severe substance abusers and probably drunk or high again right now, can you please take your handjobing each other elsewhere? This is a serious topic; for serious discussion, thanks in advance.

You're right my bad for derailing the serious discussion. The Oh LoLhio thing should have been a dead giveaway for that.

Apologies bro, back on topic then.

So anymore word on what's going to happen with the ban?

If you can't separate a minor comical title from the serious meat of the topic, it really isn't anyone's fault except yours, sport.

It's up to Governor Kasich to sign and make it law or repeal it. He could also ignore it and in a given amount of days (9 or so, iirc) it will then also automatically become law. #USGov101

Well has Kasich given any impression of what he plans to do?

Yes/no. He's very pro-fetus, but he's also fairly pragmatic and he knows that if it passes, if could be overturned regardless as it has been in two other states, costing his state's taxpayers even more money.

What a trashy head for this thread, its about time Ohio did this! Liberals thinking sex is just for 'having fun' and turning it into something other then procreation is the downfall of the west, if you're not grown up enough to take care of a baby you shouldn't be having sex (something that in itself is pro-life not pro-fetus smh).

Originally posted by kevdude
What a trashy head for this thread, its about time Ohio did this!

Liberals thinking sex is just for 'having fun' and turning it into something other then procreation is the downfall of the west, if you're not grown up enough to take care of a baby you shouldn't be having sex (something that in itself is pro-life not pro-fetus smh).

1) Calm down

2) All the sex you've had is for "procreation purposes" then?

Originally posted by Robtard
1) Calm down

2) All the sex you've had is for "procreation purposes" then?

1 I'm fine, its you degrading life that's the problem.

2 that's what it is for yes.

Originally posted by kevdude
1 I'm fine, its you degrading life that's the problem.

2 that's what it is for yes.

Okay then.

No, I'm asking you personally. All the sex you've ever had in your life, each time was for the sole purpose of creating a child?

What is your obsession with Ohio laws ? One might say you're a little obsessed with Ohio.

Maybe he's actually from Ohio. I've been there before, I went to Cedar Point.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The party of small government, individual liberty, and fiscal responsibility strikes again!

Legalize infantcide.

...because some people don't see the different, is the point. Me being one of them... Dead in the womb, dead on the table, you're robbing someone of a life, however you "define" a human being..

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Abortion is a choice available to women. This bill limits that choice. People who respect women recognize that women are capable of making their own choices. People who do not respect women do not think women are capable of making their own choices, and therefore seek to limit the choices of women for their own good. It is pretty straight forward.

People who claim to be Pro-Life are actually Pro-Birth, because they do not care about the life of the woman who is pregnant, or about the life of the child once it is born. Abortion is less about the sanctity of life, and more about ensuring their are consequences for women who have extra-biblical sex.

As much as I am pro-life, I think this bill is too excessive as medical reasons where there is a substantial risk to the mother (and low chance of survival for the child) should be valid IMO. However, let me address some of your points:

One is free to have choice up until it affects/hurts another. It is essentially a choice between risking a mother or killing a child. Neither is a good option but if you consider that one is a chance vs another, a guarantee of life lost then we need to make tour decisions based on those choices.

What we should not do is try and dehumanize the fetus just so we can feel better about taking its life.

And you are wrong if you think that it about being punitive to the mother (for the vast majority of us). Where did you even get that idea? Not many ppl would fight this passionately over a topic just to punish strangers. Of course, there are always loonies on both sides but try not to paint us all in the same stroke.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Wow. So whether abortion is murder depends on if the case is exceptional or not? That does not sound like any Pro-Life position I have ever heard.

And if women abuse this liberty, so what? People abuse all sorts of liberties, and we do not take them away.

Again, if a woman experiences medical complications, so what? There are risks associated with any medical procedure, and people assume those risks when the choose to undergo that procedure. Why do you think women cannot weigh the costs and benefits themselves? Why do you think you need to interject yourself into their decision-making, because you think you know better than they do?

How about you respect the autonomy of other people, and worry about your own body?

Sounds more like he is willing to find an acceptable compromise (by setting extenuating circumstances) for both sides. That is actually a step in the right direction, isn't it?

One of the primary reasons laws are put in place is to prevent abuses in liberties when such abuses can hurt others.

I agree with your third paragraph somewhat. Women have the right to their own bodies and the risks they take are very much their own choice. This, however, should end when their decisions affect another life.

Originally posted by Robtard
While I realize you're both severe substance abusers and probably drunk or high again right now, can you please take your handjobing each other elsewhere? This is a serious topic; for serious discussion, thanks in advance.

Yeah. Let's get serious about killing poor babies in the womb. It's about sanctity of life as poe said. Cool

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Sounds more like he is willing to find an acceptable compromise (by setting extenuating circumstances) for both sides. That is actually a step in the right direction, isn't it?

I must be different, because I do not see "murder" as an area for compromise.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I must be different, because I do not see "murder" as an area for compromise.

Compromise happens when one is able to understand that not everybody would share the same view and allowing oneself to try and find a position in the middle of both extremes.

Originally posted by Raisen
Yeah. Let's get serious about killing poor babies in the womb. It's about sanctity of life as poe said. Cool What is worse is isn't the difference of opinion but the mentality that people from states shouldn't have this right to determine their own abortion standards. He disagrees which is fine but his inability to respect the other side is blatant hypocrisy. Rob rage created this thread as well.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Compromise happens when one is able to understand that not everybody would share the same view and allowing oneself to try and find a position in the middle of both extremes.

If you are willing to compromise on what you believe to be murder, then you may as well make it a free for all.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you are willing to compromise on what you believe to be murder, then you may as well make it a free for all.

I disagree. Reality isn't a simple dichotomy. If you do not try to understand the other side, then you spend your whole time yelling at each other/fighting and nothing gets done.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I disagree. Reality isn't a simple dichotomy. If you do not try to understand the other side, then you spend your whole time yelling at each other/fighting and nothing gets done.

Not taking a side, but I believe his point can better be understood by using an example.

Would you be willing to compromise with terrorists on the subject of murdering nonbelievers?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Not taking a side, but I believe his point can better be understood by using an example.

Would you be willing to compromise with terrorists on the subject of murdering nonbelievers?

While we first have to at least try and understand the opposing side of things, it doesn't mean we have to compromise to it if it is completely vile or evil. That is because there is no chance for any common ground to be found in this scenario.

Fact is, both sides of the abortion argument feel strongly about the sides they stand on and (if you really try and look) both sides have presented reasonable (<--- this is the important part) arguments about why they feel the way they do. They just don't agee.

That is when compromise becomes the best case scenario so that a reasonable common ground can be found.

Granted there are extemes for both sides of the argument but it should be up to the moderates, however, to try and find said common ground if it is at all possible.

I believe Adam's point is that if someone truly believes 'abortion = murder' as fact, how can that person then be open to compromise on what would be murder?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
While we first have to at least try and understand the opposing side of things, it doesn't mean we have to compromise to it if it is completely vile or evil. That is because there is no chance for any common ground to be found in this scenario.

Fact is, both sides of the abortion argument feel strongly about the sides they stand on and (if you really try and look) both sides have presented reasonable (<--- this is the important part) arguments about why they feel the way they do. They just don't agee.

That is when compromise becomes the best case scenario so that a reasonable common ground can be found.

Granted there are extemes for both sides of the argument but it should be up to the moderates, however, to try and find said common ground if it is at all possible.

As he seems to consider it murder and thus evil, what exactly do you want him to compromise on?

Originally posted by Robtard
I believe Adam's point is that if someone truly believes 'abortion = murder' as fact, how can that person then be open to compromise on what would be murder?

Exactly.

Originally posted by Robtard
I believe Adam's point is that if someone truly believes 'abortion = murder' as fact, how can that person then be open to compromise on what would be murder?

Originally posted by Silent Master
As he seems to consider it murder and thus evil, what exactly do you want him to compromise on?

As you both pretty much made the same points, let me address you both together:

That is why we shouldn't look at things in a dichotomous way. Reality has many levels and people don't all think the same.

When one "truly believes" without some sort doubt or skepticism, then one is a zealot (insert: terrorist) that can't really compromise anyway. Thing is, there are those of us can believe something more than we do its antithesis but do not completely dismiss the other side of the debate and can see the merits in it.

And then there are those that, even tho they are 99.999% certain in their belief, many of them can accept the fact that: without compromise, there can only be conflict. And that many of us can swallow something we do not like for the greater good or so that we can all move forward. Simple practicality.

I believe that the "moderate" side of each debate tend to fall in categories similar to the ones I described above. And that if we simply reach out and talk to each other with open minds, we might get lucky and find something we can both dislike but can live with.

To be specific-to-thread: pro-life might be able to compromise on special and extreme cases/circumstances such as rape and when there is a real threat to the mother's life and that child's has a reasonably low chance of surivival.

Fortunately, technology will eventually come to a point wherein the fetus can be extracted and grown outside the woman's womb. Thus the debate might eventually become obsolete.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
As you both pretty much made the same points, let me address you both together:

That is why we shouldn't look at things in a dichotomous way. Reality has many levels and people don't all think the same.

When one "truly believes" without some sort doubt or skepticism, then one is a zealot (insert: terrorist) that can't really compromise anyway. Thing is, there are those of us can believe something more than we do its antithesis but do not completely dismiss the other side of the debate and can see the merits in it.

And then there are those that, even tho they are 99.999% certain in their belief, many of them can accept the fact that: without compromise, there can only be conflict. And that many of us can swallow something we do not like for the greater good or so that we can all move forward. Simple practicality.

I believe that the "moderate" side of each debate tend to fall in categories similar to the ones I described above. And that if we simply reach out and talk to each other with open minds, we might get lucky and find something we can both dislike but can live with.


Do you truly believe that it's wrong to torture,rape and murder?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Do you truly believe that it's wrong to torture,rape and murder?

Yes.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yes.

Then by your own logic aren't you a zealot (insert: terrorist)?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Then by your own logic aren't you a zealot (insert: terrorist)?

Well, the difference is the above being wrong are established truths already ingrained in our society (or any civilized society) as wrong. We factually know them to be wrong. And I think, only the most extreme of societies could ever justify the above as something acceptable. While the world isn't a dichotomy, does not mean dichotomies (such as fact/not fact) don't exist in the world.

We are discussing beliefs that have not yet been established as factual truths. That is why the term "belief" is used.

Originally posted by quanchi112
What is worse is isn't the difference of opinion but the mentality that people from states shouldn't have this right to determine their own abortion standards. He disagrees which is fine but his inability to respect the other side is blatant hypocrisy. Rob rage created this thread as well.

Yep, it's his way or the highway. I've always been honest with him and the one time I agreed with him he used that against me

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Well, the difference is the above being wrong are established truths already ingrained in our society as wrong. We factually know them to be wrong. And I think, only the most extreme of societies could ever justify the above as something acceptable. While the world isn't a dichotomy, does not mean dichotomies (such as fact/not fact) don't exist in the world.

We are discussing beliefs that have not yet been established as factual truths. That is why the term "belief" is used.

So our society trumps their's?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So our society trumps their's?

If one society is a-ok about murder/rape/torutuee, we would think that we "trump" then about being civilized, don't you think?

Although, I shouldn't really talk as shit is happening in my country right now. That is why I detach myself from my home country's politics. Too upsetting right now.

Good thing my wife and daughter is American and I have a green card amirite?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
If one society is a-ok about murder/rape/torutuee, we would think that we "trump" then about being civilized, don't you think?

Although, I shouldn't really talk as shit is happening in my country right now. That is why I detach myself from my home country's politics. Too upsetting right now.

Good thing my wife and daughter is American and I have a green card amirite?


I'll take that as a yes, now. would you be willing to compromise with such a society?

What about the fact that you can get charged with murder for killing a fetus?

Originally posted by Silent Master
I'll take that as a yes, now. would you be willing to compromise with such a society?

If they are willing to stop/reconsider their killing/raping/torturing, why not?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
If they are willing to stop/reconsider their killing/raping/torturing, why not?

You getting everything you want while the other side doesn't isn't a compromise. an example of a compromise would be they will only be allowed to kill, murder and rape 3 days a week, instead of 7.

Would you be ok with that?

Originally posted by Silent Master
You getting everything you want while the other side doesn't isn't a compromise. an example of a compromise would be they will only be allowed to kill, murder and rape 3 days a week, instead of 7.

Would you be ok with that?

Then that would still fall outside my acceptable "compromise" threshold.

I would probably try and understand the fundamental reasons behind such behavior and try to tackle the source and not the symptoms of the problem. Then try to establish a compromise such as providing education/structure/etc if such is within my power.

The point here is to TRY and find something both sides can accept. Does not mean it can always happen, however. Especially when the differences are too severe.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Then that would still fall outside my acceptable "compromise" threshold.

I would probably try and understand the fundamental reasons behind such behavior and try to tackle the source and not the symptoms of the problem. Then try to establish a compromise such as providing education/structure/etc if such is within my power.

The point here is to TRY and find something both sides can accept. Does not mean it can always happen, however. Especially when the differences are too severe.

And if they absolutely insist they still be allowed to murder?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
As you both pretty much made the same points, let me address you both together:

That is why we shouldn't look at things in a dichotomous way. Reality has many levels and people don't all think the same.

When one "truly believes" without some sort doubt or skepticism, then one is a zealot (insert: terrorist) that can't really compromise anyway. Thing is, there are those of us can believe something more than we do its antithesis but do not completely dismiss the other side of the debate and can see the merits in it.

And then there are those that, even tho they are 99.999% certain in their belief, many of them can accept the fact that: without compromise, there can only be conflict. And that many of us can swallow something we do not like for the greater good or so that we can all move forward. Simple practicality.

I believe that the "moderate" side of each debate tend to fall in categories similar to the ones I described above. And that if we simply reach out and talk to each other with open minds, we might get lucky and find something we can both dislike but can live with.

To be specific-to-thread: pro-life might be able to compromise on special and extreme cases/circumstances such as rape and when there is a real threat to the mother's life and that child's has a reasonably low chance of surivival.

Fortunately, technology will eventually come to a point wherein the fetus can be extracted and grown outside the woman's womb. Thus the debate might eventually become obsolete.

I still don't see how you can find compromise over something you see as being "murder" as fact. I'm assuming you still hold the belief of abortion = murder?

Fair enough on the mother's life being in danger, as that would fall under self-defense of sorts, but I don't see how you can agree with "murdering" someone because their father happens to be a criminal/rapist. Similar goes with a fetus deemed to have a low chance of survival, if killing it is "murder".

Originally posted by Silent Master
And if they absolutely insist they still be allowed to murder?

Then there doesn't seem to be any room to compromise was there?

I mean if they were willing to agree to limit it to instances of self defense, euthanasia, etc. I could get that.

Tho reducing the murder rate by 60% is pretty tempting, I gotta say. Gotta think about this more.

What is the alternative? Nuking them til they glow in the dark?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Then there doesn't seem to be any room to compromise was there?

I mean if they were willing to agree to limit it to instances of self defense, euthanasia, etc. I could get that.

Tho reducing the murder rate by 60% is pretty tempting, I gotta say. Gotta think about this more.

What is the alternative? Nuking them til they glow in the dark?

Have you figured out the point that's being made yet?

Originally posted by Robtard
I still don't see how you can find compromise over something you see as being "murder" as fact. I'm assuming you still hold the belief of abortion = murder?

Fair enough on the mother's life being in danger, as that would fall under self-defense of sorts, but I don't see how you can agree with "murdering" someone because their father happens to be a criminal/rapist. Similar goes with a fetus deemed to have a low chance of survival, if killing it is "murder".

I think abortion-at will is murder. I'm pretty sure most moderates can understand the necessity of abortion when there are reasonable medical risks to consider.

Well, one is an act of compassion for the mother (the rape argument), the other is if the low-chance of survival fetus also carried a sufficient risk to the mother and risking both would be unreasonable.

The "rape" scenario has always been a grey area for me (and I am going by pure emotional compassion here rather than pure logic), but I feel like a victim of such trauma should be allowed to protect one's sanity from the psychological trauma. I don't like it. But I cannot, in good conscience, go against it either.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Have you figured out the point that's being made yet?

From the very beginning, yes.

You'll eventually realize that if you take this line of thought further, it will likely just go back to reply Rob just recently quoted. So keep going.

I was only attempting to explain Adam's argument. If you understand it now, there is no point in me continuing to explain it.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I was only attempting to explain Adam's argument. If you understand it now, there is no point in me continuing to explain it.

Fair enough.

My point still stands, tho.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I think abortion-at will is murder. I'm pretty sure most moderates can understand the necessity of abortion when there are reasonable medical risks to consider.

Well, one is an act of compassion for the mother (the rape argument), the other is if the low-chance of survival fetus also carried a sufficient risk to the mother and risking both would be unreasonable.

The "rape" scenario has always been a grey area for me (and I am going by pure emotional compassion here rather than pure logic), but I feel like a victim of such trauma should be allowed to protect one's sanity from the psychological trauma. I don't like it. But I cannot, in good conscience, go against it either.

Totally legit IMHO

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I think abortion-at will is murder. I'm pretty sure most moderates can understand the necessity of abortion when there are reasonable medical risks to consider.

Well, one is an act of compassion for the mother (the rape argument), the other is if the low-chance of survival fetus also carried a sufficient risk to the mother and risking both would be unreasonable.

The "rape" scenario has always been a grey area for me (and I am going by pure emotional compassion here rather than pure logic), but I feel like a victim of such trauma should be allowed to protect one's sanity from the psychological trauma. I don't like it. But I cannot, in good conscience, go against it either.

If we're talking about moderation now, still don't see how that (a common ground) can be found with someone who truly believes abortion = murder. Trying to logic my way around it.

But fair enough, you've said you're not really using logic and going with your emotions and I'd find it silly to try and tell you how you should or shouldn't feel emotionally. Abortion is a touchy subject generally.

Personally I'm a big fan of post-birth abortions. They're very effective and statistically the safest for the mother.

Originally posted by BackFire
Personally I'm a big fan of post-birth abortions. They're very effective and statistically the safest for the mother.

Oh, so you're a fan of Christopher Titus as well?

Yeah, the biggest.

Originally posted by Raisen
Yep, it's his way or the highway. I've always been honest with him and the one time I agreed with him he used that against me This is why most posters find him to be childish. He is very close minded yet he accuses other's of what he himself embodies. He doesn't have a lot of insight IMO.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I disagree. Reality isn't a simple dichotomy. If you do not try to understand the other side, then you spend your whole time yelling at each other/fighting and nothing gets done.

Originally posted by Robtard
If we're talking about moderation now, still don't see how that (a common ground) can be found with someone who truly believes abortion = murder. Trying to logic my way around it.

It's actually not that hard. Firstly, I think ppl are oversimplifying the abortion = murder argument. I feel like most ppl most likely have "levels" on how this applies. Technically, abortion = killing. Similar to killing someone already born, it only becomes "murder" due to the motives/reasons/rationalizations behind it.

I can only speak for myself, but personally, there are reasonable abortions (as I listed above) and the trick is finding ppl like me willing to compromise on the matter and finding ppl willing to compromise on abortion on the left. Perhaps we can convince those further down the fringes of our beliefs to take a more moderate stand so we can actually get a dialogue going.

I dunno, call me a dreamer.

I think youll fins that the majority of people support free abortion rights.

I agree that it is a gray area, but most people seem settled on pro.

Originally posted by krisblaze
I think youll fins that the majority of people support free abortion rights.

I agree that it is a gray area, but most people seem settled on pro.

Firstly, I don't think we should ignore the beliefs of a smaller group of ppl just because there are fewer of them. Everyone should be given a voice. Also, just because more ppl believe in something, does not make it right.

Secondly, according to gallup:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

The difference between pro life and pro choice doesn't look that considerable to me.

As of 2016.

46% pro life
47% pro choice.

The majority at 50% wants abortion regulated in some way.

Plus those who wants to outright ban it at 19%

While only 29% want it to be regulation-free.

I don't know how reliable you view gallup, tho. But those are their numbers.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
It's actually not that hard. Firstly, I think ppl are oversimplifying the abortion = murder argument. I feel like most ppl most likely have "levels" on how this applies. Technically, abortion = killing. Similar to killing someone already born, it only becomes "murder" due to the motives/reasons/rationalizations behind it.

I can only speak for myself, but personally, there are reasonable abortions (as I listed above) and the trick is finding ppl like me willing to compromise on the matter and finding ppl willing to compromise on abortion on the left. Perhaps we can convince those further down the fringes of our beliefs to take a more moderate stand so we can actually get a dialogue going.

I dunno, call me a dreamer.

TBF, it's not really the prochoice side that uses the 'abortion = murder' argument. That argument is generally brought forth by people who are anti abortion, for obvious reasons.

What compromised/changes exactly would you like to see to current abortion laws?

If someone is pregnant and they want to abort the baby, but they can't because of the law..isn't it possible they'd end up resenting the child?

Originally posted by Robtard
TBF, it's not really the prochoice side that uses the 'abortion = murder' argument. That argument is generally brought forth by people who are anti abortion, for obvious reasons.

What compromised/changes exactly would you like to see to current abortion laws?

There are always those in the fringe. Thinking those are the ppl who dogmatically stick to a literal abortion = murder logic. Rest of us aren't quite as closed minded, I'm hoping.

Personally? Abortion when medically valid and in extreme cases such as molestation/rape is where I want abortion to be.

Originally posted by Surtur
If someone is pregnant and they want to abort the baby, but they can't because of the law..isn't it possible they'd end up resenting the child?

Certainly possible. Tho, as a parent, if you are gonna resent a child, I'm thinking it would be AFTER they are born as that is when the true challenge begins (if you ask my wife, pregnancy was a breeze. Birth was tough but the long unending grind of parenting is the tough part. Unless, of course you really love your child. In which case it becomes a labor of love instead of a grind.).

There is always adoption.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
There are always those in the fringe. Thinking those are the ppl who dogmatically stick to a literal abortion = murder logic. Rest of us aren't quite as closed minded, I'm hoping.

Personally? Abortion when medically valid and in extreme cases such as molestation/rape is where I want abortion to be.

Seems far to limiting and extreme in telling women what they can and can not do with their own bodies and events that will have a massive impact on their lives. I'd personally hate it if someone tried to have a similar control over my person.

I also imagine laws like yours would send women back to seeking "back alley" abortions, which can still be very dangerous, depending. So personally, I hope as a nation we never go back to that.

Originally posted by Robtard
Seems far to limiting and extreme in telling women what they can and can not do with their own bodies and events that will have a massive impact on their lives. I'd personally hate it if someone tried to have a similar control over my person.

I also imagine laws like yours would send women back to seeking "back alley" abortions, which can still be very dangerous, depending. So personally, I hope as a nation we never go back to that.

The difference in our opinion is that I feel that it isn't just their body anymore. The child should have as much a right to its body/life as they do.

It's basically a risking a woman's health/affecting futures.

Vs

Killing a child.

For a choice the woman made and where the child had no choice.

It's a shitty choice, I know, but I would rather go for the lesser of the two evils from my perspective.

As for back alley abortions, not much we can do about that. After all, it is choice of the person to risk their health in acts that violate the law. Perhaps if we funnel money going to PP to improve sex ed (and make contraceptions even more accesible), make adoptions more accessible/a better choice we can reduce the numbers here.

I'm not claiming I have the answers but the question was what I wanted from a personal standpoint.

Edit. Fortunately, for everyone, as technology improves, the abortion debate may well become obsolete. I am looking forward to that day.

Originally posted by Robtard
Seems far to limiting and extreme in telling women what they can and can not do with their own bodies and events that will have a massive impact on their lives. I'd personally hate it if someone tried to have a similar control over my person.

I also imagine laws like yours would send women back to seeking "back alley" abortions, which can still be very dangerous, depending. So personally, I hope as a nation we never go back to that.

Rob, you seem like a pretty conservative, logical dude. Why do you lean pro-choice (if I'm understanding correctly)?

Not trying to be confrontational or derail the thread, but medicine and science like embryology and even pro-abortion advocates have stated abortion is the taking of a life (http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/). That unborn baby is just as much human as you or I or a 2-year old or a 22-year old. If a woman chooses to have a "back-alley" abortion, that is murder as well.

New Longitudinal Study Confirms That Women Who Get Abortions Do Not Suffer Psychological Harm

Originally posted by John Murdoch
Rob, you seem like a pretty conservative, logical dude. Why do you lean pro-choice (if I'm understanding correctly)?

Not trying to be confrontational or derail the thread, but medicine and science like embryology and even pro-abortion advocates have stated abortion is the taking of a life (http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/). That unborn baby is just as much human as you or I or a 2-year old or a 22-year old. If a woman chooses to have a "back-alley" abortion, that is murder as well.

Because I feel the right to one's own body is something that other people should have little to no say in.

No worries at all, feel free to give your points intelligently, it's welcome. Studies I've seen point to viability outside the womb being around 24 weeks(with outside medical aid of course). Sure there have been exceptions, just as even older babies (24+ weeks) have died outside the womb with medical support. So the 24 week limit seems to a sensible stance between both sides of the argument.

I take issue with your "if a woman chooses" in regards to back-alley abortions, if you take away a woman's rights/options, you're also in a sense dictating her future actions. Look at it this way, if through my actions I put you in a state of poverty/starvation and you "choose" to steal to feed yourself as that's the only option you see as survival, am I not in turn responsible as well?

Originally posted by Robtard
Look at it this way, if through my actions I put you in a state of poverty/starvation and you "choose" to steal to feed yourself as that's the only option you see as survival, am I not in turn responsible as well?

Depends on exactly what kind of actions you are talking about that put this person into poverty. Did you personally burn their house down or get them fired from their job?

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs7/2894418_o.gif

It's okay man, take a bit of time to think about the specifics.

Originally posted by Robtard
Because I feel the right to one's own body is something that other people should have little to no say in.

No worries at all, feel free to give your points intelligently, it's welcome. Studies I've seen point to viability outside the womb being around 24 weeks(with outside medical aid of course). Sure there have been exceptions, just as even older babies (24+ weeks) have died outside the womb with medical support. So the 24 week limit seems to a sensible stance between both sides of the argument.

I take issue with your "if a woman chooses" in regards to back-alley abortions, if you take away a woman's rights/options, you're also in a sense dictating her future actions. Look at it this way, if through my actions I put you in a state of poverty/starvation and you "choose" to steal to feed yourself as that's the only option you see as survival, am I not in turn responsible as well?

Originally posted by Surtur
Depends on exactly what kind of actions you are talking about that put this person into poverty. Did you personally burn their house down or get them fired from their job?

Although you would be responsible to an extent, it would not excuse my stealing, as that is still a crime that negatively effects another. Say you use this analogy in the case of abortion: a father abandons a woman he impregnates. The woman in questions should not be able to end the life of another human being regardless of the predicament in which she finds herself.

In the case of rape, the evidence still remains that the unborn are
still human.

http://afterabortion.org/2004/rape-incest-and-abortion-searching-beyond-the-myths-3/

Originally posted by Robtard
Because I feel the right to one's own body is something that other people should have little to no say in.

No worries at all, feel free to give your points intelligently, it's welcome. Studies I've seen point to viability outside the womb being around 24 weeks(with outside medical aid of course). Sure there have been exceptions, just as even older babies (24+ weeks) have died outside the womb with medical support. So the 24 week limit seems to a sensible stance between both sides of the argument.

I take issue with your "if a woman chooses" in regards to back-alley abortions, if you take away a woman's rights/options, you're also in a sense dictating her future actions. Look at it this way, if through my actions I put you in a state of poverty/starvation and you "choose" to steal to feed yourself as that's the only option you see as survival, am I not in turn responsible as well?

There is always a choice. Let the child live or try and illegally kill a child using illegal means (if such choice becomes made illegal). What "dictated" her choice is the perception that she would be much better off with the latter choice.

I find your analogy faulty, tbh. Hunger/the need to eat is a basic human physiological need. Non-pregnancy is not. You will 100% die from not eating. And if there is a strong risk of dying during pregnancy, then an abortion should be allowable (abortion via medical necessity). Fair enough, isn't it?

Originally posted by John Murdoch
Although you would be responsible to an extent, it would not excuse my stealing, as that is still a crime that negatively effects another. Say you use this analogy in the case of abortion: a father abandons a woman he impregnates. The woman in questions should not be able to end the life of another human being regardless of the predicament in which she finds herself.

In the case of rape, the evidence still remains that the unborn are
still human.

http://afterabortion.org/2004/rape-incest-and-abortion-searching-beyond-the-myths-3/

Exactly, there is no excuse for stealing or violence, and I'm tired of people playing the poverty card as a reason.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
There is always a choice. Let the child live or try and illegally kill a child using illegal means (if such choice becomes made illegal). What "dictated" her choice is the perception that she would be much better off with the latter choice.

I find your analogy faulty, tbh. Hunger/the need to eat is a basic human physiological need. Non-pregnancy is not. You will 100% die from not eating. And if there is a strong risk of dying during pregnancy, then an abortion should be allowable (abortion via medical necessity). Fair enough, isn't it?

Agreed, and yes the pro-choice side really pushes that "perception": you are better off ending a baby's life than having a baby. The choice in pro-choice never looks at all the wonderful benefits of having a child, even if having a child is a struggle.

Originally posted by Surtur
Exactly, there is no excuse for stealing or violence, and I'm tired of people playing the poverty card as a reason.

Agreed, it ain't ever right to do wrong.

Originally posted by John Murdoch
Agreed, and yes the pro-choice side really pushes that "perception": you are better off ending a baby's life than having a baby. The choice in pro-choice never looks at all the wonderful benefits of having a child, even if having a child is a struggle.

How the **** would you know? When was the last time you were forced to carry a pregnancy to term?

Just because he can't give birth doesn't mean he can't comment on the benefits of having a child. Since by "having" he obviously meant being a parent, not the actual act of giving birth.

Though don't get me wrong I think children are horrible little creatures.

Originally posted by Surtur
Just because he can't give birth doesn't mean he can't comment on the benefits of having a child. Since by "having" he obviously meant being a parent, not the actual act of giving birth.

Though don't get me wrong I think children are horrible little creatures.

He is clearly contrasting the benefits of having a baby with terminating a pregnancy:

Originally posted by John Murdoch
Agreed, and yes the pro-choice side really pushes that "perception": you are better off ending a baby's life than having a baby.

Originally posted by John Murdoch
Agreed, and yes the pro-choice side really pushes that "perception": you are better off ending a baby's life than having a baby. The choice in pro-choice never looks at all the wonderful benefits of having a child, even if having a child is a struggle.

I have yet to see that. Can you give some examples?