Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Probably because it is a VERY IMPORTANT Side Story. [/B]
Northam's racist shit is not relevant to the abortion discussion, even if he's had a few things to say about abortion on public record.
Bringing up the amount of shit he's getting for it here is like joining a lively discussion about the original Predator movie, and constantly bringing up the fact that the guy who played Hawkins directed The Predator in 2018.
Good to know, but it has **** all to do with what we're talking about.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Thanks man. That was five years ago. 🙂 my daughter is a bundle of energy and a little too smart for my own good. Has her mom’s spunk, too.Anyway, but if you look deeper into the definition of “health”, it can go further than just rape and incest. One of the purposes of law is to prevent abuse. And as such the law should be worded to prevent abuse, not welcome it. I’m not a lawyer but I feel that law is so broad that just about anything can be package to fall into it.
There are always extreme cases. Rape and incest are a few reasons regarding what may constitute a “mental health risk” but the wording of “mental/emotional/familial health risk” is vague and can easily be abused. It would have been easier to just define specifically the extreme cases rather than create a very vague terminology when human life is at stake. Even you have to agree that the current abortion laws are pretty loose already and women have gotten abortions for very selfish reasons and that this law has simply extended this discretion up to birth.
That child is not her body, it is dependent on her but she does not own it. And that law covers the killing up to an undoubtably fully formed person. Someone who can feel pain and fear and can even listen to music and react to it. The child is not her property that she can simply dispose of, he’/she’s a person. The whole “it’s my body” argument at this point is BS to me at this point, tbh. It is no longer about “not life” vs “my body”, it the factually the life of a human being vs the idea of choice being absolute. Sooner or later we have to decide w/c is more important.
Can a doctor opt out of saving a patient’s life if they don’t want to? It’s their body after all, so it’s choice, isn’t it? And she could always opt out by delivering the baby early. Not a great solution, I agree but I feel that it’s still better than outright murder.
Question, if you were dangling off a cliff and you grabbed onto my arm to save yourself, and we got stuck in that position for a few hours (let’s say there’s a danger to me, but it isn’t that much) is it ok for me to punch you off my arm? What if I took my gun and shot you in the head so my arm is freed? Is that legal (seriously, I don’t know)?
There should already be no question whether a child an hour away from delivery vs a child just delivered are different or not. Those are the same living human beings. There is literally no difference other than their location.
I still have to ask again though: Is there a limit to this “choice” position of yours? At one point is too much? What about post-birth? Can you at least agree that NOW, NOW this is basically the legalized killing of human beings?
TLDR: Yes, there's a line. I'll be damned if I know how to be precise with it though.
I actually agree about how vague it is. The issue I have is that you can't be too specific either, because then you're still hurting people, because you know someone will abuse that too.
I never said the child was her body, just that her body is where this is all taking place. And it is. The foetus/baby/infant and the mother are linked in a whole bunch of ways for the pregnancy, and what affects one will usually affect the other. You can't, as much as it would be nice to, separate them.
A child with massive brain damage that will have a shit quality of life can still do all of the things you mentioned. I'm not being petty; I think we just need better qualifiers/criteria.
You say the "it's my body" argument is BS, but the counterpoint is that you're still enforcing your will upon that of another Human being. But then, we get in to more discussions about whose life has more importance, and that's just messy.
If we were in that position, I would expect your desire for survival to be equal to mine. If you were in danger of falling with me, I'd expect you to do everything in your power to survive. I don't know what point that makes, though.
Of course there's a limit. I thought I made that clear. What was it... A foetus is conscious at six months, last I checked. Is that enough for some people? Is it enough for me? I don't know. I would definitely be uncomfortable with aborting a six month old foetus, knowing what it was capable of. What other milestones do people think are the important ones? What about you?
To clarify my own position:
-I still think the mental health of the mother cannot be discarded. There are more traumas than rape or incest. Carefully considered, though, with proper measures taken by the most qualified people. No Mickey Mouse stuff.
-If the infant is going to have what will amount to a shit life because of abnormalities/disabilities, I honestly have no problem terminating. IMO, they're better off than having to go through a life of suffering.
Those are just two of the reasons I'm never going to oppose abortion in principle. I don't think anyone should ever treat it as glorified birth-control, no, but I think it's an option that should be available when needed.
Originally posted by -Pr-
TLDR: Yes, there's a line. I'll be damned if I know how to be precise with it though.I actually agree about how vague it is. The issue I have is that you can't be too specific either, because then you're still hurting people, because you know someone will abuse that too.
I never said the child was her body, just that her body is where this is all taking place. And it is. The foetus/baby/infant and the mother are linked in a whole bunch of ways for the pregnancy, and what affects one will usually affect the other. You can't, as much as it would be nice to, separate them.
A child with massive brain damage that will have a shit quality of life can still do all of the things you mentioned. I'm not being petty; I think we just need better qualifiers/criteria.
You say the "it's my body" argument is BS, but the counterpoint is that you're still enforcing your will upon that of another Human being. But then, we get in to more discussions about whose life has more importance, and that's just messy.
If we were in that position, I would expect your desire for survival to be equal to mine. If you were in danger of falling with me, I'd expect you to do everything in your power to survive. I don't know what point that makes, though.
Of course there's a limit. I thought I made that clear. What was it... A foetus is conscious at six months, last I checked. Is that enough for some people? Is it enough for me? I don't know. I would definitely be uncomfortable with aborting a six month old foetus, knowing what it was capable of. What other milestones do people think are the important ones? What about you?
To clarify my own position:
-I still think the mental health of the mother cannot be discarded. There are more traumas than rape or incest. Carefully considered, though, with proper measures taken by the most qualified people. No Mickey Mouse stuff.
-If the infant is going to have what will amount to a shit life because of abnormalities/disabilities, I honestly have no problem terminating. IMO, they're better off than having to go through a life of suffering.Those are just two of the reasons I'm never going to oppose abortion in principle. I don't think anyone should ever treat it as glorified birth-control, no, but I think it's an option that should be available when needed.
But don’t you agree that NOW the NY law as it is written has basically allowed the killing of full persons, human beings? There is no difference now between a baby two hours from birth with a baby just delivered. This is the killing of a human child and a person.
Not trying to be accusative (and please if my language starts to look like it is, pls know that it is not the intention and I apologize in advance if it does and let me know how I can fix it). But don’t you feel that maybe it’s a form of cognitive dissonance that’s keeping you from actually looking at this logically and comprehensively? I feel something is keeping you from making an actual choice, like it’s a burning coal kind of sensitive topic you do not wish to touch/hold for too long due to your political beliefs.
There will always be abuse, I agree. But I feel that we need to err at the side of life. Don’t you think a law with such weight and such impact that a life hangs in the balance should be more specific than vague? Can you agree that the law as it is written in NY is wrong due to its potential for abuse? Can you join me in condemning it then in this regard?
Of course, I agree. In fact, if you really opened your mind here, you’d see that our beliefs are so close that it’s almost silly that we’re arguing about it. With one difference: I believe choice is not an absolute, we are always going to be a slave to our circumstances, our environment, our bodies and by nature and many other factors. I believe we should weigh the value of choice the way we weigh everything else.
This is not about “my will” or what I want, though. This is about our humanity as a society. Choice is NOT an absolute, we cannot “choose” to kill another person just because they invade our personal space or just because they have become an inconvenience. There is no perfect answers, but to be objective we need to weigh things and decide what in our society should have more value. What is more important, a woman’s bodily “choices” for 9 months (3 months really as society has mostly conceded on the 24 month “grace period”) or the entire life of a helpless child? It’s a simple choice at this point. And it should be an easy one if only the child wasn’t dehumanized by the media and the left.
I do agree that a child with brain damage can do everything I just said. But your point escapes me, would you be ok with euthanizing against their will a child who got into an accident and got brain damage as a result?
I would die for my daughter. Heck, I would kill to protect her. And when I held her for the first time it was clear that I loved her more than I do myself my wife and everyone else in the world. And if I ever had to make a choice between my wife and her, I would pick her 100 out 100 times. And my wife feels the same way. And we do not feel that it makes one love the other less. Just that this type of love transcends everything else we’ve felt in the past. There exists a huge disconnect somewhere in our humanity where a parent can value this one life more than anything and everything and then a narrative comes out that somehow this life is suddenly just some sort of commodity or inconvenience that can be discarded at will. How is killing a child with so much value and potential only making ppl within a political spectrum only “uncomfortable”? Of all the things that can incite anger and rage and despair among the masses, the intentional killing of a helpless faultless baby should be at the very top. And dumb smirking kids with red hats should be at the bottom. But somehow media and our celebrities have, thru a long campaign of dehumanization in the guise of “empowerment”, has convinced basically half of society otherwise.
But that’s just the thing. I don’t oppose abortion as a medical procedure. And most pro-lifers don’t. Believe it or not. You might see the cook-y ones and some purists and extremists that want a full ban but those ppl are as common as SJW extremists that think Mary Poppins is a racist. Most of us understand the necessity of the medical procedure when needed and I think we can both agree on this at this point. The devil is in the details and our problem is with the vague writing of the law and the fact that it now unequivocally covers fully-capable-of-being-born-and-living babies.
TLDR: Again, to reiterate my position (and I hope that we can get past this logical sticking point as it was brought up again), I am not against abortion as a medical procedure. I am against abortion that can be used as a form of birth control and as a way to escape responsibility. And that was already possible within the law and this new law has extended it to mean actual children. Can you at least join me in condemning this aspect of it?
Originally posted by Nibedicus
But don’t you agree that NOW the NY law as it is written has basically allowed the killing of full persons, human beings? There is no difference now between a baby two hours from birth with a baby just delivered. This is the killing of a human child and a person.Not trying to be accusative (and please if my language starts to look like it is, pls know that it is not the intention and I apologize in advance if it does and let me know how I can fix it). But don’t you feel that maybe it’s a form of cognitive dissonance that’s keeping you from actually looking at this logically and comprehensively? I feel something is keeping you from making an actual choice, like it’s a burning coal kind of sensitive topic you do not wish to touch/hold for too long due to your political beliefs.
There will always be abuse, I agree. But I feel that we need to err at the side of life. Don’t you think a law with such weight and such impact that a life hangs in the balance should be more specific than vague? Can you agree that the law as it is written in NY is wrong due to its potential for abuse? Can you join me in condemning it then in this regard?
Of course, I agree. In fact, if you really opened your mind here, you’d see that our beliefs are so close that it’s almost silly that we’re arguing about it. With one difference: I believe choice is not an absolute, we are always going to be a slave to our circumstances, our environment, our bodies and by nature and many other factors. I believe we should weigh the value of choice the way we weigh everything else.
This is not about “my will” or what I want, though. This is about our humanity as a society. Choice is NOT an absolute, we cannot “choose” to kill another person just because they invade our personal space or just because they have become an inconvenience. There is no perfect answers, but to be objective we need to weigh things and decide what in our society should have more value. What is more important, a woman’s bodily “choices” for 9 months (3 months really as society has mostly conceded on the 24 month “grace period”) or the entire life of a helpless child? It’s a simple choice at this point. And it should be an easy one if only the child wasn’t dehumanized by the media and the left.
I do agree that a child with brain damage can do everything I just said. But your point escapes me, would you be ok with euthanizing against their will a child who got into an accident and got brain damage as a result?
I would die for my daughter. Heck, I would kill to protect her. And when I held her for the first time it was clear that I loved her more than I do myself my wife and everyone else in the world. And if I ever had to make a choice between my wife and her, I would pick her 100 out 100 times. And my wife feels the same way. And we do not feel that it makes one love the other less. Just that this type of love transcends everything else we’ve felt in the past. There exists a huge disconnect somewhere in our humanity where a parent can value this one life more than anything and everything and then a narrative comes out that somehow this life is suddenly just some sort of commodity or inconvenience that can be discarded at will. How is killing a child with so much value and potential only making ppl within a political spectrum only “uncomfortable”? Of all the things that can incite anger and rage and despair among the masses, the intentional killing of a helpless faultless baby should be at the very top. And dumb smirking kids with red hats should be at the bottom. But somehow media and our celebrities have, thru a long campaign of dehumanization in the guise of “empowerment”, has convinced basically half of society otherwise.
But that’s just the thing. I don’t oppose abortion as a medical procedure. And most pro-lifers don’t. Believe it or not. You might see the cook-y ones and some purists and extremists that want a full ban but those ppl are as common as SJW extremists that think Mary Poppins is a racist. Most of us understand the necessity of the medical procedure when needed and I think we can both agree on this at this point. The devil is in the details and our problem is with the vague writing of the law and the fact that it now unequivocally covers fully-capable-of-being-born-and-living babies.
TLDR: Again, to reiterate my position (and I hope that we can get past this logical sticking point as it was brought up again), I am not against abortion as a medical procedure. I am against abortion that can be used as a form of birth control and as a way to escape responsibility. And that was already possible within the law and this new law has extended it to mean actual children. Can you at least join me in condemning this aspect of it?
I already said I agreed that the law was written too vaguely. I already also said that I don't like the idea of late-term abortion as a kind of "casual" birth control, though I can't imagine that's something that would be that common anyway. I do, however, support it in the cases where it is medically necessary, whether for the physical and/or mental health of the mother.
My issue with making it too specific is that it inevitably leads too people with agendas deciding "oh, you don't meet this one, tiny criteria, no termination for you". And it most-likely will. That doesn't mean that you can make it as vague as possible. A happy middle has to be found. Like in everything.
I'm really not seeing what it is about my viewpoint that you find so closed-minded. If that's my failing, then so be it.
Originally posted by -Pr-
I already said I agreed that the law was written too vaguely. I already also said that I don't like the idea of late-term abortion as a kind of "casual" birth control, though I can't imagine that's something that would be that common anyway. I do, however, support it in the cases where it is medically necessary, whether for the physical and/or mental health of the mother.My issue with making it too specific is that it inevitably leads too people with agendas deciding "oh, you don't meet this one, tiny criteria, no termination for you". And it most-likely will. That doesn't mean that you can make it as vague as possible. A happy middle has to be found. Like in everything.
I'm really not seeing what it is about my viewpoint that you find so closed-minded. If that's my failing, then so be it.
And I don’t disagree (well not enough to dwell on it). In fact, it’s amazing how close our positions are with a few things distinguishing them. We agree about it being bad when it is used as a form of birth control (though I disagre on the word”casual”, casual or not it should never be used as birth control). And I do agree that it is necassry for medical necessity tho I would want the specifics on what constitutes “mental health risk” extremely defined as this could lead to subjective use and abuse of the law. But as it is, these are not the points I wish to even discuss anymore as I feel that we are pretty close in this area.
I strongly disagree here. If a law is specific, then by nature it would be harder to “twist” it in order to abuse it. Vague laws are the ones that can be twisted by ppl with agendas. In fact, the more specific and comprehensive a law is, the less likely abuse can occur. There is a reason why bills are long and comprehensive. You’ll have to demonstrate how a law being specific can be abused to deny deserving candidates (because we can even include the tiny nuances that may or may not qualify within the defined range of acceptable circumstances). Maybe a poorly written one? But that still falls under “vague” laws than it does specific ones.
I don’t think you’re close minded at all. I’m sorry if you think I insinuated that. In fact I want to discuss this with you as you are one of the more even minded ppl in these forums that has an opposite view. And discussions like these, while ultimately irrelevant in the great scheme of things, allows us all to grow as persons.
However, I wish you would answer or even acknowledge my question on if you feel that a child an hour before delivery was a complete human being or not as this was the crux of our last discussion on this topic.
So since you haven't seen it that means it doesn't exist?
Well Here is your Chance! And its only 23 seconds! Hope you can FIND THE TIME!!!
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]So since you haven't seen it that means it doesn't exist?Well Here is your Chance! And its only 23 seconds! Hope you can FIND THE TIME!!!
YouTube video [/B]
Just saw it, so what do your 'tard instincts tell you to do now?
He claims his comment was in regards to babies with abnormalities. If, after a child is born, it is okay to kill it if it has abnormalities....why wouldn't it be okay to kill an 8 yr. old with the same abnormalities? Maybe his parents decided to keep him and after 8 yrs they are tired. Is that 8 yr. old any more of a human being than the newborn baby?
Originally posted by Surtur
He claims his comment was in regards to babies with abnormalities. If, after a child is born, it is okay to kill it if it has abnormalities....why wouldn't it be okay to kill an 8 yr. old with the same abnormalities? Maybe his parents decided to keep him and after 8 yrs they are tired. Is that 8 yr. old any more of a human being than the newborn baby?
It wouldn't be okay to kill either. A late-term abortion is one thing, but once the child is born, then it should be cared for even if born with health-impairing abnormalities. The parents could put the child up for adoption if they don't want it.