Originally posted by Robtard
It is, cos you got crushed with facts above. Now seethe some more over it.
No Rob, only your pathetic pals will agree with this. It's cuz you pull your same bullshit. You always do this. It's getting more and more transparent, but what I love? Is when you play dumb.
Go on, do it again. I want to see you act like you have no idea what I'm talking about.
Originally posted by Robtard
So Raptor22 is now "my pathetic pal" too because he also sees right through your ridiculous anti-abortion analogies here and broke down your points just the same using logic and reason and facts? Okay then, rageboy, you're done here, go take a nap or something.
I actually wasn't referring to him, he's just apparently not grasping what I'm saying. If he has a legit explanation for why dipshits can claim it's a life only if momma don't snuff it out I'm legit open to hearing it. So far no legit explanation has been given.
I await a legitimate argument...if there is one to be made. So far? Nada. Deal with it.
Originally posted by Robtard
Oh no, he's fully grasping what you're saying and why he also tore down your irrelevant points on the matter.It's been done; you ignore it every time.
Nothing was torn down, jesus is this like a disease with you guys? Just like Bash claiming Adam "tore down" the Convinton narrative. These things exist just in your minds.
Originally posted by Robtard
The last page of you not countering to points but instead responding with sharky dodges says otherwise.
The points were shit, present a valid one and I promise to counter it.
Pinky swear, present an actual valid argument. Explain why it's not a life cuz momma snuffed it, but it magically transforms into a life if someone else does.
Oh? And you need to use science.
Trying to convince you of something once you've dug in is nigh pointless, as has been shown again.
Going to let you in on a little not secret, you know how I know your angle is retarded? Because long ago in my younger and more stupid years I had the same beliefs. Luckily I outgrew that retardation there.
Originally posted by Surturbut having their life and/or health in danger is the wording of the proposed law in question that this threads about. Also i bring it up because even if it is rare (i have no idea about the actual statistics or if it is or isnt) its still a legitimate reason to have the option available so are pregnancys that are the result of a forced marriage, rape etc...
Bro, I think it's best you not even bring up abortions that are done due to the womans life being in danger. Its not genuine, because it's so very rare, most abortions are not done over it. It's not a legit argument. Murder is murder. If the womans life is legit in danger its self defense to abort the kid. If she was just too lazy or too stupid to take the pill or use a condom? It's not the same.Like I said: either it's a life or it's not. If it IS a life, No, momma can't snuff it. What have I said that is controversial here?
U keep trying to come up with hypothetical scenarios where u believe ur exposing an imperfection in a rule that pro chioce people think is perfect. but like any rule or law its not going to be perfect and will always be flawed. That doesnt mean we dont need them. Sometimes all there are, are shitty options, and we have to choose the least shitty out of the shit.
There are 2 sides pro and anti, but even within each side everyone has differing opinions and lines they draw. Different reasons as to when and why its acceptable or not.
Anyone on either side can come up with any number of hypothetical scenerios to punch holes in the oppositions views.
U think its ok if the mothers life is in danger. What if the mothers life is only in danger due to expected complications from the mothers excessive alcohol intake during her pregnancy? Its her own fault thru her selfish choices like in ur "whore" scenerios. Should she be allowed to get an abortion.
What about rape victims?
Before 24 weeks or after?
What if they're raped and dont know they're pregnat until past the deadline or cant get to a doctor?
What if the victim is a minor?
What if its after 24 weeks but shes 15 and the rapist is a family member and in a position of power over her and she couldnt get away sooner?
What if she cant prove shes been raped?
Should she have too?
There are no good or easy answers. Just the least shitty of the shit. And even though abortion might be a shitty solution it has to be an option available to those women who need it.
Lastly i already explained what was controversial. Ur analogy that compared 2 things as equals that were actually miles apart.
Originally posted by Raptor22
ok but there is an enormous difference between the two scenarios in ur analogy, in which ur acting like they're exactly the same, yet in reality they're massively different.On one hand u have a guy who beats a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage and on the other hand u have a woman who's life/health are in danger and decides to abort.
To make it a more fair comparison they guy in your analogy would have to have his life/health in jeopardy and the cause of it would have to be the pregnant woman, If that were the case then no it wouldnt be murder it would be self defense.
Originally posted by Raptor22
but having their life and/or health in danger is the wording of the proposed law in question that this threads about. Also i bring it up because even if it is rare (i have no idea about the actual statistics or if it is or isnt) its still a legitimate reason to have the option available so are pregnancys that are the result of a forced marriage, rape etc...U keep trying to come up with hypothetical scenarios where u believe ur exposing an imperfection in a rule that pro chioce people think is perfect. but like any rule or law its not going to be perfect and will always be flawed. That doesnt mean we dont need them. Sometimes all there are, are shitty options, and we have to choose the least shitty out of the shit.
There are 2 sides pro and anti, but even within each side everyone has differing opinions and lines they draw. Different reasons as to when and why its acceptable or not.
Anyone on either side can come up with any number of hypothetical scenerios to punch holes in the oppositions views.
U think its ok if the mothers life is in danger. What if the mothers life is only in danger due to expected complications from the mothers excessive alcohol intake during her pregnancy? Its her own fault thru her selfish choices like in ur "whore" scenerios. Should she be allowed to get an abortion.
What about rape victims?
Before 24 weeks or after?
What if they're raped and dont know they're pregnat until past the deadline or cant get to a doctor?
What if the victim is a minor?
What if its after 24 weeks but shes 15 and the rapist is a family member and in a position of power over her and she couldnt get away sooner?
What if she cant prove shes been raped?
Should she have too?
There are no good or easy answers. Just the least shitty of the shit. And even though abortion might be a shitty solution it has to be an option available to those women who need it.
Lastly i already explained what was controversial. Ur analogy that compared 2 things as equals that were actually miles apart.
Originally posted by darthgooberid have to put some thought into those to avoid speaking from a place of ignorance. But that kinda of goes to my whole point of there being no easy answers.
So here's a question, if a woman causes her own abortion via excessive drug/alcohol use or negligence like horseback riding be charged with murder?I'm pro choice, but you're using extreme examples to support a blanket policy which seems a little... "off". Suppose there was allowances/exceptions made for all the extremes... rape, incest, under the age of legal consent, etc. Would you then be ok with a law against abortion?
My intention wasnt to use those extreme examples to support my personal policy but to show Surtur that any/either/both sides could use extreme hypotheticals to poke holes in the other side.
That last question is super complicated and not trying to beat a dead horse but no easy answer lol.
First theres no way to cover all the extremes. I mean how much crazy, unbelievable, stuff happens everyday that no one could ever predict. What happens when something extreme happens that none of the law makers thought of? What counts as extreme and what doesnt and who decides?
After those decisions are made, would there be some sort of interview/interrogation process, where rape, incest, etc... would have to be proven befor a procedure be allowed? What if theres no documentaion or proof? Is it claim denied? If none of those things are implemented what would stop anyone from just claiming rape to get an abortion card?
Thats why my position isnt based on wheather its good or bad, right or wrong, or my own personal morality. Those things have to be thrown out the window for the greater good(screw u Grindewald for making that sound evil). My opinion is based on my belief that its necessary in a world with so much variability the best solution is the one with the most options available to the people who need them the most.
Originally posted by Raptor22
[B]but having their life and/or health in danger is the wording of the proposed law in question that this threads about.
Awesome! And my comment wasn't about the article though, it was very specifically about a certain type of person. I felt that was clear in my original post, perhaps it wasn't.
U keep trying to come up with hypothetical scenarios where u believe ur exposing an imperfection in a rule that pro chioce people think is perfect. but like any rule or law its not going to be perfect and will always be flawed. That doesnt mean we dont need them. Sometimes all there are, are shitty options, and we have to choose the least shitty out of the shit.
No see I wasn't talking about exposing the rule talked about in the article as imperfect. I've made this point many times in the past.
There are 2 sides pro and anti, but even within each side everyone has differing opinions and lines they draw. Different reasons as to when and why its acceptable or not.Anyone on either side can come up with any number of hypothetical scenerios to punch holes in the oppositions views.
And I'm just gonna snip away the rest of your post because it never addresses my original point cuz it's all crazy hypothetical's that are utterly irrelevant to my main point.
Either it's a life or it's not. If it's not a life it is not capable of being murdered by anyone. Please come up with a counter argument to that logic. And "the law says abortion isn't murder" is not a counter argument to it because "but the law!" is not the excuse some give. I guarantee sometime in your life you've heard someone make the "it's not murder cuz it's not a life" argument.
Matt always gives an interesting perspective into things:
In Signing New Abortion Expansion, Cuomo Misleads on Roe v Wade
Quote from Virginia Governor:
"If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen," he continued. "The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."
To the leftists here, what do you think he means when he says there will be a "discussion" between and physicians and the mother. Sounds like he is saying, even if they resuscitate the baby, there will still be a discussion in whether or not to kill it.
I'd love an alternate interpretation.
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Looks like the Left can finally stop pretending now...
And now other states are following New York's lead.
Why? I don't know. States always follow in New York and California's footsteps, for some reason.
Originally posted by Surturor they could he discussing the mother keeping the baby, adoption, foster homes etc...
Quote from Virginia Governor:[b]"If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen," he continued. "The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."
To the leftists here, what do you think he means when he says there will be a "discussion" between and physicians and the mother. Sounds like he is saying, even if they resuscitate the baby, there will still be a discussion in whether or not to kill it.
I'd love an alternate interpretation. [/B]