• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

Because a couple have a lot of emotional investment around getting pregnant and having a baby? It's so much more complicated than "gotcha! you would not be upset if it wasn't a baby!!"

Also, if pro lifers cared about women, children, and life they would ensure birth control and abortion was safe, legal, and attainable by anyone that needs it. Why? Because abortion rates drop when the above is in place.
 
The only people that really believe that abortion is the murder of a baby, and the equivalent of killing like an actual born baby are people that do something about it, like the abortion clinic firebombers and doctor killers. If you really thought 800,000 “babies” were being “murdered” you wouldn’t sit around and be like well maybe the courts and some laws will take care of this. No you would actually do something about it, so at least those criminals truly believe what they say and don’t use it as some wedge issue, emotional pull, or moral superiority play.

It’s like the purveyors of covid misinformation. You have the Fox News personalities, the Tuckers and Hannity that spew all the garbage about vaccine and my freedoms when they are double, triple vaccinated. It’s all just an emotional show for them they don’t believe the bullshit they are spewing, though they are probably self aware of that. Meanwhile you got televangelists and other crazies dying of covid, because at least they really believe what they are saying to others.
 
scooter84 said:
My point is just the opposite. I am sorry that happened to you - we have been through it ourselves as well. The fact that it is so gut wrenching just brings home the point that it is a baby - if not, why else would it hurt so much when that happens?
Click to expand...

This line of thinking presupposes that everyone is trying to get pregnant and excited about the prospect, which is simply not the case.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
The prolife argument centers on the sanctity of life and the arbitrary legal defining of life. The pro choice argument centers on a mother’s right to physical autonomy. Choosing to join the debate over the definition of life is choosing to debate on prolife grounds, which is a mistake. If you believe that mothers should have legal access to abortion then the debate on abortion should be centered on the bodily autonomy and liberty of a pregnant person. Any attempt to define life of a fetus in utero is only going to result in restricting the freedom of a pregnant mother. It’s a non-starter.
Click to expand...

All true, but again, this doesn't address embryos, fetal tissue, etc. In real life, there are a lot of discussions about fetal tissue, particularly now with COVID vaccines and anti-vaxxers using fetal tissue development as an ethical reason not to take the vaccine. These are real world discussions, not philosophical internet discussions, and starting with a mother's right to autonomy doesn't apply in these situations.
 
Rafi said:
All true, but again, this doesn't address embryos, fetal tissue, etc. In real life, there are a lot of discussions about fetal tissue, particularly now with COVID vaccines and anti-vaxxers using fetal tissue development as an ethical reason not to take the vaccine. These are real world discussions, not philosophical internet discussions, and starting with a mother's right to autonomy doesn't apply in these situations.
Click to expand...

I don’t understand your point in bringing those situations up because that’s not what’s being debated by the Supreme Court right now - it quite literally is whether or not individual states can set arbitrary limits on access to abortion. The medical usage of stem cells and fetal tissue is a completely separate debate regarding religious freedom. Even if Roe v Wade were overturned and certain individual states completely outlawed abortion, it would still be nationally legal to use fetal tissue and stem cells in medical research.
 
birdman said:
I used the phrase "blood and tissue" specifically because Wakebored said I have the "blood of 850000 fetuses" on my hands. Of course aborting a fetus is more than simply evacuating some blood and tissue, even though a pre-20 week fetus is not recognizable as human without significant contextual clues or some molecular/DNA analysis (I mean they have gills until about 18 weeks (I think)), it is still a very hard decision to make. I know this from personal experience.

Anyway, If we are going to make a chicken analogy, lets go with an egg. Crack an egg open before it's ready, even a fertilized egg that's been incubated for a couple weeks, and what you find inside is definitely not at all a chicken. Nobody calls a scrambled eggs "chicken" because it is not.
Click to expand...

Tell that to a vegan.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Respect to Kory’s rhetorical skill, but I prefer the acorn/fetus analogy. A fetus is not a baby, but it’s dishonest to compare it to something inert, regardless - this is 1 of a million topics where I feel that liberals refuse to reckon with hard truths. Fetus/Baby/Chicken Nugget, whatever you want to call it, an abortion is the termination of human life. That’s not worth arguing about, unless the discussion is viability.

An honest, general discussion of abortion isn’t quibbling over terms, but a discussion of a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. Should pregnant women be legally compelled to give birth? How can a pre-term fetus be given legal recognition without violating the freedom of the pregnant mother? What are the terms or limits of a mother’s legal obligation to their fetus?
Click to expand...

mdmh is the most honest left-leaning poster here. I rarely agree but he's the rare walker in this group of talkers.
 
WokeandBroke said:
Tell that to a vegan.
Click to expand...

You all see how much of a dead-end these rhetorical arguments are? The bodily autonomy of pregnant mothers is *the* debate, not whether or not an ovum has eyelashes at 7 weeks or whatever.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
An honest, general discussion of abortion isn’t quibbling over terms
Click to expand...

what you call "quibbling" I call rhetorical framing and all I was doing with my OP was pointing out the assumptions behind/baked into the term "unborn baby."
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
You all see how much of a dead-end these rhetorical arguments are? The bodily autonomy of pregnant mothers is *the* debate, not whether or not an ovum has eyelashes at 7 weeks or whatever.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. To the extent that the law recognizes an independent right to life belonging to the baby, then the analysis expands beyond the mother's right to privacy.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
You all see how much of a dead-end these rhetorical arguments are? The bodily autonomy of pregnant mothers is *the* debate, not whether or not an ovum has eyelashes at 7 weeks or whatever.
Click to expand...

well he's a shitty troll with a Santa-sized sack full of Ls, so
 
TenaciousKory said:
what you call "quibbling" I call rhetorical framing and all I was doing with my OP was pointing out the assumptions behind/baked into the term "unborn baby."
Click to expand...

#TriggerWarning for the rightwingers - deconstruction is CRITICAL THEORY
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
I don’t understand your point in bringing those situations up because that’s not what’s being debated by the Supreme Court right now - it quite literally is whether or not individual states can set arbitrary limits on access to abortion. The medical usage of stem cells and fetal tissue is a completely separate debate regarding religious freedom. Even if Roe v Wade were overturned and certain individual states completely outlawed abortion, it would still be nationally legal to use fetal tissue and stem cells in medical research.
Click to expand...

Oh, I wasn’t framing my discussion around the Supreme Court. This is the gun violence thread. The discussion turned to abortion because wokeandbroke shifted it there (huge surprise).

I was framing the discussion around everyday interactions and decision making, during which one cannot choose where to enter the discussion and abortion and fetal tissue are intimately associated.

But I get why you would focus on the Supreme Court decision, as that is obviously a large issue currently.
 
TenaciousKory said:
what you call "quibbling" I call rhetorical framing and all I was doing with my OP was pointing out the assumptions behind/baked into the term "unborn baby."
Click to expand...

Your framing is just as dishonest and manipulative as your opponents! A boneless chicken wing or nugget is a dead thing in its final form. The concept of “baby” as it’s used in this debate obviously involves living potential for a fetus to become a baby, and the emotional attachment to that potential. To bring in an analogy to living things, it is a very common occurence that people plant crops and those crops are eaten by animals as soon as they sprout. In this situation, would the planter mourn their lost sprout, or would they mourn their lost potential crop? It’s not intellectually honest for you to define that emotion for them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top