• 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!

Pro Life / Pro Choice Debate

jhmd2000 said:
So...you can't, ahem, conceive of an argument against abortion that an atheist could form?
Click to expand...

I'm not an atheist so I won't pretend to speak for them. There are plenty of moral arguments against abortion that do not require the belief that personhood begins at conception. I suppose there are also arguments an atheist could make that personhood indeed does begin at conception, though I struggle to see what those would be.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Oh Jesus, when did you develop your telekentic powers? I hope you are putting them to better use than losing arguments online.
Click to expand...

If I were you, I wouldn't confuse being #undefeated with actually being right about something.
 
RChildress107 said:
again this is what the pro-life movement is really about, faux concern for human rights aside.
Click to expand...

Right. When you conceive a child, you are responsible for providing for it. This makes me on the extreme here?
 
jhmd2000 said:
Right. When you conceive a child, you are responsible for providing for it. This makes me on the extreme here?
Click to expand...

The only provider for a child in-utero is its mother. If she terminates that pregnancy and murders the child, shouldn't she be prosecuted for murder?
 
WakeandBake said:
The Constitution protects people from murder, so you'd have to establish that there is indeed a person in there.

This is the correct argument which I cannot argue against. If we are to assume that at the moment of conception a person/baby is formed (which I have been doing on this thread), then yes they are protected by Constitution and the mother and doctor should be prosecuted for murder.

this is the only ion-clad argument against abortion I have ever seen. But it hinges on an unprovable, so we are right back where we started. Using the Bible to prove this is asinine, it is a book of lore. Using science is asinine because it is inexact.

round and round and round we go.
Click to expand...

The constitution doesn't protect anyone from murder. In theory a state could take all murder laws off the books without running afoul of the constitution. Criminal Law is left to the states, the only requirement is that it be applied equally. However, neither children or the unborn are a protected class under the constitution so the equal protection clause isn't that much help.

The constitution does however limit both state and federal government in certain areas. One of those areas is a woman's right to control her own womb. The state needs a compelling interest to interfere with that right. Even if a pre-viability fetus is a person I would argue that the government lacks the ultimate means to protect that "person" (physical restraint for ones own safety).
 
RChildress107 said:
The constitution doesn't protect anyone from murder. In theory a state could take all murder laws off the books without running afoul of the constitution. Criminal Law is left to the states, the only requirement is that it be applied equally. However, neither children or the unborn are a protected class under the constitution so the equal protection clause isn't that much help.

The constitution does however limit both state and federal government in certain areas. One of those areas is a woman's right to control her own womb. The state needs a compelling interest to interfere with that right. Even if a pre-viability fetus is a person I would argue that the government lacks the ultimate means to protect that "person" (physical restraint for ones own safety).
Click to expand...

And yet when an expecting woman is murdered by a third party and the baby dies, the assailant is charged with two homicides.

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Here's California's: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199
 
Last edited:
RChildress107 said:
The constitution doesn't protect anyone from murder. In theory a state could take all murder laws off the books without running afoul of the constitution. Criminal Law is left to the states, the only requirement is that it be applied equally. However, neither children or the unborn are a protected class under the constitution so the equal protection clause isn't that much help.

The constitution does however limit both state and federal government in certain areas. One of those areas is a woman's right to control her own womb. The state needs a compelling interest to interfere with that right. Even if a pre-viability fetus is a person I would argue that the government lacks the ultimate means to protect that "person" (physical restraint for ones own safety).
Click to expand...

Ah Jesus Christ a lawyer splitting hairs. Ok, not the Constitution, the fucking law.
 
jhmd2000 said:
And yet when an expecting woman is murdered by a third party and the baby dies, the assailant is charged with two homicides.

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
Click to expand...
Only in 38 States according to ncsl.org

Texas also regulates the hallway width of abortion clinics to be 8ft wide
 
Wrangor said:
Then in the 10,000 cases each year where Rape is involved we can have an honest discussion. Even though I don't agree with it, I would gladly give the Rape Exception if it meant that the other 950,000 abortions that were decided upon because of convenience were made illegal. Ill give up the 50,000 a year for rape, incest, health of the mother if I can have the other 950,000. I won't like it, but I'll make that deal. Lets move off that discussion, because I am way right on the abortion issue, and even I would give up the rape,incest,health exception if it meant actually addressing our abortion is a convenience epidemic.

Is that a deal you are willing to make? If not, there is no reason to continually bring it up, because no one is making that argument. Deal with the issue. 950,000 abortions give or take a couple of thousand based on work schedules, economics, or social status. None of those three are worthy counterweights to the life of an innocent child.
Click to expand...

Since you will not be having any abortions, you are interested in protecting unknown babies from being murdered.



Provided they aren't Iraqi or Afghani, of course.


thanks for weighing in.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Only in 38 States according to ncsl.org

Texas also regulates the hallway width of abortion clinics to be 8ft wide
Click to expand...

myDeaconmyhand said:
Oh, your opinion isnt just any opinion - it's a particularly bad opinion. It's logically inconsistent, overly simplistic, inconsiderate to dissent, and it manipulatively calls to emotion and religion.
Click to expand...

...and the law in 38 states. So much for your monopoly on logical consistency.
 
So jhmd and Wrangor agree - women who have abortions, and their physicians, should be prosecuted for murder. its quite clear.


right fellas?
 
jhmd2000 said:
...and the law in 38 states. So much for your monopoly on logical consistency.
Click to expand...
A confused jhmd argument appears! jhmd used fallacy of relevance!
It was ineffective!

There was no confusion about most state legislatures being beholden to Christian moralist interests such as your own. Most of those beliebers are just as illogical and inconsistent as you. It's logically inconsistent to call a conception a person and then not grant it all the rights and protections of personhood. It's also logically inconsistent to support total war and then oppose abortion as murder.
 
Last edited:
In this comedy sketch we have jhmd as the night manager at Denny's, and we have w&b as a pregnant lady challenging the "kids eat free" policy.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
A confused jhmd argument appears! jhmd used fallacy of relevance!
It was ineffective!

There was no confusion about most state legislatures being beholden to Christian moralist interests such as your own. Most of those beliebers are just as illogical and inconsistent as you. It's logically inconsistent to call a conception a person and then not grant it all the rights and protections of personhood. It's also logically inconsistent to support total war and the oppose abortion as murder.
Click to expand...

I just showed you a link to a statute in a majority of this Nations' States which says it is murder when the wrong person takes the life. Now might be a good time to climb down off the top of Mount Logical Consistency.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Right. When you conceive a child, you are responsible for providing for it. This makes me on the extreme here?
Click to expand...

And if they can't provide then they and their child are shit out of luck? We have really have to force a woman to carry a fetus to term and damn that child to a difficult life just to teach her a lesson in sexual morality?

In most cases the most responsible thing to do once you are pregnant and realize you can't provide for a child is to have an abortion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top