Page 29 of 56 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 558

Thread: Roe v Wade is on deck

  1. Top | #281
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    11,922
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    20,962
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    Ftr, the woman is not a “mother” until she gives birth to a baby. She is a pregnant woman. Calling her a mother drives her into a category she has not consented to occupy.
    Point taken but the given position is that a girl or a woman is mother to the fetus in biological terms. She may or may not have consented to be pregnant in the first place or to continue the pregnancy to any particular point. That does not change the biological relationship to the fetus.

    Biologically speaking, there is zero difference between an unwanted fetus and one which is wanted by the person carrying the pregnancy.

    When I had my first miscarriage, I was not thereafter “a mother.” When I had my second miscarriage, I was not then a “mother of two”. When my son was born, I became a mother. Prior to that, I was a pregnant woman. I am not now a “mother of six,” I am a mother of two.

  2. Top | #282
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    12,155
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,810
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    Ftr, the woman is not a “mother” until she gives birth to a baby. She is a pregnant woman. Calling her a mother drives her into a category she has not consented to occupy.
    Point taken but the given position is that a girl or a woman is mother to the fetus in biological terms. She may or may not have consented to be pregnant in the first place or to continue the pregnancy to any particular point. That does not change the biological relationship to the fetus.

    Biologically speaking, there is zero difference between an unwanted fetus and one which is wanted by the person carrying the pregnancy.

    When I had my first miscarriage, I was not thereafter “a mother.” When I had my second miscarriage, I was not then a “mother of two”. When my son was born, I became a mother. Prior to that, I was a pregnant woman. I am not now a “mother of six,” I am a mother of two.
    I was referring only to the relationship to the fetus. It is not: parasite: host. It is fetus: mother. If the fetus does not result in a live birth, the woman is not a mother to the fetus.

    I was speaking only in biological terms about the relationship between the fetus and the woman carrying the fetus. It bothers me greatly when people misuse terms to describe stages of pregnancy or refer to the fetus as a parasite because of my background.

    I am very sorry if I caused you any pain. I also lost a pregnancy, very early on in the pregnancy. It's an extremely painful loss.

  3. Top | #283
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    32,494
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    129,246
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    A new born baby is just as parasitically reliant as an unborn baby in terms of the provision of warmth and nutrition garnered from another human being.

    The disgusting (nazi) notion that its morally OK to destroy a human being based on this selfish concept of parasitic 'inconvenience' is what really lies at the heart of the pro-abortionists arguments.
    After birth anyone can care for the baby, nobody is being compelled to.

  4. Top | #284
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    32,494
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    129,246
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison View Post
    A reversal of Roe doesn’t lead and wouldn’t lead to forced organ donation, in part because the decision carved out an exception to State power to forbid abortion where the mother’s health is jeopardized by the pregnancy amd that would include the risk of loss of a body organ. So, no, this part of her argument doesn’t constitute as a “perfectly good argument.” Another reason the argument is deficient is because forced organ donation isn’t analogous to a pregnancy.
    The fundies do not want to believe there is any medical reason for abortion and if given their way they will deny it until either the fetus dies or the woman dies.

  5. Top | #285
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    6,135
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    9,046
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison View Post
    A reversal of Roe doesn’t lead and wouldn’t lead to forced organ donation, in part because the decision carved out an exception to State power to forbid abortion where the mother’s health is jeopardized by the pregnancy amd that would include the risk of loss of a body organ. So, no, this part of her argument doesn’t constitute as a “perfectly good argument.” Another reason the argument is deficient is because forced organ donation isn’t analogous to a pregnancy.
    The fundies do not want to believe there is any medical reason for abortion and if given their way they will deny it until either the fetus dies or the woman dies.
    I don't see, other than perhaps through sheer willful disregard for formal logic, a reversal of Roe, as everything here was, as James pointed out, the protection of the mother's health and the limitations there restricting abortion may very well end through the overturn of Roe. In other words, the decision that protects the integrity of our organs through jurisprudence is exactly the precedent under attack by James's own post.

    Of course, this is assuming James told the truth about Roe offering the precedent that restricted the state in this way.

    TL;DR: if roe contains that precedent, then overturning it absolutely bears the risk that precedent is revoked, and thus "overturning roe absolutely can lead to forced organ donation/loan"

  6. Top | #286
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    4,638
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    A new born baby is just as parasitically reliant as an unborn baby in terms of the provision of warmth and nutrition garnered from another human being.

    The disgusting (nazi) notion that its morally OK to destroy a human being based on this selfish concept of parasitic 'inconvenience' is what really lies at the heart of the pro-abortionists arguments.
    After birth anyone can care for the baby, nobody is being compelled to.
    There's tons of jurisdictions where it's illegal NOT to care for your child. (Neglect or negligent treatment.)

    You can go to jail for NOT reporting child abuse, neglect, malnutrition... (Mandatory reporting.)

    You are quite ignorant and wrong to claim nobody is compelled to care for new born babies.

  7. Top | #287
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    31,847
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    74,320
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    A new born baby is just as parasitically reliant as an unborn baby in terms of the provision of warmth and nutrition garnered from another human being.
    A baby ingests its own food, breaths its own air. It is not "just as parasitically reliant".

    The disgusting (nazi) notion that its morally OK to destroy a human being based on this selfish concept of parasitic 'inconvenience' is what really lies at the heart of the pro-abortionists arguments.
    Yeah, when you need to play the Nazi card, one knows their inhumane argument doesn't carry as much water as they project it does.

  8. Top | #288
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    12,155
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,810
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    A new born baby is just as parasitically reliant as an unborn baby in terms of the provision of warmth and nutrition garnered from another human being.

    The disgusting (nazi) notion that its morally OK to destroy a human being based on this selfish concept of parasitic 'inconvenience' is what really lies at the heart of the pro-abortionists arguments.
    After birth anyone can care for the baby, nobody is being compelled to.
    There's tons of jurisdictions where it's illegal NOT to care for your child. (Neglect or negligent treatment.)

    You can go to jail for NOT reporting child abuse, neglect, malnutrition... (Mandatory reporting.)

    You are quite ignorant and wrong to claim nobody is compelled to care for new born babies.
    Parents can relinquish their child and their parental rights if they are unable or unwilling to care fir their child.

    Mandatory reporting applies to only certain categories of professions, not the general population.

  9. Top | #289
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Layton, UT
    Posts
    2,540
    Rep Power
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post

    There's tons of jurisdictions where it's illegal NOT to care for your child. (Neglect or negligent treatment.)

    You can go to jail for NOT reporting child abuse, neglect, malnutrition... (Mandatory reporting.)

    You are quite ignorant and wrong to claim nobody is compelled to care for new born babies.
    Parents can relinquish their child and their parental rights if they are unable or unwilling to care fir their child.

    Mandatory reporting applies to only certain categories of professions, not the general population.
    Not sure why you bother replying when it's clear he won't listen to anything remotely reasonable (or factual for that matter). it's catholic dogma, plain and simple. That's all that matters, even though catholics are only a tiny percentage of the world/US population, they think everyone else should adhere to their religion.

  10. Top | #290
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    12,155
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,810
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post

    There's tons of jurisdictions where it's illegal NOT to care for your child. (Neglect or negligent treatment.)

    You can go to jail for NOT reporting child abuse, neglect, malnutrition... (Mandatory reporting.)

    You are quite ignorant and wrong to claim nobody is compelled to care for new born babies.
    Parents can relinquish their child and their parental rights if they are unable or unwilling to care fir their child.

    Mandatory reporting applies to only certain categories of professions, not the general population.
    Not sure why you bother replying when it's clear he won't listen to anything remotely reasonable (or factual for that matter). it's catholic dogma, plain and simple. That's all that matters, even though catholics are only a tiny percentage of the world/US population, they think everyone else should adhere to their religion.
    I certainly have seen the same dogma in evangelical Christians. I would not have pegged him as a Catholic.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •