Does the government own your vagina?

Post Reply New Topic

But the question isn't of moralizing about being irresponsible (contrary to what AceOfSpades and Inuyasha seem to think)
the question would be the ethic, political and individual, involved in restricting access to reproductive control options, including abortions.

Thus far, I've heard nothing more than "I'm irritated stupid people do stupid things, therefore abortion is immoral".

Last edited by Bethie on 15 Apr 2011, 12:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

As AceOfSpades points out:





If it would cause such a problem the simple solution is don't have sexual intercourse in the first place.





The alternative is for me to say cold-blooded murder of one's own child is morally acceptable. Problem with abortion as you just pointed out yourself, is that it is usually used as birth control. Compared to the alternative of the child's being murdered brutally by having a tool shoved through their skull being poisoned and/or dismembered before they even get to take their first breath, I would say yeah the process of pregnancy is nothing more than an inconveinence. Pregnancy is only X monthes the average lifespan in the US is at least 60 to 70 years old. You are denying someone essentially their entire life over being stuck with them being in your womb for X number of months.

Some women do that. It is called controlling one's own body and its content. Zygotes have no rights that a women is bound to respect.

ruveyn

...as well as wether abortion is unethical and immoral or not, given that people like Inuyasha believe it is unethical and immoral, and disagree with your ethical views on the matter.


I lean more towards: "Abortion is necessary, before they (the urnborn) do stupid things".

They chose to have sex, so if the consequences are there is a pregnency, I'm going to point out as soon as there is any brain activity (which is detectable fairly early in the pregnency) it no longer is a women's rights issue. Brain activity means we have another human life in the equation, it doesn't matter how coherent the activity is, just the fact there is brain activity shows the child is alive. Now can the pro-abortion people here admit that is a good line to draw things. It is a biological milestone, the first brain activity is detectable. Or are you going to claim that infanticide is okay all the way up until they come home from the hospital.

(mr. rogers voice/on) Can you say irrelevant? Sure you can. (mr. rogers voice/off).

ruveyn

I'm missing how having sex negates ownership of one's person.

That's just silly.

Excuse me? I don't know what Operation Rescue ejaculate you've been swallowing.
Since the women who have abortions are disproportionately young, poor, and unmarried,
and abortion is not covered under insurance,
most women cannot afford to make a habit of abortion.
Do you realize how laughable all your claims sound to someone who's had actual extensive experience with Women's Health Clinics?

Illegal. And only used previously in cases where the fetus was ALREADY dead wherein it's head had swollen due to decomposition making a vaginal delivery dangerous.

Dilation and evacuation represents a tiny fraction of abortions, many of them after a miscarriage to prevent a woman from entering TOXIC SHOCK due to fetal decomposition.

The vast majority of abortions consist of a woman taking a pill and having a heavy period. The fetal entity is rarely discernible.

Even were your gruesome fantasy tales true, and representative of abortion, it doesn't constitute a right to parasitism.


If pregnancy was a single WEEK it would not negate individual ownership of their person.
That's aside from the obvious risks to one's health, livelihood, and education.

Ignorance is one thing. Making up absurd fantasy stories about ethics and a man opining about how insignificant pregnancy is are nothing short of absurd.

The fact that there is a pre-existing human being whose body must be subsisted on for months and ripped open during childbirth totally eludes you, doesn't it?

I do favor abortions, but I tend to agree with this, I mean, many people don't think of the consequences of their actions, so likely they get worried about the issue until pregancy comes in and not before, which I tend to find it funny, I don't know if I should call it being irresponsable, more like screwing, pun intended. Anyway, I haven't read most of the thread so I don't know AceOfSpades stand on the issue.


Abstinence programs don't seem to work, as much as you tell people to not have sex, when they find sexual activities to be so freaking good, they will do it regardless, more likely without thinking that much of the consequences after.

Last edited by blunnet on 15 Apr 2011, 12:36 am, edited 2 times in total.

lol I saw that.

No, from highschool.

Cause you do not own the child like ast though the child is simple property, and the child didn't ask to be conceived in your womb in the first place. So until, the child is ready to exit the womb and survive in the outside world I could care less about your conveinence.



I'm sorry you find the truth silly.



I had to do a debate on this topic in a debate class, so I'm well aware of the data.



Oh yeah thank God for President George W. Bush's "Born Alive," protections.



http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archiv ... r/08041004

It is more common than you are implying.



The pill doesn't always work.


If pregnancy was a single WEEK it would not negate individual ownership of their person.
That's aside from the obvious risks to one's health, livelihood, and education.[/quote]

You don't own the child, the child didn't ask to be put in a situation of being in your womb. You made the determination when you chose to have sex with some guy. So your behavior caused this, not the child, and thus the child's right to exist trumps your conveinece.



How about you can it with your sexist bigotry, I have just as much right to comment on this because I could have been the child you aborted, so I think I have some say because everyone was once in the womb of their mother. If you have a problem with that, I really could care less.

You are way out of line.

We all own our physical person.
Fetus's non-choice doesn't negate it. Are you dense?

Oh wow! You did a debate! I'm so impressed!
I worked in a Women's Health Clinic for THREE YEARS!
Gee, guess I win. Take your made up fantasy stories and cherry-picked facts elsewhere.

Yeah. Thank god for the deaths of thousands of women to save DEAD fetuses. Says a lot about you.

Maybe. A pro-life site sure as hell isn't convincing, nor does the commonality of this method alter the underlying issue.

Yes. When taken as instructed in the correct intervals, medical abortion does indeed always work.

If you wanna explain how those are exclusive, go right ahead.

We own our physical person.
Child's non-choice doesn't negate that.
For the tenth time.

Yup.

Missing a few deductive steps there.

Says the man advocating state-mandated pregnancy, and the suffering and death of thousands of women as a result.

In all likelihood, you and millions of others are here BECAUSE several women induced abortions at some point in the past.
I'm here because my mother's abortion brought about a sequence of events whereby she met my father,
as opposed to dropping out of college and raising a child in poverty.
Had you or I been aborted, we wouldn't have ever known it.

Everyone was once merely the nuclear DNA contained in a single sperm and egg.
I hope you rant against masturbation and ovulation as well.

I'm out of line because I care about women and children, and have actual years of EXPERIENCE in this subject?

Your "facts" fail. Your "reasoning" fails. And because of those your "ethics" fail.

I ask for a justification for abortion restriction, or a case for it being unethical,
and you repeat yourself incessantly no matter how many times your "points" have been addressed as untrue and fallacious.

I'mma start copying and pasting the same exact refutations I made a few pages back to save time, since we're STILL waiting for you to offer something new.

Maybe eventually you'll get the message that you need to come up with an argument that's not so pitifully easy to dismantle.

Inuyasha believes that zygotes have rights. They don't.

ruveyn

Sorry, but actually your earlier choice to have irresponsible sexual intercourse does negate it. If you really have a problem, how about you invest in the creation of artificial wombs so the child can be transferred to one and then adopted rather that you supporting the murder of your own child.



It was the research I did that led me to be so hard-core pro-life.



Guessing that equals abortion clinic.



Actually you just lost if you just admitted you used to work at an abortion clinic. You showed that you have absolutely no objectivity on the subject, and in fact arguably benefitted financially from the deaths of innocent children.



I fail to see how killing a child that is alive outside of the womb somehow saves a woman's life... You are full of it.



They have as much credibility as you do, based on your own admission.



Nope, there are times it does not work, further you can still get an STD because the pill will not protect you from that.



1. The child is human and you are human.
2. The child is carrying genetic material from both parents.

At worst the child is in a symbiotic relationship, because of the fact the child is continuing your genetic lineage. A tapeworm or other parasite is just in there to feed and possibly kill you. The child is a result of your actions and ensures your genetic heritage continues on to a new generation, so there is a benefit for you, and thus it is a symbiotic relationship.



You may own your physical person, but that does not mean you have the right to murder the child whom owns their own physical person. The fact of the matter is the only reason the child is even in your womb in the first place, is because you decided to have sexual intercourse and thus put the child in that situation to begin with. You and the guy you made out with, are responsible for you being pregnent, you put the child in the predicament of being in your womb in the first place. You do not have the right to murder the child for being inside you when you and the guy that you made out with are responsible for the child being there in the first place.



Then you admit it was your decision in the matter.



No, I am not. The voluntary action was to have sexual intercourse. The child had no say in the matter, and you put the child in the predicament of being in your womb in the first place. If you drag someone over to your house against their will and then decide to shoot them, that qualifies as kidnapping and murder.



The overwhelming majority of abortions have nothing to do with health threats to mother, rape, or incest. As I think you well know, I would appreciate if you can it with the sexist attitude.



Nope, I'd say millions of people aren't here because of women committing infanticide.



There are people whom have infants and still manage to get through college, sorry that you never got to know your sibling whom was killed before they could even take their first breath.



Killing someone whom is unconscious might not know what happened to themselves, but that doesn't mean it still isn't murder.



Stop quoting me out of context.



I put in bold the parts you deliberately left out in an attempt to misrepresent what I said. As to masturbation and ovulation, we are not dealing with another viable individual until the egg and sperm are combined resulting in fertilization. So again you make a false equivalency.



You don't care about children, you worked at a place that murdered children if my suspicions on the place you worked are correct. Your "experience" is precisely why a pro-life website has at least as much credibility as you do.



Actually it isn't my reasoning, facts, and ethics that is the failure here, it is yours. In this debate you tried to smear me as a sexist, which I am not, so I think I have beaten you on this topic.



Just because you think they are untrue, doesn't mean they are untrue. In fact by your own statement on your "experience" you may have just demolished your credibility on this topic completely.





You still haven't addressed my point on brain activity, or is it just that you don't care the child is alive and you view the child as nothing more than an ant that needs to be exterminated?



You haven't dismantled any of my arguments, you have merely given false equivalencies, and tried to conduct a smear campaign.



If they have brain activity (no matter how simple) and a heartbeat, then they are alive and due to their genetics a human. Therefore we are looking at another human being's right to exist. The Declaration of Independence includes life as an inalienable right.

what you say is true of any mammalian zygote. Do mice zygotes have rights too?

The Declaration of Independence pertains to already born human persons, not zygotes with subhuman brain function.

After a fetus is removed from the mother's womb let it pursue life, liberty and happiness elsewhere.

ruveyn