PortaJohn

[Mike Islander]

Rape represents a miniscule portion of unwanted pregnancies.
I'll repeat myself: This argument can't be had without the moral implications of killing.
Those folks are born with a kidney.
How about the zygote of a bald eagle?
If one is to believe the BOR this individual, whether they pass through the magic pussy or not(thereby making them a baby to some) are INHEIRENTLY endowed with INALIENABLE rights.
Seems I've heard those two capitalized words somewhere before...

R

Death is one of the consequences of terminating a pregnancy. Birth is another consequence. Abortion with death, and abortion resulting in a living baby are also both examples of terminating pregnancy. While there is a huge ick factor, I'm convinced that there is no rational argument to award a zygote, fetus, unborn child special rights that we do not award living, breathing babies, children, or adults. Bodily autonomy is an inalienable right that may, at times, result in the death of another person. As I said before, a viable fetus should not be intentionally killed during an abortion.

I know this is a tough argument to address without tremendous emotional baggage, but for me, when I look at the simple fact that we as a society fully understand that it would be WRONG to make someone donate a body part to save a life, it follows equally that someone who does not wish to continue being pregnant has that right, regardless of the outcome for the zygote, fetus, baby in the whom, whatever language you want to use. It's their body. The moral argument is powerful, but it has no play in this equation, only in the emotional space outside of the actual legal argument.

 

[quietmike]

Rape represents a miniscule portion of unwanted pregnancies.


R

Nevermind in Coker v Georgia and Kennedy v Louisiana SCOTUS ruled executing those who actually commit rape or incest is a violation of the 8th. So if we can't kill those who commit those crimes, what since does it make to kill an innocent third party to the crime?

 

[Mike Islander]

Voice is relevant regardless of your opinion. How else would the examples you provided be able to express their autonomy? People in comas have no voice hence no autonomy. Voice also means the cognitive ability to think and act as well as speak. In your example there is no difference between the deaf, mute microcephalic and a person in a coma because they have very similar brain activities.

By your own argument the microcephalic has body autonomy but why not a fetus, especially after 12 weeks of gestation? You cannot have it both ways and you have been incongruent with your argument - "I believe killing a viable fetus is wrong" while droning on about female bodily autonomy at all costs. You cannot have both.

Your aren't comprehending my argument at all. We could put this in a mathematical equation (which is how formal argument is best represented), and you will see that you are incorrect, or at least not addressing what I am actually arguing.

The baby has no right to the mother's body, just as the mother has no right to the child's body. What you have proposed, if extended to both parties, is that the mother could harvest the child's kidney to save her own life whether it would kill the child or not. We don't allow that either. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Emotion. The moral argument. Not what I am talking about at all.

I'm addressing the legal argument. Ending the pregnancy is the goal, not killing the fetus. It may kill the fetus, but that does not outweigh the rights of the mother. So if you can accomplish the goal without killing the fetus, that fulfills the fetus' right to life, without violating the mother's inherent bodily autonomy. And that, is the core of the bodily argument for the right to abortion.

I think most women should not get abortions. I think society would likely be better if no women got abortions. I also think society would be better if nobody cheated on their spouse or got shitfaced on a regular basis. Those are moral arguments. People can choose to do to their own bodies what they will. Adultery laws are unconstitutional. We don't legislate based on morality. We legislate based on rights and how they affect others. And there will be conflict. When there is conflict, some rights are prioritized over others.

 

[theLBC]

kind of pisses me off that so many people feed the monsters more money because they can't control themselves.
assuming this is covered my insurance, it means i am paying more because some lazy fat fucks think this is how to be "healthy".

 

[theLBC]

every time

 

[theLBC]

 

[Mike Islander]

And now I'm done with abortion. I've said what I believe and tried to lay out at least the basis for the argument. 69% of Americans agree that there is at least some right to end unwanted pregnancy, so I'm not in the minority here.

I'm NOT the enemy of Christians. I am a Christian. I believe it's MORALLY wrong to kill a child during an abortion. But I also believe in legal rights, and not a theocracy. To presume that we know what is best for someone, or to force one's religious views on others is abhorrent to me. To pretend we know the mind of God is preposterous. I wouldn't want it done to me and won't do it to others. We exist with a very broad variety of people, and my view is that we establish the legal system respecting very specific rights. And bodily autonomy is one that I'm not willing to violate.

 

[quietmike]

Your aren't comprehending my argument at all. We could put this in a mathematical equation (which is how formal argument is best represented), and you will see that you are incorrect, or at least not addressing what I am actually arguing.

The baby has no right to the mother's body, just as the mother has no right to the child's body. What you have proposed, if extended to both parties, is that the mother could harvest the child's kidney to save her own life whether it would kill the child or not. We don't allow that either. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Emotion. The moral argument. Not what I am talking about at all.

I'm addressing the legal argument. Ending the pregnancy is the goal, not killing the fetus. It may kill the fetus, but that does not outweigh the rights of the mother. So if you can accomplish the goal without killing the fetus, that fulfills the fetus' right to life, without violating the mother's inherent bodily autonomy. And that, is the core of the bodily argument for the right to abortion.

I think most women should not get abortions. I think society would likely be better if no women got abortions. I also think society would be better if nobody cheated on their spouse or got shitfaced on a regular basis. Those are moral arguments. People can choose to do to their own bodies what they will. Adultery laws are unconstitutional. We don't legislate based on morality. We legislate based on rights and how they affect others. And there will be conflict. When there is conflict, some rights are prioritized over others.

No emotional argument. Different DNA and blood type means it's not her body. During pregnancy mom's decidua produces special cytokines to biochemically hide the baby from mom's immune system lest it be attacked and killed as an invader.

 

[quietmike]

And now I'm done with abortion. I've said what I believe and tried to lay out at least the basis for the argument. 69% of Americans agree that there is at least some right to end unwanted pregnancy, so I'm not in the minority here.

I'm NOT the enemy of Christians. I am a Christian. I believe it's MORALLY wrong to kill a child during an abortion. But I also believe in legal rights, and not a theocracy. To presume that we know what is best for someone, or to force one's religious views on others is abhorrent to me. To pretend we know the mind of God is preposterous. I wouldn't want it done to me and won't do it to others. We exist with a very broad variety of people, and my view is that we establish the legal system respecting very specific rights. And bodily autonomy is one that I'm not willing to violate.

Lol Jesus was executed by the state for not following their laws.

 

[theLBC]

ya know, i want to laugh at this and say "about time", but instead i know that they will still get their welfare while more taxes are given to "testing" companies and "treatment" facilities that will do nothing to help addicts, but send kickbacks to the people that supported this sort of program.

San Francisco Mayor Calls for Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients

San Francisco Mayor London Breed proposed a plan which would require welfare recipients to undergo drug testing and engage in treatment programs.

www.breitbart.com

 

[theLBC]

 

[theLBC]

 

[Oryx]

Death is one of the consequences of terminating a pregnancy. Birth is another consequence. Abortion with death, and abortion resulting in a living baby are also both examples of terminating pregnancy. While there is a huge ick factor, I'm convinced that there is no rational argument to award a zygote, fetus, unborn child special rights that we do not award living, breathing babies, children, or adults. Bodily autonomy is an inalienable right that may, at times, result in the death of another person. As I said before, a viable fetus should not be intentionally killed during an abortion.

I know this is a tough argument to address without tremendous emotional baggage, but for me, when I look at the simple fact that we as a society fully understand that it would be WRONG to make someone donate a body part to save a life, it follows equally that someone who does not wish to continue being pregnant has that right, regardless of the outcome for the zygote, fetus, baby in the whom, whatever language you want to use. It's their body. The moral argument is powerful, but it has no play in this equation, only in the emotional space outside of the actual legal argument.

How is Birth a consequence of terminating a pregnancy?

Who/what provides the inalienable right of Bodily autonomy? ... Wouldn't that be a moral issue?

Isn't a fetus living? It's developed, but how far must it be developed for legal standing? Lot's of living and breathing humans that aren't developed ... .should they also be terminated?

Why would the topic of abortion be reduced to bodily autonomy only?

 

[lariat]

 

[Longshot231]

i don't know if this is legit

When they said that "justice is blind," that's not what they meant.

 

[Beefmanne]

How is Birth a consequence of terminating a pregnancy?

Who/what provides the inalienable right of Bodily autonomy? ... Wouldn't that be a moral issue?

Isn't a fetus living? It's developed, but how far must it be developed for legal standing? Lot's of living and breathing humans that aren't developed ... .should they also be terminated?

Why would the topic of abortion be reduced to bodily autonomy only?

Evil has to be rationalized.

 

[GrantB]

So if a fetus has no rights to use the mothers body , then it should be the same for a child. So according to that reasoning a mother or father could just abandon a child and leave it to die because as you stated they have no rights to my body or what I do or don’t do with my body.

 

[Mwalex]

Your aren't comprehending my argument at all. We could put this in a mathematical equation (which is how formal argument is best represented), and you will see that you are incorrect, or at least not addressing what I am actually arguing.

The baby has no right to the mother's body, just as the mother has no right to the child's body. What you have proposed, if extended to both parties, is that the mother could harvest the child's kidney to save her own life whether it would kill the child or not. We don't allow that either. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Emotion. The moral argument. Not what I am talking about at all.

I'm addressing the legal argument. Ending the pregnancy is the goal, not killing the fetus. It may kill the fetus, but that does not outweigh the rights of the mother. So if you can accomplish the goal without killing the fetus, that fulfills the fetus' right to life, without violating the mother's inherent bodily autonomy. And that, is the core of the bodily argument for the right to abortion.

I think most women should not get abortions. I think society would likely be better if no women got abortions. I also think society would be better if nobody cheated on their spouse or got shitfaced on a regular basis. Those are moral arguments. People can choose to do to their own bodies what they will. Adultery laws are unconstitutional. We don't legislate based on morality. We legislate based on rights and how they affect others. And there will be conflict. When there is conflict, some rights are prioritized over others.

I do understand your argument and how arrogant of you to think otherwise. I understand your circular, myopic, incongruent argument completely. The sad thing is that you are completely clueless, as exhibited by the comment your bolded, to my argument. I think your position is laughable and lacks conviction of any sort and is truly an easy, cowardly answer to a more complex issue. That being said we will agree to disagree and move on the other topics.

 

[UKDslayer]

My wife passed away in 2014 from Glioblastoma aka Brain Cancer.
Hit fast , lasted 10 weeks , a very brutal way to die.

Her ONLY vice was swilling diet- Mountain Dew like water. No illegal drugs , ate clean, never smoked …..maybe a Beer at a BBQ.
Knocked down a 2 liter in a minute..though
Not sure if its sweetened with aspartame per se ?

I'm sorry for your loss.

As I recall, Mountain Dew is a Pepsi product that contain Senomyx, a controversial "taste enhancer" derived from Human embryonic kidney cell line (HEK93). It was on the "religious" conservative radar for a while. Gatorade, Quaker, and Nestle use it widely as well.

 

[theLBC]

the problem isn't that women have abortions, the problem is that so many need abortions.

 

[david walter]

Once born, a fetus becomes a citizen, and as such is protected by the Constitutional right to life, and others are subject to laws protecting that citizen.

The Constitution extends its protections to citizens of the US or visiting citizens of other countries. In all cases, birth establishes citizenship.

There is a reasonable argument that the protections of the Constitution do not extend to the unborn.

So if a fetus has no rights to use the mothers body , then it should be the same for a child. So according to that reasoning a mother or father could just abandon a child and leave it to die because as you stated they have no rights to my body or what I do or don’t do with my body.

 

[theLBC]

this is what cops are for...remove the squatter because we are not allowed to do it ourselves. this is bullshit.

Rainier Valley homeowner lives in van while delinquent tenant lists rental on Airbnb

“I do come here often just to look at my house, and miss it …and wish I could be in it,” he said.

www.kiro7.com

 

[theLBC]

Once born, a fetus becomes a citizen, and as such is protected by the Constitutional right to life, and others are subject to laws protecting that citizen.

The Constitution extends its protections to citizens of the US or visiting citizens of other countries. In all cases, birth establishes citizenship.

There is a reasonable argument that the protections of the Constitution do not extend to the unborn.

than why is killing a pregnant woman 2 counts of homicide?

if the sperm donor has to pay child support even if he doesn't want the child, they should require his consent to kill it. jmo.

 

[Mr.BR]

So when are these folks going to hang for treason, COVID 19 plandemic now seems to be a CIA regime change op except the regime they were changing was a domestic one. Trump Admin

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Unfortunately this

 

[theLBC]

 

[Longshot231]

the problem isn't that women have abortions, the problem is that so many need abortions.

The problem isn't that they need abortions. The problem is that they want abortions.

 

[theLBC]

but not in israel, amiright?

Bloomberg to Biden: Kill American 'Xenophobia' by Importing Migrants

Joe Biden should smash opposition to migration by sending more migrants into Americans' jobs, says billionaire media baron Mike Bloomberg.

www.breitbart.com

 

[theLBC]

The problem isn't that they need abortions. The problem is that they want abortions.

actually, the fact that some may get pregnant on purpose because they get some sick thrill is grotesque, but i don't think it is that common.
what women (and the sperm donors) want is to avoid responsibility for their actions, and i would bet this extends beyond killing babies.
i would be willing to bet that women who get multiple abortions are more likely to have a dui on their records than a girl than has none.

 

[BLEE]

And now I'm done with abortion. I've said what I believe and tried to lay out at least the basis for the argument. 69% of Americans agree that there is at least some right to end unwanted pregnancy, so I'm not in the minority here.

I'm NOT the enemy of Christians. I am a Christian. I believe it's MORALLY wrong to kill a child during an abortion. But I also believe in legal rights, and not a theocracy. To presume that we know what is best for someone, or to force one's religious views on others is abhorrent to me. To pretend we know the mind of God is preposterous. I wouldn't want it done to me and won't do it to others. We exist with a very broad variety of people, and my view is that we establish the legal system respecting very specific rights. And bodily autonomy is one that I'm not willing to violate.

As a Christian, you know our bodies are not our own, but belong to the Creator, even the bodies of the unborn. Regardless of faith, the murder of the unborn is a symptom of a spiritual and moral decay of a dying society. Do you simply identify as a Christian, or have you asked Christ to forgive you of your sins and make your life his own? Have you read the Bible? A Christian knows what the Word of God says and believes it, even if we fail to live up to it 100% of the time. God's Grace is a wonderful thing. Absolutely, we can know the mind of God, to a a great degree. He tells us a great deal about His mind, in His word, we call the Holy Bible and daily conversations with Him, called prayer. God's Word and Law supersedes any "right" given by man. We are obligated to reject the laws of man that contradict the laws of God, including and especially abortion.

 

[TexPatriot]

Are these what they mean by lizard people? Seriously, WTF are these things?

 

[Bullfrog08]

My body has to show up to work to pay the taxes to support welfare bums. I strongly oppose supporting welfare bums, hence they're using my body against my will.

Abortion its a tough situation and hard for me to personally wrap my mind around. On one hand your killing a baby. Yes, a fucking baby!!! You are KILLING a child! A baby created out of love, bad choice, rape, or other. Its a baby! We dont kill babies!

On the other hand, if you and your buddy (your buddy with heart failure) got high/drunk/stoned or whatever (bad choice), and in that process your "stupidity" lead to you all somehow, in some "magical" way, connected his major heart artery, to your heart, and now his life is dependent on you to survive. Are you now a murderer if you disconnect that?

What if the same buddy drugged you (rape), and did this same thing without your knowledge. If you cut that "magical" artery, are you a murderer?

This should not be a legal item for the courts to decide. Rather a moral obligation for the parties involved. Unfortunately, we no longer live in a moral society. Well, we never really have. Best scenario, make smart choices, and dont engage in rape!

....or, do like I did at 22, go in and get those vas deferens cut. That'll prevent you from ever making the most selfish decision man can ever make......creating life.

 

[quietmike]

Abortion its a tough situation and hard for me to personally wrap my mind around. On one hand your killing a baby. Yes, a fucking baby!!! You are KILLING a child! A baby created out of love, bad choice, rape, or other. Its a baby! We dont kill babies!

On the other hand, if you and your buddy (your buddy with heart failure) got high/drunk/stoned or whatever (bad choice), and in that process your "stupidity" lead to you all somehow, in some "magical" way, connected his major heart artery, to your heart, and now his life is dependent on you to survive. Are you now a murderer if you disconnect that?

What if the same buddy drugged you (rape), and did this same thing without your knowledge. If you cut that "magical" artery, are you a murderer?

This should not be a legal item for the courts to decide. Rather a moral obligation for the parties involved. Unfortunately, we no longer live in a moral society. Well, we never really have. Best scenario, make smart choices, and dont engage in rape!

....or, do like I did at 22, go in and get those vas deferens cut. That'll prevent you from ever making the most selfish decision man can ever make......creating life.

Instead of creating a "magical connection" with you and your buddy's veins, imagine you're a conjoined twin who decides to take cyanide.
Are you morally culpable for killing your sibling?
Absolutely.

The only legal argument for courts to decide is if a fetus, an entity with a unique DNA code, counts as a seperate legal person.


Past leftys had pseudoscienctific reasons of why Native Americans and pre-civil rights African-Americans didn't really count as people and it was ok to kill them, abortion is no different. They also gave them "special" names to further dehumanize them to assuage the guilt over killing them.

 

[DuneBoer]

My wife passed away in 2014 from Glioblastoma aka Brain Cancer.
Hit fast , lasted 10 weeks , a very brutal way to die.

Her ONLY vice was swilling diet- Mountain Dew like water. No illegal drugs , ate clean, never smoked …..maybe a Beer at a BBQ.
Knocked down a 2 liter in a minute..though
Not sure if its sweetened with aspartame per se ?

Same with my sister. She lasted 8 weeks. Didn't drink any diet sodas. She was extrememley fit for her age 70. Would walk ,hike work outside in the hot sun. 8 weeks before she was dead. She had the COVID shot though.

 

[Emerson0311]

Fuck this moron. Abortion is about legal rights. Whether to do so or not is a moral (and sometimes medical) decision to exercise this basic human right of not being required to use your body to sustain another body. If men could get pregnant, we could get an abortion in 7/11.

Then why should abortion stop at birth? Many adult individuals would die without support, just like a premee. Perhaps a few “late term” ones in order?

Being responsible is about caring for those who cannot care for themselves. Random sex and killing the resulting baby is not progress.

 

[Emerson0311]

The woman has bodily autonomy. The fetus doesn't somehow get special rights that we don't afford to living, breathing people, to use the women's body against her will. People often don't choose to get pregnant, or don't choose to stay pregnant. That's their right, IMO. We extend that right to not saving living, breathing people. What justification for special rights to zygotes, fetuses, or viable fetuses, none of which have ever had any real interaction with society, have never had friends, aspirations, etc.?

Everyone that isn’t raped chooses to get pregnant. In cases of rape induced pregnancy, feel free to abort until 1 sec before birth. There, your entire argument is bullshit.

 

[Jsp556]

And now I'm done with abortion. I've said what I believe and tried to lay out at least the basis for the argument. 69% of Americans agree that there is at least some right to end unwanted pregnancy, so I'm not in the minority here.

I'm NOT the enemy of Christians. I am a Christian. I believe it's MORALLY wrong to kill a child during an abortion. But I also believe in legal rights, and not a theocracy. To presume that we know what is best for someone, or to force one's religious views on others is abhorrent to me. To pretend we know the mind of God is preposterous. I wouldn't want it done to me and won't do it to others. We exist with a very broad variety of people, and my view is that we establish the legal system respecting very specific rights. And bodily autonomy is one that I'm not willing to violate.

You either believe or you don’t. There are no fence sitters.

 

[rtB]

Would it be a sin to abort some of the posters in the PortaJohn?

 

[Jsp556]

Utterly off-topic from anything I am addressing. I have no interest in that discussion. I'm simply convince a woman should have a legal right to decide whether to stay pregnant or not. Full stop. As I said, why is it so obvious that a person has no legal obligation to save anyone else with a body part, but before that person is fully formed or even viable, suddenly that zygote or fetus has special rights not awarded to living, breathing people?

I'm on the side of the fence that says "I don't have the right to force anyone to use their body to save a life, whether of a living, breathing person that has friends, a beautiful smile, a lovely voice, and a joyful continence or a zygote, or a fetus, viable or not. It's a right in my opinion, which means it's absolute.

The moral question is separate. I'm 100% for more counselling, information on consequences, better funding for programs that would encourage pregnant women to carry to term and get help raising their children, or with the adoption process.

Would it be a sin to abort some of the posters in the PortaJohn?

Some would reject your premise. Off topic… Lmao. I wish I could do shit like that…..

I reject that law or statute. Cool. Doesn’t apply.

 

[TicTacTex]

Geez guys, there’s already an abortion thread in the Bear Pit. Go fire it back up and leave my news feed alone. Lol

 

[UKDslayer]

Who's responsible for these attacks on citizens? The God Damn white political class elite globalists who open the western
countries to the 3rd world ! The Europeans fought off the Muslims for centuries. Only to be sold out by political scum now!
Western culture is being murdered by the white political class elite globalists.

FIFY.

Your assuming they had "fair and honest" elections. They make that assumption about us too. They think we are idiots for electing PedoPeter.

 

[UKDslayer]

So when are these folks going to hang for treason, COVID 19 plandemic

ASGH. There will be no Nuremburg 2.0, no treason, no malfeasance, no liability.

 

[samadisoulcrusher]

Fuck this moron. Abortion is about legal rights. Whether to do so or not is a moral (and sometimes medical) decision to exercise this basic human right of not being required to use your body to sustain another body. If men could get pregnant, we could get an abortion in 7/11.

Is it right that I have a good chumk

FIFY.

Your assuming they had "fair and honest" elections. They make that assumption about us too. They think we are idiots for electing PedoPeter.

No. I don't assume they have fair or honest elections. I know that the majority of the western political class is corrupt. They don't represent their citizens , anymore than our scumbags represent our interests!

 

[Longshot231]

 

[samadisoulcrusher]

 

[theLBC]

what?

 

[lariat]

Wanna bet his popularity goes up again?

Trump Rages At "Deranged" NY Judge's 'Corporate Death Penalty' Decision | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[theLBC]

Tens of thousands of fake voters? FBI buries documents on possible nationwide vote fraud

The FBI is claiming that information regarding what appears to be a nationwide voter registration fraud scheme, involving possibly tens of thousands of fake voters, cannot be released because it is part of an "ongoing" investigation.

www.wnd.com

 

[theLBC]

Hunter Biden Email About $5M Burisma Pay Corroborates FD-1023

Hunter 'references $5 million in total from Burisma ... which I believe coincides with information on the FBI Form FD1023,' Ziegler said.

thefederalist.com

 

[MadDuner]

what?

Is this a subtle way of telling Arizona citizens that their governor is in Mexico collecting bribe money?

 

[theLBC]

what?