House Republicans submit HR586 - Human Life begins at fertilization - Polidicks

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51717239]My argument is that a 20 year old is more important and valuable than any fetus she carries. Nothing about eugenics. A really dangerous and scary road is being pregnant and being forced to have the child. Yeesh, imagine being in her shoes, eh? And some humans are most certainly more valuable than others. If I were to die, my family would weep. If Elon Musk were to die, the world would weep.[/QUOTE] See do you understand what this line of thinking entails? Legally all lives are considered equal. And I'm sorry it sucks for that 20 something but hopefully she has a good support system (family and friends, hopefully a supporting boyfriend). Or gets in touch with an institution which can help get the baby adopted. If I were to ever find myself in her shoes, then I would find a way to carry on and live with my choices cause that's how I was raised.

[QUOTE=Cap'nSpacePants;51717203]The value of the life of the mother and child are equal[/quote] Can you explain why? [quote]In criminal court there is legal precedent that it is immoral and indefensible to kill one person to save another, even if your life is at risk. It is still murder.[/QUOTE] That's not true though? [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide[/url]

The whole slippery-slope argument is pretty idiotic to employ here given in all the countries where abortion is legal there hasn't been any instance of infants being considered property over living beings simply because of the ability to abort them. Not to mention that at least in France if you keep having abortions liberally without actually using contraception the doctor will eventually tell you to fuck right off because at this point you're just grossly incompetent with managing your own sexual organs. [editline]24th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Cap'nSpacePants;51717265]See do you understand what this line of thinking entails? Legally all lives are considered equal.[/QUOTE] Literally wrong in a country with the death penalty and laws on self-defense.

[QUOTE=Cap'nSpacePants;51717265]See do you understand what this line of thinking entails? Legally all lives are considered equal. And I'm sorry it sucks for that 20 something but hopefully she has a good support system (family and friends, hopefully a supporting boyfriend). Or gets in touch with an institution which can help get the baby adopted. If I were to ever find myself in her shoes, then I would find a way to carry on and live with my choices cause that's how I was raised.[/QUOTE] "Fetuses need a chance to live, even if their mother cannot support them which can lead to a shitty life for both the mother and the child" So, the child's life only matters when they're inside the womb? Not when they're outside? Suffering is the better option? What kind of argument is this? This is some selfish, ass-backwards thinking.

[QUOTE=Sitkero;51716106]Would someone like to explain to me exactly what net benefit shutting down women's health centers actually has? Besides some bullshit line about saving a few cents of American taxpayer money here and there? I know the word has kind of been devalued to hell and back lately, but that is just straight misogyny, no two fuckin' ways around it. Even if you're anti-abortion you have to be willfully and deliberately ignorant to not know that women's health centers are about way [I]way[/I] more than that [editline]23rd January 2017[/editline] Seriously, I'm dying to know. I wanna know why your sisters and cousins and aunts and grandmas and mothers don't deserve specialized health options[/QUOTE] People whom have never have been pregnant don't give a fuck about people whom are pregnant because they imagine their magical skygod told them in the voice of Charlton Heston it's totally ok not to give a fuck about pregnancy other than it occurs after sex in the missionary position on your wedding night and once a year on your birthday thereafter. [editline]24th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;51717057]Wonder how many people fly to canada to get abortions.[/QUOTE] Rich people won't have to fly anywhere, they just get it done under the table, and as for poor people, they weren't going to fly anywhere in the first place.

[QUOTE=Cap'nSpacePants;51717203]The value of the life of the mother and child are equal, therefore it is wrong to choose one over the other.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Cap'nSpacePants;51717265]See do you understand what this line of thinking entails? Legally all lives are considered equal.[/QUOTE] So you're allowed to just state this as a fact and I guess we're fucked if we want to try and argue otherwise.

[QUOTE=Snowmew;51717258]I never said you said abortion should be totally illegal; in fact, I am [i]guiding[/i] you to that conclusion on the basis that medical exceptions are inherently eugenics in disguise, which you claimed wasn't to your fancy. \\ So your answer is, once again, inconclusive. The law indeed prescribes an ultimate exact percentage in loss of chance med mal wrongful death cases, regardless of your vague knowledge of procedure. Even ignoring that, given the hypothetical in which the chances [i]were[/i] resolute, you refuse to answer. So, your ultimate conclusion is just arbitrary bullshit (a "high chance of death" or a "totality of the circumstances [indicating] that the mother is going to die", which means nothing as it does not define an objective, or even reasonable, threshold) based on emotions and has no grounding in medicine, law, statistics, nor economics. If the value of the life of a mother and child are equal, you are essentially arguing that if the child's probability of survival exceeds the mother's chance of death, the state should prohibit an abortion as to favor the child, correct? In which case, can you justify banning abortion for a mother with a 95% chance of death and a child with a 99% chance of survival? Additionally, are you willing to allow an abortion for a mother with a 25% chance of death and a child with a 20% chance of survival? These are the problems that legislators and judges have to grapple with when doing this stuff, which you clearly aren't up to the task of doing, and instead would rather hide behind the vague wall of only allowing early-term abortions (limited by, I presume, heartbeat detection) and a vague medical exception. And to briefly touch on your "it's still murder" point, self-defense is generally not murder, it's homicide. The killing of a human being is not the only stipulation of murder. If you don't attribute economic value to peoples' lives in this determination, you have absolutely no justification to ascribe any exceptions or specific limits to abortion beyond "ban it entirely" or "allow it entirely", because your threshold would be completely arbitrary.[/QUOTE] I'd say however that my answer being inconclusive is because to exist in finites is stupid, but whatever. Perhaps I'm too caught up on the ideal we'll be able to sometime articulate with moderate certainty when human life begins. The core of my argument is based off of the assumption that it begins sometime in the first trimester, and that after that point you're killing someone for your own gain, be it to spare yourself economically, etc. You are right that I hadn't previously given this much nuance to my argument, cause most people give me a "my body my choice" line and then go on to pejoratives. I must reiterate though that I fail to believe the only options are "allow it all" or "ban it all". So I'll give it to you man, you've made me think. Guess I'll have to do more thinking critical thinking that isn't just on the fly. So hat's off to you my man. You are however by and large a huge prissy twat. Cheers. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - postal))[/highlight]

Where do children even come into play, this is about fetuses, a fetus should not be considered human life unless the mother has every intention to keep it and give birth to it, or its too late to abort.

I just don't understand the logic behind saying killing a fertilised egg is murder, while denying vital programs to ensure the child is able to survive. I absolutely loathe abortion, especially in later terms, but I am willing to understand it serves an important purpose in specific cases. The Republicans seem to be standing on a pillar of morallity and godliness while simultaneous abandoning the children who live, leaving them with a shitty life.

Fun fact: during many "natural" births, the space between the vagina and anus rips, requiring reconstructive surgery and occasionally leading to sepsis, which can be fatal. For up to a month afterward, even regular bowel movements can result in intense pain and, in rare occasions, the stitches can rip and require replacement. Based on that fact alone, I really genuinely do not fault any woman for getting an abortion. If I were in an easily-preventable situation where my dick would rip open all the way to my asshole, I'd sure as hell try to prevent it too. And that's not even considering long-term complications that may arise, like incontinence and hip dysplasia. People so often say "Just have the kid and put it up for adoption," but the pains often last far beyond the birth itself.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51717421]Don't forget postpartum depression and anxiety![/QUOTE] No, no, mental health is only an argument in the gun debate! You can't use that here.

[QUOTE=Cap'nSpacePants;51717366]I'd say however that my answer being inconclusive is because to exist in finites is stupid, but whatever. Perhaps I'm too caught up on the ideal we'll be able to sometime articulate with moderate certainty when human life begins. The core of my argument is based off of the assumption that it begins sometime in the first trimester, and that after that point you're killing someone for your own gain, be it to spare yourself economically, etc. You are right that I hadn't previously given this much nuance to my argument, cause most people give me a "my body my choice" line and then go on to pejoratives. I must reiterate though that I fail to believe the only options are "allow it all" or "ban it all". So I'll give it to you man, you've made me think. Guess I'll have to do more thinking critical thinking that isn't just on the fly. So hat's off to you my man. You are however by and large a huge prissy twat. Cheers.[/QUOTE] So your argument is that we should base criminalizing a critical medical procedure for many people exclusively on your arbitrary assumption of when "life begins" and have no objective criteria for when that is, and when asked for a specific point when that change occurs, you repeatedly default to vague non-answers and deflect by making irrelevant judgements of other people's behavior. I welcome you to think about the topic but your repeated dodging in this thread leads me to believe that you exemplify the same line of non-thinking inherent in the pro-life movement, and you won't really change your opinion because it's simply based on your beliefs and that's that. Your arguments are arbitrary, subjective, and legally unpersuasive, and when cornered by a question on whether you would personally approve of a specific hypothetical situation which challenges your argument, you simply ignore it and refuse to answer.

[QUOTE=Splarg!;51717359]So you're allowed to just state this as a fact and I guess we're fucked if we want to try and argue otherwise.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;51717286] [editline]24th January 2017[/editline] Literally wrong in a country with the death penalty and laws on self-defense.[/QUOTE] I'll admit it, I got my laws confused. Thank you for calling me out on that. However I would still argue there is a difference between abortion, self defense, and the death penalty.

[QUOTE=Cap'nSpacePants;51717518]I'll admit it, I got my laws confused. Thank you for calling me out on that. However I would still argue there is a difference between abortion, self defense, and the death penalty.[/QUOTE] is anyone here claiming otherwise?

[QUOTE=Judas;51717526]is anyone here claiming otherwise?[/QUOTE] You could twist abortion for medical reasons into self-defense if you want to play around with personhood.

[QUOTE=Snowmew;51717485]So your argument is that we should base criminalizing a critical medical procedure for many people exclusively on your arbitrary assumption of when "life begins" and have no objective criteria for when that is, and when asked for a specific point when that change occurs, you repeatedly default to vague non-answers and deflect by making irrelevant judgements of other people's behavior. I welcome you to think about the topic but your repeated dodging in this thread leads me to believe that you exemplify the same line of non-thinking inherent in the pro-life movement, and you won't really change your opinion because it's simply based on your beliefs and that's that. Your arguments are arbitrary, subjective, and legally unpersuasive, and when cornered by a question on whether you would personally approve of a specific hypothetical situation which challenges your argument, you simply ignore it and refuse to answer.[/QUOTE] Yes please, tell me more about how you know me. Jesus you are insufferable. I'm sure whatever killer you get off of murder 1 will be glad to know you were their attorney there Perry Mason. Perhaps my non-answers are because I feel your examples are so pigeonholed that I would not have thought of them, because again the discussion rarely gets to that point of nuance. I still, by the way, feel that they are extremes of extremes, but that's neither here nor there. Perhaps this is the first time I've really had to flesh out my points. Perhaps this is the first time I realize how lacking their are substantively. But no, no I'm just another dumb as fuck pro-lifer who sticks his head in the sand and never changes his opinions. God forbid I ever learn something from a discussion. God forbid my thinking actually do anything other than entrench myself further. God forbid maybe I realize - hey this dick on the internet is right - my arguments hold very little if any water legally. Cause you know what my dude? You're right. My opinions aren't nuanced. From a legal standpoint and based off the facts before me I guess I do have to agree with the current supreme court standing. Because I'm not just another "non-thinker" of the pro-life movement. I must admit I still personally detest abortion, but I suppose that's all feelings, not facts. Alright, that's my blog post. Feel free to keep tearing into me I guess.

[QUOTE=Cap'nSpacePants;51717642]Alright, that's my blog post. Feel free to keep tearing into me I guess.[/QUOTE] No, you really summed it up nicely, in that pro-lifers prioritize feelings over facts, and feelings don't have a place in how we forcibly legislate other peoples' medical decisions. That is the point I was hoping to make to you.

[QUOTE=Cap'nSpacePants;51717642]Yes please, tell me more about how you know me. Jesus you are insufferable. I'm sure whatever killer you get off of murder 1 will be glad to know you were their attorney there Perry Mason. Perhaps my non-answers are because I feel your examples are so pigeonholed that I would not have thought of them, because again the discussion rarely gets to that point of nuance. I still, by the way, feel that they are extremes of extremes, but that's neither here nor there. Perhaps this is the first time I've really had to flesh out my points. Perhaps this is the first time I realize how lacking their are substantively. But no, no I'm just another dumb as fuck pro-lifer who sticks his head in the sand and never changes his opinions. God forbid I ever learn something from a discussion. God forbid my thinking actually do anything other than entrench myself further. God forbid maybe I realize - hey this dick on the internet is right - my arguments hold very little if any water legally. Cause you know what my dude? You're right. My opinions aren't nuanced. From a legal standpoint and based off the facts before me I guess I do have to agree with the current supreme court standing. Because I'm not just another "non-thinker" of the pro-life movement. I must admit I still personally detest abortion, but I suppose that's all feelings, not facts. Alright, that's my blog post. Feel free to keep tearing into me I guess.[/QUOTE] Yay, progress! And just remember, you don't ever have to deal with your crotch being ripped to shreds! Because that's a thing that happens, and nobody knows about it or discusses it.

[QUOTE=Cap'nSpacePants;51717642]I must admit I still personally detest abortion, but I suppose that's all feelings, not facts.[/QUOTE] I'm [I]staunchly[/I] pro-choice, but I don't like abortion either. I've never met someone who likes abortion.

no one is "pro-abortion", people are simply pro-choice

[QUOTE=Judas;51718012]no one is "pro-abortion", people are simply pro-choice[/QUOTE] I fuckin' love abortions

[QUOTE=Judas;51718012]no one is "pro-abortion", people are simply pro-choice[/QUOTE] Pfft, speak for yourself.

[QUOTE=Judas;51718012]no one is "pro-abortion", people are simply pro-choice[/QUOTE] I call myself pro-abortion because I believe that calling it "pro-life" is pretentious and bias's it towards one side

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;51718913]"put them up for adoption if they can't/don't want to take care of them" Would do you well to read my post lol [editline]24th January 2017[/editline] Obviously it's the woman's choice, and nobody should decide what anyone else does with their body, but there's also someone [I]else's[/I] body inside there. Someone who isn't born yet, though. I'm pro choice but also anti-death[/QUOTE] OK then, let me dissect your post in a more objective way instead; [QUOTE=Berman Slick;51716736]See, that's my problem.. it's where I'm half and half against and for abortion. I don't think it's anyone's right to kill another human being, or stop them from being able to have a chance at life (who knows who they will become?), but it's scary and very difficult for the mother to go through with having a child that was the result of sexual assault.. literally and figuratively carrying that burden for 9 months, only to have to put them up for adoption if they can't/don't want to take care of them.. but murdering that child because someone did you wrong? It just makes my skin crawl. Punish the rapist, but not the child. Idk where I stand on abortion, honestly[/QUOTE] A fetus is a mass of cells, full stop, until brain activity starts showing up in a detectable manner on examination. Every scientist worth the name has already agreed that fetal personhood only begins at 22-24 weeks of gestation, when the fetus shows brain activity in the brainstem, which falls under the new idea of brain birth, where doctors and scientists use it as one side of the coin to counterbalance brain death in individuals. Second let's come to the subject of bearing a child for nine to ten months and going through all the stuff that happens as a result of a pregnancy, wanted or unwanted. Pregnancy is not an easy thing to go through for the mother. You are essentially growing a potential new person in your womb, and you need to take great care of yourself and be well fed and rested during this time. Stressors such as being a single parent who must needs survive by working are detrimental to the well-being of both mother and child. Also, the presence of a sexually transmitted infection transmitted to the mother either at, or at some point during pregnancy, can lead to the child being born with potentially serious birth defects. Don't get me started on women who abuse alcohol or drugs during pregnancy either out of ignorance or knowingly despite being informed of the dangers of doing so. Then there's the small matter of persistence of a pregnancy that wont be lost thanks to genetic disorders in the fetus incompatible with life or due to any number of other causes like eclampsia, placental abruption, sudden intrauterine death, and so forth. Assuming the child survives these bad situations long enough to be born, you're also staring down the barrel at serious complications such the aforementioned eclampsia which can paralyze or kill a mother who has gone into labor. The baby might not even survive the process of birth due to various reasons, more so if the mother cannot have access to healthcare for any given reason, which may lead to the death of the mother due to post-partum complications such as continuous hemorrhage. When a mother has to consider these risks whenever they want a child, I sure as hell agree on the point that a mother should be permitted to decide in any situation whether they want a pregnancy or not. I'm sorry, but this is the far more ethical way, considering that an unwanted baby has a bleak future in the adoption system. We also have a serious overpopulation problem anyway, which has to be solved by any means necessary, and that also means not having unwanted babies. I consider it far more ethical to not bring a person into the world where they'll have no chance of living the life they could have had, were they born in an actual intact family to see to their needs until they become functioning adult members of society. Now we'll move to the philosophy; I too agree it's nobody's right to kill another human being, but this cannot be always done. Sometimes a criminal or insane individual who is a danger to others, threatening the lives of innocents, must be slain to prevent greater tragedies from occurring, IF it's the only way to stop him from taking other innocent lives, and only during the commission of his crime, or as a result of him evading or resisting arrest. I believe further that capital punishment is wrong because even one innocent dying makes a failure of the intentions of the system. As for knowing who they will become, that's a hard question at the best of times, and not something anybody has the answer for. Children born as the result of rape are either pitied, or despised, because even a mother will find it difficult to have love in their hearts for such a one. I stand by my earlier conclusion that it is far more ethical for a child to be born into an intact, loving family, because it gives them a better shot at survival. And to be blunt, what you feel on the subject is one thing, but there are those who've been discussing this subject for years and years, who've framed conclusions acceptable to those individuals who think objectively, so I defer to their judgment in this manner. As I said, it's your opinion on what to believe, but the common consensus among the experts is that birth control by any means is important.

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;51718913]"put them up for adoption if they can't/don't want to take care of them" Would do you well to read my post lol [editline]24th January 2017[/editline] Obviously it's the woman's choice, and nobody should decide what anyone else does with their body, but there's also someone [I]else's[/I] body inside there. Someone who isn't born yet, though. I'm pro choice but also anti-death. The mother is deciding what that child will do, or not do, with their body by aborting them. Same thing, dude :v think abstract. It's ending the possibility for that life, what they could be or do. Killing their potential. No different than killing a child imho [editline]24th January 2017[/editline] being in the middle fucking sucks[/QUOTE] what if you know very well the "child" will live in pain and die a few months after being born. it will die, theres nothing you can do to change this and prolonging it would be too cruel. what's your decision then? is it easy? the world isn't this black and white, i can tell you this from personal experience.

[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;51716052]Imagine being a rape victim or something like that and getting pregnant. Or imagine having bad luck and having the condom break / fail. That's real classy[/QUOTE] "oh canada, my home and native land"

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;51718913]"put them up for adoption if they can't/don't want to take care of them" Would do you well to read my post lol [editline]24th January 2017[/editline] Obviously it's the woman's choice, and nobody should decide what anyone else does with their body, but there's also someone [I]else's[/I] body inside there. Someone who isn't born yet, though. I'm pro choice but also anti-death. The mother is deciding what that child will do, or not do, with their body by aborting them. Same thing, dude :v think abstract. [B]It's ending the possibility for that life, what they could be or do. Killing their potential. No different than killing a child imho[/B] [editline]24th January 2017[/editline] being in the middle fucking sucks[/QUOTE] Doesn't that work for condoms as well? The same moral viewpoint can be applied to blocking sperm from reaching the womb.

Can someone tell me what's wrong with having an abortion for no other reason that just not wanting a baby? What actually makes it anything more than a more expensive, invasive pill or condom? Please don't poop out "egg got fertilized" as an answer bc it's obvious and a meaningless differentiation.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51719147]Can someone tell me what's wrong with having an abortion for no other reason that just not wanting a baby? What actually makes it anything more than a more expensive, invasive pill or condom? Please don't poop out "egg got fertilized" as an answer bc it's obvious and a meaningless differentiation.[/QUOTE] Before personhood? Nothing really. The big question is when does personhood start, because at that point, it's murder. If you want to go the constitutional route, the constitution states that all men are created equal, and the protections of the constitution start at creation, and laws allowing abortion after that would be unconstitutional.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51719214]Before personhood? Nothing really. The big question is when does personhood start, because at that point, it's murder. [/QUOTE] I thought it was generally agreed upon that you start becoming a person when your neural connections actually connect. I could be wrong though.