Printable View
Exactly. Anyone who supports this law and supports abortion rights is a hypocrite.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
I could see if this new law was needed to address some epidemic of fetus-killing, but it isn't. If this law doesn't exist, guess what? Killers still get charged for murder. It really serves no purpose other than an end-around attack on abortion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysteriousRacerC
Sperm are living human cells too, so is an Ovum. Don't deny rights to our haploid brothers and sisters! Bukkake and menstruation is wrong!
Why do you keep repeating that shit? Do you know anything about biology?Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
It was for the sake of argument regarding "imposition" of opinions into law. Didn't say it was or wasn't justifiable which is now what you're getting into with an emotional plea. Whether or not the ends justify the means regarding taxation doesn't change it's being imposed on me. Like he said, I shouldn't be allowed to force any opinion in this case, so assuming that, I'm wondering how far his logic extends. Doesn't mean I myself couldn't choose to support whatever charities or causes I wanted with the money I make.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
Yes, like a form of hate-crime legislation addressing a situation where you've got killers going around killing the "breeders" and we wanna send a compounded message/threat to 'em. Regardless, I will still view a pregnant woman as a protected class and it will never sit morally right with me for the law to ignore this fact in such a circumstance. Something needs to be there and so I can't feel the outrage or concern of this law as some here. There's a coldness to it all if I did for me.Quote:
I could see if this new law was needed to address some epidemic of fetus-killing, but it isn't. If this law doesn't exist, guess what? Killers still get charged for murder. It really serves no purpose other than an end-around attack on abortion.
I was following Mike's logic. They're just cells, nothing more, nothing less, no different than nail or skin cells. Why? Did you read the thread from the beginning?Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Nothing. But will Christians legally support the murdering of clones or IVF babies?
Alright, my bad for jumping the gun. Still, people's bodies and people's money just aren't afforded the same sanctity. The government cannot function without some amount of taxation, and while none of us enjoy paying taxes, we all enjoy the defense, police protection, and public education we receive because the government takes our money.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
If you're arguing specifically about the redistribution of tax money to the poor, you have more of a point, but society also benefits from this allocation because poor people who are given enough to live off of are less likely to resort to violence and other criminal activity to survive. Without this redistribution, crime and violence will increase and we'd all be worse off.
I can agree that taking a mother's chance at motherhood is pretty fucking horrible - I bet most mothers would rather be raped or killed than lose an unborn child. I just don't think it's murder. I would have no problem with a law that criminalized harming a fetus in the course of an attack.Quote:
Yes, like a form of hate-crime legislation addressing a situation where you've got killers going around killing the "breeders" and we wanna send a compounded message/threat to 'em. Regardless, I will still view a pregnant woman as a protected class and it will never sit morally right with me for the law to ignore this fact in such a circumstance. Something needs to be there and so I can't feel the outrage or concern of this law as some here. There's a coldness to it all if I did for me.
I'll even make the case for you: Joe attacks his pregnant girlfriend Jane with the intent to terminate her pregnancy. He punches her abdomen and throws her down the stairs a few times. Jane miscarries. Without the new law, Joe faces some rather tame domestic violence charge, but under the new law, he's up on murder one.
That's where this law would matter, but I'm still going to say murder's the wrong call. Joe should be charged with something else (that's not on the books) and be sentenced for something equivalent to involuntary manslaughter or something (in addition to what he gets for assault.)
I was going to reply to someone but I didn't know where to start.
After Our Lord and Savior George W. Bush stated that he hates women and homosexuals and the poor and that none of 'em have rights in this country (paraphrase :p) I'm worried about *everything* that gets passed in the House.
The law itself sounds good, but (as stated by some other people) what it implies is very dangerous and seems to support the insane notion that abortion should be illegal. And that is a bad thing.
Like George Carlin said, I'd like to see these anti-women zealots raise three kids on minimum wage and welfare, then I'd be more than happy to hear their views on abortion - I'm sure it'd be very interesting.
Sleeve mentioned that these laws are nothing new, and he's right, but that doesn't mean I ever agreed with them. Ironically, laws like this sprouted up first in more liberal states as a means of protecting women, so I don't think they were originally intended as a weapon against abortion. I think this law is now, however.
Abortion is never going to go away in this country - there are far too many liberal states that will not ban abortion in the absence of Roe v. Wade. However, Roe is always in danger, and when and if it is overturned, conservative states will be quick to ban abortion.
I simply do not believe the government has the right to force a woman to go through pregnancy. It seems along the lines of "you have to go through incredible discomfort, pain, and change of lifestyle to not kill what could become a child." I also can't see that arrangement of cells to constitute a human being. I see how, from a religious standpoint, this would be morally wrong, but obviously, that should not even be an issue. Actually, the train of logic that differentiates a fetus from a baby, which is, as so far as I can tell, "if the current state of things, without any input from the course of free will (which would get to the argument of free will vs determanism, if it were determanism, then burg's argument of splooging would be entirely valid, not saying it ISN'T valid, but there are minor distinctions) were allowed to continue, a child could result. Using the same logic, you could say anyone that wounds another should be convicted with murder, because without someone else's help, she might have died. The converse of without the help of a doctor, the baby MIGHT be born seems to hold the same logically fallacy, or at least it seems so to me. Ill leave the rest of the talking to burg, since on this subject (abortion), he shares the same views, and rebuffs with the same ideas, but does it much more eloquently.
dude I hope you're trying to be funny, because what you said would be sad if you weren't. Young people don't need to be having full on sex if they don't want babies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
There is always blow jobs, hand jobs, and anal for those hell bent on penetration. Vaginas make babies, if you don’t want one, keep your dick out of one.
Condoms bub, use condoms.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant