It is currently Wed Apr 24, 2024 11:09 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 395 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
It's amusing that you won't admit that you clearly misspoke by saying it's not an analogy. You created a hypothetical in which you couldn't breath or think and compared it to that of a life which will certainly gain those abilities without interference. Find a definition of analogy that doesn't apply to that.
As a 1 year old, I could not read. As a 30 year old, I can read. Is that an analogy?

No. But the post I quoted was and I think you know that at this point.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 42094
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
pittmike wrote:
Here is a basic article about the science of when human life begins. It really does not make a pronouncement and I also do not post a conclusion here. It is just interesting from the aspect of is the science settled.

https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-c ... fe-begins/

Here, modern science offers no clarity. If anything, the past century of scientific advances have only made the answer more complicated. As scientists have peered into wombs with ultrasound and looked directly at sperm entering an egg, they’ve found that all the bright lines they thought existed dissolving.

That's a good post, mike.

Quote:
As a doctor, (Diane) Horvath-Cosper says, “I have come to the conclusion that the pregnant woman gets to decide when it’s a person.”

That's just dumb as shit.

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 42094
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
Image

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Don Tiny wrote:
Image

Who owes whom an apology?

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:27 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 77063
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Don Tiny wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Here is a basic article about the science of when human life begins. It really does not make a pronouncement and I also do not post a conclusion here. It is just interesting from the aspect of is the science settled.

https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-c ... fe-begins/

Here, modern science offers no clarity. If anything, the past century of scientific advances have only made the answer more complicated. As scientists have peered into wombs with ultrasound and looked directly at sperm entering an egg, they’ve found that all the bright lines they thought existed dissolving.

That's a good post, mike.

Quote:
As a doctor, (Diane) Horvath-Cosper says, “I have come to the conclusion that the pregnant woman gets to decide when it’s a person.”

That's just dumb as shit.


It is.

_________________
Nas: Blago, who has single handedly destroyed CFMB?

Blago: https://youtube.com/shorts/Lftdxd-YXt8?feature=share

"You can’t love your country only when you win." -President Biden

https://youtu.be/R6e4ruziZBI?si=1G4W1vbh0eGQuHfU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:20 pm
Posts: 372
pizza_Place: Gourmet Pizza by Carlo
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
It's amusing that you won't admit that you clearly misspoke by saying it's not an analogy. You created a hypothetical in which you couldn't breath or think and compared it to that of a life which will certainly gain those abilities without interference. Find a definition of analogy that doesn't apply to that.
As a 1 year old, I could not read. As a 30 year old, I can read. Is that an analogy?
Sneakers O'Toole wrote:
Doesn't all of this show that the "pro-choice" label is fairly disingenuous? Since literally almost no one thinks aborting an hour before birth should be legal (unless the mother's life is in danger), then it seems at best it's "pro-choice up until the point I feel life begins", so it's more a matter than almost everyone is pro life, and it's just a debate on what is considered alive.

Take Spiral Stairs, for example - I believe you said in this thread or the shoutout thread that it's none of your business what a woman does with her body. I have to imagine that feeling changes at some point during the pregnancy, no?
Once the fetus becomes "viable" then the idea is that the calculation changes since the baby could live without the support of one specific person. The mom and baby could be separated and both have a good chance of survival. Now, obviously there are other issues about a forced delivery at 24 weeks but that is the major difference.

If I was pro-firearms(this is an analogy FF) but I wanted to ban private ownership of tanks that wouldn't mean that I would be disingenuous. It means that everything doesn't have only two options.


I do understand the point of fetus viability outside the womb, but it seems a main talking point of pro-choice people is that we shouldn't tell a woman what to do with her body, and as you alluded to, in viability cases we would be forcing a woman to give birth, which doesn't seem to be very pro-choice to me.

Personally, I'm pretty much on board with viability being the decider, but I wouldn't really call that pro-choice.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:03 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 37225
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
pittmike wrote:
Here is a basic article about the science of when human life begins. It really does not make a pronouncement and I also do not post a conclusion here. It is just interesting from the aspect of is the science settled.

https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-c ... fe-begins/

Here, modern science offers no clarity. If anything, the past century of scientific advances have only made the answer more complicated. As scientists have peered into wombs with ultrasound and looked directly at sperm entering an egg, they’ve found that all the bright lines they thought existed dissolving.


Human life begins at conception was settled until, and even after, abortion became legal.

So in conclusion, it was science, until people were given the ability to dispose of their unborn children.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32235
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
It's not a scientific question. It's a philosophical question.

Seacrest, you can stop arguing that science can "never be settled" in other threads now.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 89003
Location: To the left of my post
Seacrest wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Here is a basic article about the science of when human life begins. It really does not make a pronouncement and I also do not post a conclusion here. It is just interesting from the aspect of is the science settled.

https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-c ... fe-begins/

Here, modern science offers no clarity. If anything, the past century of scientific advances have only made the answer more complicated. As scientists have peered into wombs with ultrasound and looked directly at sperm entering an egg, they’ve found that all the bright lines they thought existed dissolving.


Human life begins at conception was settled until, and even after, abortion became legal.

So in conclusion, it was science, until people were given the ability to dispose of their unborn children.
Are you confused? Science doesn't stay as "fact" because it was in a book written over 2,000 years ago.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 40045
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
Do you love your father? Prove it.

/thread


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
leashyourkids wrote:
It's not a scientific question. It's a philosophical question.


Brick wrote:
That's a good analogy.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 64559
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Here is a basic article about the science of when human life begins. It really does not make a pronouncement and I also do not post a conclusion here. It is just interesting from the aspect of is the science settled.

https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-c ... fe-begins/

Here, modern science offers no clarity. If anything, the past century of scientific advances have only made the answer more complicated. As scientists have peered into wombs with ultrasound and looked directly at sperm entering an egg, they’ve found that all the bright lines they thought existed dissolving.


Human life begins at conception was settled until, and even after, abortion became legal.

So in conclusion, it was science, until people were given the ability to dispose of their unborn children.
Are you confused? Science doesn't stay as "fact" because it was in a book written over 2,000 years ago.

Dude you're talking to a guy who believes at least two people have been risen from the not too recent dead and that a woman who was engaged and found herself pregnant and claimed to be a virgin had a child rather than the simple explanation being possible she got busy at some point and came up with an elaborate cover up. No! I didn't have sex out of wedlock! GOD got me pregnant in a dream! Yeah... that's gotta be the simplest explanation.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:15 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 101850
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
Remember, all the trouble in the world came from one bad apple.

_________________
ltg wrote:
[Fields will] be the starting QB on an NFL roster at the start of next season. Book It!
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:15 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 37225
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Here is a basic article about the science of when human life begins. It really does not make a pronouncement and I also do not post a conclusion here. It is just interesting from the aspect of is the science settled.

https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-c ... fe-begins/

Here, modern science offers no clarity. If anything, the past century of scientific advances have only made the answer more complicated. As scientists have peered into wombs with ultrasound and looked directly at sperm entering an egg, they’ve found that all the bright lines they thought existed dissolving.


Human life begins at conception was settled until, and even after, abortion became legal.

So in conclusion, it was science, until people were given the ability to dispose of their unborn children.
Are you confused? Science doesn't stay as "fact" because it was in a book written over 2,000 years ago.


The Hippocratic Oath was recited in this country by doctors until, and even after, abortion became legal.

Look, you think its OK to kill unborn kids. I don't. If that makes me an asshole, so be it.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:17 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 37225
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
leashyourkids wrote:
It's not a scientific question. It's a philosophical question.

Seacrest, you can stop arguing that science can "never be settled" in other threads now.



At conception.

Separate person.

Separate DNA.

A unique individual that will never be repeated.

That's science, not philosophy.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 89003
Location: To the left of my post
Sneakers O'Toole wrote:
I do understand the point of fetus viability outside the womb, but it seems a main talking point of pro-choice people is that we shouldn't tell a woman what to do with her body, and as you alluded to, in viability cases we would be forcing a woman to give birth, which doesn't seem to be very pro-choice to me.
It's not just one or the other. Pro-choice people are willing to compromise. I mean, the pro-life people are ok with letting a man or woman cease caring for a kid as soon as they are born by putting them up for adoption but that doesn't mean their stance is against pro-life.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32235
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Seacrest wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
It's not a scientific question. It's a philosophical question.

Seacrest, you can stop arguing that science can "never be settled" in other threads now.



At conception.

Separate person.

Separate DNA.

A unique individual that will never be repeated.

That's science, not philosophy.


Incorrect. That's your opinion of what human life is. The individual statements you made may be factually true through science, but deciding at what point it is "human life" depends entirely on how we define human life. It's philosophy, not science.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 89003
Location: To the left of my post
Seacrest wrote:
The Hippocratic Oath was recited in this country by doctors until, and even after, abortion became legal.
So?
Seacrest wrote:
Look, you think its OK to kill unborn kids. I don't. If that makes me an asshole, so be it.
Your opinion does not. Your misinformation campaign in this thread does.

Don't get all mad because you literally couldn't even respond to my post.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:28 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 37225
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
leashyourkids wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
It's not a scientific question. It's a philosophical question.

Seacrest, you can stop arguing that science can "never be settled" in other threads now.



At conception.

Separate person.

Separate DNA.

A unique individual that will never be repeated.

That's science, not philosophy.


Incorrect. That's your opinion of what human life is. The individual statements you made may be factually true through science, but deciding at what point it is "human life" depends entirely on how we define human life. It's philosophy, not science.


No, DNA is not philosophy.

That is a scientific reality of what happens at conception. Their exists a unique individual, with their own DNA, then will NEVER be repeated again.

It's unfortunate to hear all the "science" guys run from real science when it disagrees with their world view.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:31 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 37225
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
The Hippocratic Oath was recited in this country by doctors until, and even after, abortion became legal.
So?
Seacrest wrote:
Look, you think its OK to kill unborn kids. I don't. If that makes me an asshole, so be it.
Your opinion does not. Your misinformation campaign in this thread does.

Don't get all mad because you literally couldn't even respond to my post.



You have yet to refute what science held as true for over 2000 years, BEFORE, the knowledge of DNA confirmed it.

Don't accuse me of being mad because all you can do is stick your fingers in your ear and yell "is not, is not is not!".

Just accept what science has taught us.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32235
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Seacrest wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
It's not a scientific question. It's a philosophical question.

Seacrest, you can stop arguing that science can "never be settled" in other threads now.



At conception.

Separate person.

Separate DNA.

A unique individual that will never be repeated.

That's science, not philosophy.


Incorrect. That's your opinion of what human life is. The individual statements you made may be factually true through science, but deciding at what point it is "human life" depends entirely on how we define human life. It's philosophy, not science.


No, DNA is not philosophy.

That is a scientific reality of what happens at conception. Their exists a unique individual, with their own DNA, then will NEVER be repeated again.

It's unfortunate to hear all the "science" guys run from real science when it disagrees with their world view.


I don't know how to get you to understand it.

No one is arguing that DNA isn't a scientific reality. But that doesn't mean that having DNA = Human life. That is a question that is philosophical and that people will likely never agree on.

If you're going to respond again, please respond to that and not things I'm not disagreeing with.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 89003
Location: To the left of my post
Seacrest wrote:
You have yet to refute what science held as true for over 2000 years, BEFORE, the knowledge of DNA confirmed it.

Don't accuse me of being mad because all you can do is stick your fingers in your ear and yell "is not, is not is not!".

Just accept what science has taught us.

Sure I have. There is a reason you completely ignored it.

If DNA = life then how do you explain that DNA exists long after you die?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:34 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 37225
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
What you don't understand is that this is a reality whether you and I agree with it or not.

Like so many other issues here, shots get fired at the messenger when others don't like the message.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32235
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Seacrest wrote:
What you don't understand is that this is a reality whether you and I agree with it or not.

Like so many other issues here, shots get fired at the messenger when others don't like the message.


You are not even attempting to address the argument. I don't know if it's because you don't understand it or because you're choosing not to do so.

Sitting here and saying "this is a reality. this is just truth" over and over is not an argument.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:39 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 37225
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
leashyourkids wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
What you don't understand is that this is a reality whether you and I agree with it or not.

Like so many other issues here, shots get fired at the messenger when others don't like the message.


You are not even attempting to address the argument. I don't know if it's because you don't understand it or because you're choosing not to do so.

Sitting here and saying "this is a reality. this is just truth" over and over is not an argument.


There is NO argument.

You are welcome to your opinion. And free to post it here. I posted what science says, you and Brick say it's not science.

Again, shots fired at the messenger.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 42094
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Remember, all the trouble in the world came from one bad apple.

Image

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:20 pm
Posts: 372
pizza_Place: Gourmet Pizza by Carlo
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Sneakers O'Toole wrote:
I do understand the point of fetus viability outside the womb, but it seems a main talking point of pro-choice people is that we shouldn't tell a woman what to do with her body, and as you alluded to, in viability cases we would be forcing a woman to give birth, which doesn't seem to be very pro-choice to me.
It's not just one or the other. Pro-choice people are willing to compromise. I mean, the pro-life people are ok with letting a man or woman cease caring for a kid as soon as they are born by putting them up for adoption but that doesn't mean their stance is against pro-life.


I guess. It just seems like 'pro-choice' really isn't the main principle of the argument, viability of the fetus is. Once you start to get into a more nuanced argument, I know it comes out anyway, but it feels like general the "what a woman does is none of my business/we shouldn't legislate women's bodies" needs to be followed by "...to a point." I think you're basically saying that technically almost every position needs qualifiers, I just think in this case it's a pretty big one.

You've pointed out the science is mixed on when we should consider life begins. Let's just pretend that science at some point "proves" life begins at some point between conception and viability of the fetus. Would you still be pro-choice between the time of life beginning and fetus viability? If so, then I'd agree calling yourself pro-choice isn't disingenuous, or any more disingenuous than plenty of other positions/labels.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 18864
pizza_Place: World Famous Pizza
Seacrest wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
It's not a scientific question. It's a philosophical question.

Seacrest, you can stop arguing that science can "never be settled" in other threads now.



At conception.

Separate person.

Separate DNA.

A unique individual that will never be repeated.

That's science, not philosophy.


I don't think anyone here is arguing that a fertilized egg is a living thing. So you can stop making that argument.

If your position is that a zygote/fetus/unborn child in the womb is a separate person just like a person living outside the womb, then it should follow that a zygote/fetus/unborn child should be entitled to all the same rights and protections as a person living outside the womb. And if that's the case then you DO open yourself up to a whole host of philosophical questions.

Because if you're treating a zygote/fetus/unborn child the same way as you are treating a child living outside the womb, then you also granting certain rights to the parents of that child. For example, the father of a child living outside the womb is entitled to visit with and make parenting decisions with respect to that child. If a zygote/fetus/unborn child is treated the same way, it should follow that the father of an unborn child would be entitled to visit with and make parenting decisions regarding his unborn child.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion because that is all it is.

_________________
Seacrest wrote:
The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32235
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Seacrest wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
What you don't understand is that this is a reality whether you and I agree with it or not.

Like so many other issues here, shots get fired at the messenger when others don't like the message.


You are not even attempting to address the argument. I don't know if it's because you don't understand it or because you're choosing not to do so.

Sitting here and saying "this is a reality. this is just truth" over and over is not an argument.


There is NO argument.

You are welcome to your opinion. And free to post it here. I posted what science says, you and Brick say it's not science.

Again, shots fired at the messenger.


:lol:

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 89003
Location: To the left of my post
Sneakers O'Toole wrote:
I guess. It just seems like 'pro-choice' really isn't the main principle of the argument, viability of the fetus is. Once you start to get into a more nuanced argument, I know it comes out anyway, but it feels like general the "what a woman does is none of my business/we shouldn't legislate women's bodies" needs to be followed by "...to a point." I think you're basically saying that technically almost every position needs qualifiers, I just think in this case it's a pretty big one.
Kind of. You could say that by having a specific deadline(like 19 weeks, 6 days) allows the woman to make a choice even if she can't choose it later. It's not too different than being pro-life but being fine with adoption.

Sneakers O'Toole wrote:
You've pointed out the science is mixed on when we should consider life begins. Let's just pretend that science at some point "proves" life begins at some point between conception and viability of the fetus. Would you still be pro-choice between the time of life beginning and fetus viability? If so, then I'd agree calling yourself pro-choice isn't disingenuous, or any more disingenuous than plenty of other positions/labels.
That's a tough question to answer. I would think that the "viability" time goes down before that though.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 395 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group