Can people who disagree on abortion stop attacking each other?

[Desk trauma]

Could use not reading so many comic books and start paying attention to the world around him?
Instead of insinuating he could survive 2000yrs ago with such a "survival skillset"
Granted to him from "comic books'
Vibranium flip flops aren't going to work..
You need real life survival experience to be able to do anything remotely that intense and even then it would be far from likely @Desk trauma

 

[YahuahSaves]

Women today are resistant to being humankind’s brood mares when it doesn’t bring the respect it should. I don’t blame today’s young women for wanting a career over a baby. Because while men have historically been able to “have it all”, women have to choose one or the other. Let’s change that.

I agree. Let's start with getting both willing parties in the encounter, who were unwilling to use contraception to take responsibility for their choices. The days of old are long gone, doesn't mean morality has to be lost along with it.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Ah, no link so skip to something else

I gave you plenty of links you ignored or just plain avoided with sarcasm. Like I said, science backs up pro-life more than it does pro-choice. The latter is an emotional bias and nothing more.

 

[Desk trauma]

I gave you plenty of links you ignored or just plain avoided with sarcasm. Like I said, science backs up pro-life more than it does pro-choice. The latter is an emotional bias and nothing more.

The link I was talking about what one that shows a contradiction between:

A) preventing unwanted pregnancies via contraception is the best option
B) women should be free to have abortions for whatever reason

Again, where's the contradiction between those two positions?

 

[comana]

I agree. Let's start with getting both willing parties in the encounter, who were unwilling to use contraception to take responsibility for their choices. The days of old are long gone, doesn't mean morality has to be lost along with it.

On the whole we agree. The little difference is what defines taking responsibility. But I am for prevention before “taking responsibility’. And options for “taking responsibility” that first include showing how keeping the baby is not only possible but very doable because the support system wants success. I want abortion to be the last resort and rare but still an option if necessary (even if the reason seems selfish).

 

[YahuahSaves]

Again, where's the contradiction between those two positions?

If you can't see the contradiction, I can't help you.

 

[Desk trauma]

If you can't see the contradiction, I can't help you.

If it's that obvious you should be able to articulate it, as yet you have not.

 

[YahuahSaves]

But I am for prevention before “taking responsibility’.

The means is the cure. Taking responsibility for one's actions is the first step to a respectful, and harmonious society. That is what the law is (in theory) meant to accomplish.

I want abortion to be the last resort and rare but still an option if necessary (even if the reason seems selfish).

Abortion can't be rare if any reason given is allowed. That's why the rates are so high in the first place.

 

[YahuahSaves]

If it's that obvious you should be able to articulate it, as yet you have not.

Your arguments are typical of a person who has no ability to prove their position is the most ethical one, so you keep diverting the attention back to me. I've stated my case and I no longer need to engage in this "debate".

 

[comana]

The means is the cure. Taking responsibility for one's actions is the first step to a respectful, and harmonious society. That is what the law is (in theory) meant to accomplish.


Abortion can't be rare if any reason given is allowed. That's why the rates are so high in the first place.

It can be if keeping a child isn’t an insurmountable burden.

 

[Desk trauma]

Your arguments are typical of a person who has no ability to prove their position is the most ethical one, so you keep diverting the attention back to me

Because you're the one insisting that positions which are not in conflict with each other are without exampling why that is.

 

[YahuahSaves]

It can be if keeping a child isn’t an insurmountable burden.

There are always alternatives to abortion. Contraception in the first place, if a pregnancy is truly "accidental" (like the rare chance of a condom breaking) adoption is still the ideal over abortion.

 

[comana]

There are always alternatives to abortion. Contraception in the first place, if a pregnancy is truly "accidental" (like the rare chance of a condom breaking) adoption is still the ideal over abortion.

I prefer the child stay with its parents if possible. But parents in less than ideal circumstances need support, help. Make it possible. Putting a child up for adoption should also be rare.

 

[YahuahSaves]

I prefer the child stay with its parents if possible. But parents in less than ideal circumstances need support, help. Make it possible. Putting a child up for adoption should also be rare.

Adoption is still better than killing a child, no matter the circumstances. The problem is, with the governments around the world as they are right now, pushing climate change and sustainability, I doubt many are aiming to preserve the life they claim to be protecting. (Just my opinion). Anyhow, I think we've exhausted this conversation, I'm going to bow out here. Have a good day

 

[jayem]

The law is not necessarily suitable for making moral judgments. Besides, the baby is not not a person 5 minutes before its head comes out, and as soon as its head comes out, it is a person. That's ridiculous.

I'm just stating the letter of the law. Sure, it's arbitrary that a neonate is legally a person after delivery, but not when still in utero. However, many laws are arbitrary.. Why can an 18 year old vote, but someone 17 years and 364 days old cannot? I live in Missouri. If I murdered my wife 1 foot south of our northern border with Iowa, I could be executed. But suppose I killed her in Iowa, 1 foot north of the border. I could be sent to prison for life, but I won't be executed, because Iowa abolished capital punishment. It's exactly the same crime. But on which side of an imaginary line it was committed can make a life or death difference. What could be more arbitrary? But that's how laws work. They exist primarily to set rules for a safe and orderly society. As you correctly stated, they do not necessarily make ethical judgements.

 

[YahuahSaves]

I live in Missouri. If I murdered my wife 1 foot south of our northern border with Iowa, I could be executed. But suppose I killed her in Iowa, 1 foot north of the border. I could be sent to prison for life, but I won't be executed, because Iowa abolished capital punishment. It's exactly the same crime. But on which side of an imaginary line it was committed can make a life or death difference.

Interesting analogy to use...

 

[GodLovesCats]

No. We don't.

We know a fetus has its own unique DNA. What is in question is when that fetus becomes a person. The law maintains that it at the point of birth. Objectors to abortion disagree with that.

We know the words "human" and "person" are NOT synonyms. The only requirement for being human is DNA, but the requirement to be a person is birth. This is not even a question. It is a proven fact that cannot be denied by anyone who graduated from high school.

 

[Desk trauma]

@ChristianForCats

We have a definitive no to the question if this conversation can go on without attacks or other things you don’t want and no sign of that changing, so, what’s the point of the thread continuing?

 

[NxNW]

They are separate beings from conception with a 50% or so chance of being the opposit sex from the mother -male.

If you're claiming both twins exist within a single fertlized egg, that's a biological impossibility.

 

[NxNW]

Don't think i said that?

So how long after conception until a human being starts to sin?