Is abortion analogous to taxation?

DaisyDay said:

Look, a clever insult!

Click to expand...

Edited just for you. Because I like you.

redleghunter said:

They do but don’t call them baby killers. Many don’t know most chemical contraceptives are Abortifacients

Click to expand...

Those that do know..... must be baby killers, then.

DaisyDay said:

Cutting off arms/abortion...an even less persuasive comparison. There's a real chance of death or severe bodily injury with pregnancy.

Click to expand...

Then we can then conclude that there is a real chance of death or severe bodily injury when a woman consents to sex. Perhaps that should be taught in sex education classes. If you don't want to risk dying, don't get pregnant. If you don't want to risk getting pregnant, don't have sex.

DaisyDay said:

Cutting off arms/abortion...an even less persuasive comparison. There's a real chance of death or severe bodily injury with pregnancy.

Click to expand...

Yes, there is, speaking as a woman who has been pregnant nine times. But I never once considered ending the life of any of my unborn children, despite the health complications I had, the test results that my eldest son had Downs, the emergency birth inductions, and the two miscarriages.

cow451 said:

Those that do know..... must be baby killers, then.

Click to expand...

Well I don’t know what assertion you would like to stick to this conversation.

I can’t vouch for the crew of your proclaimed “Right winger” chemical abortion advocates.

The 5 monkeys come to mind. People either don’t know, don’t want to know or know.

redleghunter said:

They do but don’t call them baby killers. Many don’t know most chemical contraceptives are Abortifacients

Click to expand...

It is interesting to note that the Alabama law does not address this question. It refers to termination of pregnancy which is not deemed to begin--according to the standard medical definition--until successful implantation. There is nothing in the law which challenges or alters that definition.

Speedwell said:

It is interesting to note that the Alabama law does not address this question. It refers to termination of pregnancy which is not deemed to begin--according to the standard medical definition--until successful implantation. There is nothing in the law which challenges or alters that definition.

Click to expand...

I’m sure that when the Alabama legislature finds out this truth, its members will just be horrified that they didn’t provide for the zygotes.

Speedwell said:

No, the difference is we get to decide which of those things we want to do, which of them we want society to approve of.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the problem is the relativism in deciding what is acceptable or not.

SimplyMe said:

This is a straw man. The poster you are responding to is correcting the inaccurate claim of someone who basically tried making an "Appeal to Nature." That he corrected the person, showing that the Appeal to Nature does not fit the facts, is not him saying we should act the way the animals do.

Click to expand...

How is it a strawman? If one says sex should not be only for reproduction then the other stuff can be allowed too.

Belk said:

Bonobos would disagree.

ETA second place is not bad.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I noticed that.

USincognito said:

Again, you need to keep track of your own arguments.





Your claim that sex is only for procreation in nature is false.

Click to expand...

Yet you end up seeing animals doing things people (especially atheists) don't allow.

USincognito said:

You're conflating an individual with groups. Try and keep track of your own arguments.



Also worth pointing out that Pommer didn't use the word "non-person".

Click to expand...

Even if we say a baby, the argument is the same. And I am sure the user didn't refer to them as persons.

David Cabrera said:

How is it a strawman? If one says sex should not be only for reproduction then the other stuff can be allowed too.

Click to expand...

The strawman was the assertion that the poster was arguing that we should act like animals, which you then "knock down." He wasn't arguing that but, basically, responding and correcting a poster making that type of argument.

SimplyMe said:

The strawman was the assertion that the poster was arguing that we should act like animals, which you then "knock down." He wasn't arguing that but, basically, responding and correcting a poster making that type of argument.

Click to expand...

Yes, because there is no absolute idea in how to act, the closest one beings animals. Either way, the idea of sex could only be taken from animals, but we don't do that.

David Cabrera said:

Even if we say a baby, the argument is the same.

Click to expand...

Yes. It's still an argument against something Pommer didn't write.

And I am sure the user didn't refer to them as persons.

Click to expand...

Since we know what he actually did write, how about just addressing that?

David Cabrera said:

Yet you end up seeing animals doing things people (especially atheists) don't allow.

Click to expand...

This doesn't even make any sense. One more time.
- You asserted:

Rubiks said:

Do you believe sex is only for procreation?

David Cabrera said:

In nature it is. Something that a lot of atheists dismiss.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

- I corrected your error:

USincognito said:

Actually there are numerous sexual behaviors by animals which are not for procreation.
Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia
So good luck with the whole "atheists" spin.

Click to expand...

Now you're going off on these bizarre tangents about "atheists" instead of owning the fact that you posted a falsehood.

Speedwell said:

It is interesting to note that the Alabama law does not address this question. It refers to termination of pregnancy which is not deemed to begin--according to the standard medical definition--until successful implantation. There is nothing in the law which challenges or alters that definition.

Click to expand...

The standard definition they are using is the beginning of human life.

redleghunter said:

Does the man even have a right in society to say “no” I want my child born?

Click to expand...

When the technology exists to remove an embryo from the mom's uterus, surgically implant it into the dad's body so that his heart, lungs, kidneys, and other organ systems will support it for 9 months, and then have it delivered (obviously by another surgical procedure)--all of which the dad agrees to and is willing to pay for...then he can overrule the mom's decision to terminate the pregnancy.

Edited to add: If the technology exists to implant the embryo in another woman's uterus, who agrees to be a surrogate, deliver the baby at term, and give him custody, then the same should apply. Of course, the biological father must agree to pay all the medical expenses, and any fee he and the surrogate negotiate.

redleghunter said:

The standard definition they are using is the beginning of human life.

Click to expand...

But that’s a tautology.
“The beginning of a human life is when human life begins.”

The court is gonna love that one!

Human life may begin at conception, but pregnancy as medically defined begins at implantation.

Pommer said:

But that’s a tautology.
“The beginning of a human life is when human life begins.”

The court is gonna love that one!

Click to expand...

The beginning of human life is conception. I gathered I did not need to rehash high school biology.