Majority of Americans say heartbeat abortion bans are not too restrictive

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · May 18, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
It is not a rape victim's fault if she gets pregnant. Rape is being forced to have sex after she tells him no. Also, too many states (including Alabama) do not have strict sex education laws. It is not the girl's fault if she has no idea contraceptives are necessary at her age.

I will also add that even in the case of rape, not being given the choice to become pregnant does not give you the authority to take the life of another.

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · May 18, 2019

mark kennedy said:
There has always been an exemption for medical issues and usually one for rapre and incest. Whether or not conservative ataes forget the importance of that, rest assured the courts won't.

So you would then find it a relief that there are no such laws that prevent a woman from having an abortion because of medical necessity.

GodLovesCats · May 18, 2019

redleghunter said:
I still wonder how many people who reply understand the fact human life begins at conception. I’m sure many do but rely on some subjective philosophy which deems “it’s human life but not a human being or ‘person’”

I’ve heard the “it’s just a bunch of cells” assertion many times. To which you have to ask what kind of “cells” are these? Human of course. Then the reply is usually “my finger nail has human cells.” And the sophistry continues from there.

The "bunch of cells" does not necessarily have to be a person just because they are human. When people hear or read the word person, do they ever think of cells that have not formed tissues and organs yet? Of course not. A bunch of human cells can be considered a future person.

redleghunter · May 18, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
The "bunch of cells" does not necessarily have to be a person just because they are human.

If so then what is it? A form of sub-human human?

ChristianForCats said:
When people hear or read the word person, do they ever think of cells that have not formed tissues and organs yet? Of course not. A bunch of human cells can be considered a future person.

Person is the very definition of human being.

There’s no such thing as a future human being. Or person for that matter.

mark kennedy · May 18, 2019

No Username Found said:
So you would then find it a relief that there are no such laws that prevent a woman from having an abortion because of medical necessity.

Actually I would find that impossible to defend in court, which it inevitably will have to.

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · May 18, 2019

mark kennedy said:
Actually I would find that impossible to defend in court, which it inevitably will have to.

What is impossible to defend in court? The fact that there are no laws that prevent a woman from having an abortion because of medical necessity?

GodLovesCats · May 18, 2019

No Username Found said:
Nobody here is talking about rape victims. Only those women who find themselves pregnant as a result of consensual sex.

It is not only consensual sex that causes abortions. You know that. Any time someone talks about women not being responsible by using contraceptives, it is important to be reminded that you can be responsible, but still get pregnant anyway.

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · May 18, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
It is not only consensual sex that causes abortions. You know that. Any time someone talks about women not being responsible by using contraceptives, it is important to be reminded that you can be responsible, but still get pregnant anyway.

Do they not teach in these government mandated "sex education" classes that no birth control is 100% effective other than abstinence? You roll the dice, you pay the price. In this case, you live, you learn, then you buy a whole lot of Luvs. If someone has consensual sex knowing that their birth control is not 100% effective, they are accepting the risk when they choose to have consensual sex. No matter how low that risk is. It is absolutely irresponsible for someone to choose to take the risk but not be woman or man enough to accept the consequences. If a woman cannot accept the risk, they should not have sex. This is just plain common sense.

GodLovesCats · May 18, 2019

redleghunter said:
If so then what is it? A form of sub-human human?

Person is the very definition of human being.

There’s no such thing as a future human being. Or person for that matter.

No, human cells obviously are 100% human. There is no such thing as a subhuman. That does not mean part of a human is a person. Those cells are only part of a person. A person in the whole body.

GodLovesCats · May 18, 2019

No Username Found said:
Do they not teach in these government mandated "sex education" classes that no birth control is 100% effective other than abstinence? You roll the dice, you pay the price. In this case, you live, you learn, then you buy a whole lot of Luvs. If someone has consensual sex knowing that their birth control is not 100% effective, they are accepting the risk when they choose to have consensual sex. No matter how low that risk is. It is absolutely irresponsible for someone to choose to take the risk but not be woman or man enough to accept the consequences. If a woman cannot accept the risk, they should not have sex. This is just plain common sense.

How on Earth do you not understand I was specifically talking about rape? Meaning the girl had no reason to use contraceptives because it was not consensual sex?

I also clearly pointed out not all states have good sex education laws, so many girls do not learn about abstinence being the only foolproof way to avoid pregnancy.

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · May 18, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
How on Earth do you not understand I was specifically talking about rape? Meaning the girl had no reason to use contraceptives because it was not consesual sex?

I also clearly pointed out not all states have good sex education laws, so many girls do not learn about abstinence being the only foolproof way to avoid pregnancy.

And once again, we were not talking about rape. You threw that into the conversation to make a point about something that was not being discussed. So again in regards to consensual sex, my previous statement stands. In regards to rape, it is tragic, but still no justification for infanticide.

GodLovesCats · May 18, 2019

OK how about this then: If a state is going to ban abortion after 6 weeks, mandatory sex education needs to be stricter and easier to enforce.

timothyu · May 18, 2019

redleghunter said:
making one human being judge, jury and executioner over another?

That is man's concept of treating neighbour as self, it is

ChristianForCats said:
it is important to be reminded that you can be responsible, but still get pregnant anyway.

If it were foolproof no one would still exist

hedrick · May 18, 2019

The support changes once you explain to people what it means:

Americans reject ‘heartbeat’ abortion bans once they learn the truth about them

In my opinion the whole modern anti-abortion is playing on people's emotions. The whole concept of a heartbeat bill is a sales tactic.

Davidnic · May 18, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
The "bunch of cells" does not necessarily have to be a person just because they are human. When people hear or read the word person, do they ever think of cells that have not formed tissues and organs yet? Of course not. A bunch of human cells can be considered a future person.

The problem here is if you move from conception then any other choice on when someone is defined as a person is arbitrary.

If you want the pro life argument laid out pretty well He is pro-life but he tries to explain the argument because he feels understanding it is the only way to engage with the opposite side:

hedrick · May 18, 2019

Birth is another possible dividing line that isn't arbitrary. It has the advantage of Biblical support.

GodLovesCats · May 18, 2019

timothyu said:
That is man's concept of treating neighbour as self, it is

If it were foolproof no one would still exist.

Where did you get that from? Being foolproof only means by abstaining girls and women know they won't get pregnant - as opposed to contraceptive methods, which are subject to human error.

Rubiks · May 18, 2019

timothyu said:
It is funny how some will go to extreme lengths to demand their 'rights' yet see no reason to act responsibly with sex in the first place.

Birth control isn't 100% effective.

GodLovesCats · May 18, 2019

mark kennedy said:
Actually I would find that impossible to defend in court, which it inevitably will have to.

Nothing is impossible to defend in court. The only question is what constitutes a medical necessity for the mother.

Davidnic · May 18, 2019

hedrick said:
Birth is another possible dividing line that isn't arbitrary. It has the advantage of Biblical support.

The problem with that is to be consistent that metric means you can abort for any reason even moments before birth. And that fails several logical tests. Such as, if she/he was not a person 1 second before birth what has changed biologically, morally, or theologically to justify that being the point and not conception. So although some could argue for it, it has more than some holes.

Majority of Americans say heartbeat abortion bans are not too restrictive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

proud libtard

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads