Well considering that we define the end of life as an absence of heartbeat and brain waves... that would be a great place to start that most reasonable people should agree with.

HitsRus;1840968 wrote:Well considering that we define the end of life as an absence of heartbeat and brain waves... that would be a great place to start that most reasonable people should agree with.

We cant use logic, reason, and science because that messes up their feelings.

I think it is hypocritical for any male to be pro-life. How can any man honestly say how he would react to something that is impossible to happen to him? It is easy to tell somebody else what to do when you know it is something that you don't have to worry about. I challenge any man to put his money where his mouth is. Take an ad out in your local newspaper and state that any woman who will not have an abortion that you will cover all financial responsibilities for that child until that child reaches full maturity. Then I will believe you when you say you are 100% pro-life.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/09/pf/cost-of-raising-a-child-2015/index.html

In case anybody was wondering.

ppaw1999;1840993 wrote:I think it is hypocritical for any male to be pro-life. How can any man honestly say how he would react to something that is impossible to happen to him? It is easy to tell somebody else what to do when you know it is something that you don't have to worry about. I challenge any man to put his money where his mouth is. Take an ad out in your local newspaper and state that any woman who will not have an abortion that you will cover all financial responsibilities for that child until that child reaches full maturity. Then I will believe you when you say you are 100% pro-life.

LOL...seriously? That sounds so leftist... somebody else to pay for someone else's responsibility.
... and what about the half of the women in this country that are pro-life? Protection of life, especially when it's your own species is everyone's responsibility. That's not hypocritical, it's natural law.

HitsRus;1840997 wrote:LOL...seriously? That sounds so leftist... somebody else to pay for someone else's responsibility.
... and what about the half of the women in this country that are pro-life? Protection of life, especially when it's your own species is everyone's responsibility. That's not hypocritical, it's natural law.

LOL....Deflect much? Can you honestly say that you wouldn't have an abortion? How can you answer that if you are a man? I can not tell any woman what to do with her own body. If I don't have an answer for her situation than I have no right to comment on it. When it comes to abortions one size does not fit all. We don' t know what everyones individual circumstances are. If a full term pregnancy may endanger the life of the mother who I am to tell her what choice to make?

iclfan2;1840915 wrote:Tubes tied or dude snipped?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Neither. Mother uses oral contraceptives as it is lower cost than tube procedure. As such, said oral contraceptives do not prevent fertilization i.e. the creation of a new human life, but rather the implantation of said new life in the uteral lining. In this case, the implantation occurs anyway.

Being a happy mother of two, she decides to abort the 3rd pregnancy.

Moreover, as an add-on, intuitively, do we feel this woman who intentionally, knowingly and purposely ends her child's life when he or she is an unborn embryo by choosing to have an abortion is morally equal to, say, Briany Golsby who purposely, knowingly and intentionally ended Reagan Tokes' life with a firearm or, say, Britanny Pilkington who purposely, knowingly and intentionally ended,her young children's lives by suffocating them with a pillow.

HitsRus;1840968 wrote:Well considering that we define the end of life as an absence of heartbeat and brain waves... that would be a great place to start that most reasonable people should agree with.

I think higher brain birth at approximately 24 - 28 weeks might be reasonable moment for the state to constructively recognize the vesting of the unborn's natural rights as equal to the mother's and the state can replace the mother as the sovereign and balance their interests...constructively granting the unborn the assumption that he or she would consent to the governance of the popular sovereign rather than just the will of his or her mother.

Would be willing to go to 20 weeks since some children have been able to save at those early births if efforts to treat mothers who end their pregnancies after implantation (when it is morally the same as purposely engaging in conduct that will ensure implantation doesn't happen or fertilizong ova in vitro that you know have a high likelihood of failing to implant) as if they are murderers.

ppaw1999;1841001 wrote:LOL....Deflect much? Can you honestly say that you wouldn't have an abortion? How can you answer that if you are a man? I can not tell any woman what to do with her own body. If I don't have an answer for her situation than I have no right to comment on it. When it comes to abortions one size does not fit all. We don' t know what everyones individual circumstances are. If a full term pregnancy may endanger the life of the mother who I am to tell her what choice to make?

You are the one deflecting and equivocating what is a matter of life or death. It doesn't require a specific gender to determine if murder is wrong. I've already allowed for abortion in cases on non consensual rape, and "self defense" which would include the mother's life being endangered. What we are talking about here is consensual sex having consequences, taking responsibility for your actions, and not destroying human life for only convenience sake.

If you are operating a firearm, and you willingly pull the trigger, you are responsible for the consequences. You don't get a pass to erase it.

HitsRus;1840910 wrote:without consent...
but there was consent, except in cases of rape... Seriously, how uneducated do you have to be to not understand that actions have consequences?
Murder. The only excuse you have to kill somebody, is war, self defense, and rape.

Consenting to sex isn't necessarily consenting to pregnancy.

Moreover, a person can deny consent down the road, even if they gave it before.

I might consent to giving you a transfusion four months ago. Doesn't mean I'm obligated to do so now.

Nobody is suggesting that actions don't have consequences. But accepting a risk of consequence is not a willingness to refrain from mitigating such consequences.

And really, are we going to boil down bringing a child into the world as a "consequence?" I should certainly hope not.

BoatShoes;1841008 wrote:I think higher brain birth at approximately 24 - 28 weeks might be reasonable moment for the state to constructively recognize the vesting of the unborn's natural rights as equal to the mother's and the state can replace the mother as the sovereign and balance their interests...constructively granting the unborn the assumption that he or she would consent to the governance of the popular sovereign rather than just the will of his or her mother.

Would be willing to go to 20 weeks since some children have been able to save at those early births if efforts to treat mothers who end their pregnancies after implantation (when it is morally the same as purposely engaging in conduct that will ensure implantation doesn't happen or fertilizong ova in vitro that you know have a high likelihood of failing to implant) as if they are murderers.

I understand your argument, but it's still an arbitrary standard..."higher brain function". We don't get to euthanize "born" people of lower brain function at any point, not even when the situation is terminal. I'm not exactly sure of the approximate time brain function begins, but surely, there is plenty of time to realize that you're pregnant and act accordingly.10 or 12 weeks should be more than enough "free pass" time. That probably is still not good enough to satisfy some pro-lifers, but not everybody is going to get what they want totally. But, 24 weeks?...c'mon man...that's almost 2/3 of a pregnancy.

HitsRus;1841027 wrote:I understand your argument, but it's still an arbitrary standard..."higher brain function". We don't get to euthanize "born" people of lower brain function at any point, not even when the situation is terminal. I'm not exactly sure of the approximate time brain function begins, but surely, there is plenty of time to realize that you're pregnant and act accordingly.10 or 12 weeks should be more than enough "free pass" time. That probably is still not good enough to satisfy some pro-lifers, but not everybody is going to get what they want totally. But, 24 weeks?...c'mon man...that's almost 2/3 of a pregnancy.

And? By third trimester, that's in the general region when my answer to your question last night would be, as far as being "alive". In theory, I'd personally prefer earlier since, as you said, "act accordingly" since a person would know what's up long before then.

But personally, I also have no issue with people doing what they want with their bodies, especially if it leads to avoiding that awkward moment where the child turns from a "precious innocent life" to "part of the government-enabled welfare state/drain on society" in the eyes of the average pro-lifer. If it ain't your dick spitting the shit and it isn't your belly housing the end result, what right do you have to tell someone (or beg big gubment to tell them) what they should or have to do about it?

Consenting to sex isn't necessarily consenting to pregnancy.


Moreover, a person can deny consent down the road, even if they gave it before.

stop it. just STOP. If you "consent" to engage in an activity then you accept all possible predictable outcomes.... and you are responsible for those actions. If you pick up a gun and pull the trigger and someone gets shot, There's no "I didn't consent to shooting somebody... the safety didn't work!... NOT GUILTY!"

... and you're worried about "bringing a child into the world" being called a "consequence " when 250K are being exterminated for convenience.

HitsRus;1841039 wrote:stop it. just STOP. If you "consent" to engage in an activity then you accept all possible predictable outcomes.... and you are responsible for those actions. If you pick up a gun and pull the trigger and someone gets shot, There's no "I didn't consent to shooting somebody... the safety didn't work!... NOT GUILTY!"

... and you're worried about "bringing a child into the world" being called a "consequence " when 250K are being exterminated for convenience.

I'm going to assume you're not being intentionally dense here, but you're using an inadequate parallel.

If you point a functional gun without a working safety on at a person, and you pull the trigger, you're shooting a person. That's the activity taking place.

When you're having sex, you're not necessarily making a baby. That MIGHT happen, but it's not the actual action taking place.

A better parallel would be my wife, who has Celiac Disease, eating a bowl of soup at a restaurant without asking if it has gluten in it.

Would it be irresponsible? Perhaps. Might she luck out in that the soup doesn't have gluten in it? It's possible.

But if she starts to have an allergic reaction, we're not just going to accept the allergic reaction as a "consequence of her actions," because she should have asked. Moreover, what happens if the server is wrong some of the time (much like contraceptives having a less-than-perfect success rate)? Do we still just accept it as a "consequence?" I know WE wouldn't.

But let's even suppose that the pregnancy is planned. And let's pretend that we've figured out some objective way to know that a non-sentient glob of cells is a person with rights.

That fetus still only has access to the mother's body so long as the mother consents to it.

At no point, post-birth, does one person have a "right" to the use of another person's body against their will. There is no agreement or circumstance by which you have to allow someone the use of your body for their wants or needs against your will. So, allowing the fetus the same rights as people still doesn't build enough of a case to warrant obligating a woman to allow someone or something else the use of her body against her consent. Doesn't matter how it started. Doesn't matter if she consented to it in the past. Doesn't matter who or what would be getting the consent. Doesn't matter if it's needed to survive.

And finally, it was you who referred to a pregnancy as a consequence. If, and ONLY if, you believe a fetus to be a person, that seems like an awfully trivial description, even for this discussion.

Make no mistake, I think abortion is immoral and can be used as a means to shirk responsibilities. I just don't see any grounds for making it illegal that hold up to rigorous objection, regardless of how we categorize a fetus, and regardless of whether or not the pregnancy was planned.

HitsRus;1841039 wrote:... and you're worried about "bringing a child into the world" being called a "consequence " when 250K are being exterminated for convenience.

Unfortunately this is the state of mind of many, responsibility and preparation seem to be nonexistent in society. I just can't grasp the fact that some will not bat an eye exterminating a new life because it doesn't fit their present lifestyle.

I think we've seen it posted on this forum, many many many times, that it's all about financial consequence.

ppaw1999;1840993 wrote:I think it is hypocritical for any male to be pro-life. How can any man honestly say how he would react to something that is impossible to happen to him? It is easy to tell somebody else what to do when you know it is something that you don't have to worry about. I challenge any man to put his money where his mouth is. Take an ad out in your local newspaper and state that any woman who will not have an abortion that you will cover all financial responsibilities for that child until that child reaches full maturity. Then I will believe you when you say you are 100% pro-life.

Your whole statement there and obviously your worldview is hypocritical. So no one is allowed to have an opinion if they "don't have one"? Then those who own zero guns are not allowed to have an opinion on the 2nd Amendment. Those that have never murdered anyone are not allowed to have an opinion on capital punishment.

There is no way your worldview is so skewed by the leftist propaganda that you truly believe this post. If you have been brainwashed that much I seriously suggest locking your phone, computer, and TV from any even remotely left leaning news source because it is obvious you are easily brainwashed.

HitsRus;1841027 wrote:I understand your argument, but it's still an arbitrary standard..."higher brain function". We don't get to euthanize "born" people of lower brain function at any point, not even when the situation is terminal. I'm not exactly sure of the approximate time brain function begins, but surely, there is plenty of time to realize that you're pregnant and act accordingly.10 or 12 weeks should be more than enough "free pass" time. That probably is still not good enough to satisfy some pro-lifers, but not everybody is going to get what they want totally. But, 24 weeks?...c'mon man...that's almost 2/3 of a pregnancy.

It is not arbitrary IMHO. Brain waves emanating from the frontal lobes from which consciousness and sentience emanates and connections between the thalamus and the cortex are,morally relevant facts.

The cessation of these functions is when natural death occurs as lower brain structures can emanate waves well after natural death.

Much more morally significant in my humble opinion than say a heartbeat as a heart is just a pump and we can replace them with artificial ones.

At the end of the day it is about finding a pragmatic place to figuring out when the unborn should be subject to the jurisdiction of the state as sovereign have the state's sovereignty replace the mother as sovereign.

HitsRus;1841039 wrote:stop it. just STOP. If you "consent" to engage in an activity then you accept all possible predictable outcomes.... and you are responsible for those actions. If you pick up a gun and pull the trigger and someone gets shot, There's no "I didn't consent to shooting somebody... the safety didn't work!... NOT GUILTY!"

... and you're worried about "bringing a child into the world" being called a "consequence " when 250K are being exterminated for convenience.

This would be the same as saying a person who engages in an transaction wherein one might be defrauded that they consent to being defrauded.

HitsRus;1841027 wrote:I understand your argument, but it's still an arbitrary standard..."higher brain function". We don't get to euthanize "born" people of lower brain function at any point, not even when the situation is terminal. I'm not exactly sure of the approximate time brain function begins, but surely, there is plenty of time to realize that you're pregnant and act accordingly.10 or 12 weeks should be more than enough "free pass" time. That probably is still not good enough to satisfy some pro-lifers, but not everybody is going to get what they want totally. But, 24 weeks?...c'mon man...that's almost 2/3 of a pregnancy.

Euthanasia of a born human being is different because the state has supplanted the mother as sovereign and recognizes the vesting of natural rights.

HitsRus;1841024 wrote:You are the one deflecting and equivocating what is a matter of life or death. It doesn't require a specific gender to determine if murder is wrong. I've already allowed for abortion in cases on non consensual rape, and "self defense" which would include the mother's life being endangered. What we are talking about here is consensual sex having consequences, taking responsibility for your actions, and not destroying human life for only convenience sake.

If you are operating a firearm, and you willingly pull the trigger, you are responsible for the consequences. You don't get a pass to erase it.

gosh a ruddies the guy pulls the trigger and the woman gets the consequences.
9 months of pregnancy
primary responsibility for childrearing
frequent abandonment and lack of financial support

jmog;1841066 wrote:Your whole statement there and obviously your worldview is hypocritical. So no one is allowed to have an opinion if they "don't have one"? Then those who own zero guns are not allowed to have an opinion on the 2nd Amendment. Those that have never murdered anyone are not allowed to have an opinion on capital punishment.

There is no way your worldview is so skewed by the leftist propaganda that you truly believe this post. If you have been brainwashed that much I seriously suggest locking your phone, computer, and TV from any even remotely left leaning news source because it is obvious you are easily brainwashed.

You are more than welcome to have your own opinion. What I disagree is trying to force your opinion on someone else. It is hypocritical for you to presume your opinion is more valid and is more correct than the next person. To force someone to act upon your opinion and not offer any help or solution to help them is wrong. Who made you God? So I'm brainwashed because my opinion is different than yours? Once again you are saying that your opinion is the only right and valid opinion. Sounds like you are the brainwashed one.

BoatShoes;1841079 wrote:Euthanasia of a born human being is different because the state has supplanted the mother as sovereign and recognizes the vesting of natural rights.

A person who killed a puppy was recently convicted under Goddard's law and sentenced to a year in prison.. a dog has more rights than a human fetus.

BoatShoes;1841077 wrote:It is not arbitrary IMHO. Brain waves emanating from the frontal lobes from which consciousness and sentience emanates and connections between the thalamus and the cortex are,morally relevant facts.

The cessation of these functions is when natural death occurs as lower brain structures can emanate waves well after natural death.

Much more morally significant in my humble opinion than say a heartbeat as a heart is just a pump and we can replace them with artificial ones.

At the end of the day it is about finding a pragmatic place to figuring out when the unborn should be subject to the jurisdiction of the state as sovereign have the state's sovereignty replace the mother as sovereign.

I tend to fall along these lines as well, when it comes to defining the "essence" of being a person.

BoatShoes;1841078 wrote:This would be the same as saying a person who engages in an transaction wherein one might be defrauded that they consent to being defrauded.

I mean, here we can quibble about the "odds," but even that is subjective.

ppaw1999;1841085 wrote:You are more than welcome to have your own opinion. What I disagree is trying to force your opinion on someone else. It is hypocritical for you to presume your opinion is more valid and is more correct than the next person. To force someone to act upon your opinion and not offer any help or solution to help them is wrong. Who made you God? So I'm brainwashed because my opinion is different than yours? Once again you are saying that your opinion is the only right and valid opinion. Sounds like you are the brainwashed one.

This still seems simplistic. If only those with personal experience have a right to set the cultural standard (ie, force their "opinions" on others), you still don't make a case that those who don't own guns should have a say in the law, or that those who have never been on trial for murder should have any say on capital punishment.

Is this what you think? Do you genuinely believe that those without personal experience are incapable of discussing a topic, even at a morally philosophical level?

For example, I don't have urges toward pedophilia, but I daresay I wouldn't leave legislation for acting on such impulses to those who do exclusively.

HitsRus;1841198 wrote:A person who killed a puppy was recently convicted under Goddard's law and sentenced to a year in prison.. a dog has more rights than a human fetus.

Factually accurate, no matter what side of the argument you're on.

ppaw1999;1841085 wrote:You are more than welcome to have your own opinion. What I disagree is trying to force your opinion on someone else. It is hypocritical for you to presume your opinion is more valid and is more correct than the next person.

Some opinions are far more valid than other opinions. And facts can even be more valid than opinions.