Let’s see what you boys think about this...

[Been Jammin]

(stolen from anonymous source)


"The world is full of people who need organ transplants to keep them alive. There's no shortage of dead people with repurposable organs, but the average wait time for a kidney is about 4 years.


What's more, for most people, you can live with one kidney. Even if nobody checked the organ donor box on their license, there are still plenty of living people who could supply kidneys for everyone who needs one. Not just kidneys. You can give up a sizable chunk of your liver, for instance, because it'll grow back.


And yet, in all your life, you've probably never heard someone profess a deeply held religious conviction that people with healthy organs should be imprisoned for refusing to donate them.


If anti-abortion folks followed their logic to its inevitable conclusion, they would see why what they call a "right to life" cannot coexist with an inviolate right to bodily autonomy, and why the latter must win out.


The state cannot compel someone to give up a kidney. Cannot. It's absurd to even say, but it is a terrible idea to grant the state the power to harvest peoples' organs against their will.


An embryo is not a person, and I want to be perfectly clear on that, but EVEN IF IT WERE, the state cannot compel a woman to donate her organs for the embryo's use. Even if an embryo were a person, the state cannot compel a woman to lend that person the use of her organs.


Even if someone gave the kidney back later, it is still inconceivable to imagine granting the state the power to take that kidney in the first place. This should be blindingly obvious to anyone who gives it even passing consideration.


Pregnancy is dangerous. Women can die from even minor complications, and even omitting death, pregnancy can result in all kinds of permanent damage to a woman's body, her well-being, her career - and this is just pregnancy as a medical state we're talking about. This is saying nothing about how difficult actually raising a child could be.


Being pregnant is a dangerous, life-altering, and sometimes even life-threatening condition, and the state cannot compel women to enter into it for the exact same reason that a judge can't throw you in jail for bogarting that second kidney.


There is no serious philosophical grounding for opposing abortion that does not have as its animating spirit either a sectarian religious agenda, or an openly misogynistic agenda, and the Constitution could not be more unambiguous - neither of those is an acceptable basis for making laws."

 

[Ostatedchi]

So it is the contention that the state can't take from you by force and then give it to someone else? That's the logic the left wants to use now? Seriously?

Yet you can force me to pay for someone else's health care, housing, food, etc? You lose one you lose the other.

 

[Been Jammin]

So it is the contention that the state can't take from you by force and then give it to someone else? That's the logic the left wants to use now? Seriously?

Yet you can force me to pay for someone else's health care, housing, food, etc? You lose one you lose the other.

The comparison is about body autonomy. Every government in history has taken from its citizens and given to someone else.

 

[MegaPoke]

Not a good analogy.

Even if I agreed with your position that an embryo isn’t a human life yet, that “organ” was originated via another party’s genetic property. Is not up to the woman to unilaterally throw it away.

What about men’s rights? The whole “her body” thing is nonsense propaganda. We tell people what they can and can’t do to their own bodies all the time via legislation against drugs and prostitution for starters.

A woman can abort her shared gentetic propertu (baby) without informing the other genetic owner, but she can’t charge you $ (directly) for a blowjob.

 

[Been Jammin]

Not a good analogy.

Even if I agreed with your position that an embryo isn’t a human life yet, that “organ” was originated via another party’s genetic property. Is not up to the woman to unilaterally throw it away.

What about men’s rights? The whole “her body” thing is nonsense propaganda. We tell people what they can and can’t do to their own bodies all the time via legislation against drugs and prostitution for starters.

A woman can abort her shared gentetic propertu (baby) without informing the other genetic owner, but she can’t charge you $ (directly) for a blowjob.

Are you claiming that the new Alabama law, and opposition to RvW, is grounded in “men’s rights”?

 

[aix_xpert]

(stolen from anonymous source)


"The world is full of people who need organ transplants to keep them alive. There's no shortage of dead people with repurposable organs, but the average wait time for a kidney is about 4 years.


What's more, for most people, you can live with one kidney. Even if nobody checked the organ donor box on their license, there are still plenty of living people who could supply kidneys for everyone who needs one. Not just kidneys. You can give up a sizable chunk of your liver, for instance, because it'll grow back.


And yet, in all your life, you've probably never heard someone profess a deeply held religious conviction that people with healthy organs should be imprisoned for refusing to donate them.


If anti-abortion folks followed their logic to its inevitable conclusion, they would see why what they call a "right to life" cannot coexist with an inviolate right to bodily autonomy, and why the latter must win out.


The state cannot compel someone to give up a kidney. Cannot. It's absurd to even say, but it is a terrible idea to grant the state the power to harvest peoples' organs against their will.


An embryo is not a person, and I want to be perfectly clear on that, but EVEN IF IT WERE, the state cannot compel a woman to donate her organs for the embryo's use. Even if an embryo were a person, the state cannot compel a woman to lend that person the use of her organs.


Even if someone gave the kidney back later, it is still inconceivable to imagine granting the state the power to take that kidney in the first place. This should be blindingly obvious to anyone who gives it even passing consideration.


Pregnancy is dangerous. Women can die from even minor complications, and even omitting death, pregnancy can result in all kinds of permanent damage to a woman's body, her well-being, her career - and this is just pregnancy as a medical state we're talking about. This is saying nothing about how difficult actually raising a child could be.


Being pregnant is a dangerous, life-altering, and sometimes even life-threatening condition, and the state cannot compel women to enter into it for the exact same reason that a judge can't throw you in jail for bogarting that second kidney.


There is no serious philosophical grounding for opposing abortion that does not have as its animating spirit either a sectarian religious agenda, or an openly misogynistic agenda, and the Constitution could not be more unambiguous - neither of those is an acceptable basis for making laws."

This is why I believe viability of the child matters. I agree that the government can't dictate what a woman does with her body. It can't force her to carry the baby to term. That said, aborting a baby that would be viable outside the mother is murder.

 

[Ostatedchi]

The comparison is about body autonomy. Every government in history has taken from its citizens and given to someone else.

No, it is about personal property rights. Your body is your property just as much as your stuff is.

 

[squeak]

If I’m following correctly I guess I can just let my 6 month-old fend for herself with no consequences for me?

 

[MegaPoke]

Are you claiming that the new Alabama law, and opposition to RvW, is grounded in “men’s rights”?

Nope. It’s their state though and it should be up to them to decide it.

 

[22LR]

"There is no serious philosophical grounding for opposing abortion that does not have as its animating spirit either a sectarian religious agenda, or an openly misogynistic agenda, and the Constitution could not be more unambiguous - neither of those is an acceptable basis for making laws."

This is from the pit of Hell and smells like smoke.

 

[Been Jammin]

Nope. It’s their state though and it should be up to them to decide it.

So, you would be in favor of Oklahoma passing a law that all residents donated blood X number of times per year, and checked yes on the organ donor box? I mean, we are talking about the “right to life”. Just think how many lives would be saved with that law.

 

[Been Jammin]

"There is no serious philosophical grounding for opposing abortion that does not have as its animating spirit either a sectarian religious agenda, or an openly misogynistic agenda, and the Constitution could not be more unambiguous - neither of those is an acceptable basis for making laws."

This is from the pit of Hell and smells like smoke.

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Glad we both agree on the above.

 

[MegaPoke]

So, you would be in favor of Oklahoma passing a law that all residents donated blood X number of times per year, and checked yes on the organ donor box? I mean, we are talking about the “right to life”. Just think how many lives would be saved with that law.

Your analogy is not good.

I’m in favor of states having control of their own bodies er..... abortion laws.

 

[squeak]

The state can and has compelled you to do all sorts of things to protect yourself and others. The extent of which is determined by the people and laws/courts. The my body my choice argument is ridiculous just like the suggestion that I don’t have to protect the well-being of my child because you have no right to tell me how to use my body and organs. I’m pretty selfish at times and don’t want people telling me what to do, but you have to be mentally ill to think it’s not your responsibility to care for your child.

I think the argument is about when the fetus has rights and that’s a state’s rights issue, IMO.

 

[OSU_Orlando]

(stolen from anonymous source)


"The world is full of people who need organ transplants to keep them alive. There's no shortage of dead people with repurposable organs, but the average wait time for a kidney is about 4 years.


What's more, for most people, you can live with one kidney. Even if nobody checked the organ donor box on their license, there are still plenty of living people who could supply kidneys for everyone who needs one. Not just kidneys. You can give up a sizable chunk of your liver, for instance, because it'll grow back.


And yet, in all your life, you've probably never heard someone profess a deeply held religious conviction that people with healthy organs should be imprisoned for refusing to donate them.


If anti-abortion folks followed their logic to its inevitable conclusion, they would see why what they call a "right to life" cannot coexist with an inviolate right to bodily autonomy, and why the latter must win out.


The state cannot compel someone to give up a kidney. Cannot. It's absurd to even say, but it is a terrible idea to grant the state the power to harvest peoples' organs against their will.


An embryo is not a person, and I want to be perfectly clear on that, but EVEN IF IT WERE, the state cannot compel a woman to donate her organs for the embryo's use. Even if an embryo were a person, the state cannot compel a woman to lend that person the use of her organs.


Even if someone gave the kidney back later, it is still inconceivable to imagine granting the state the power to take that kidney in the first place. This should be blindingly obvious to anyone who gives it even passing consideration.


Pregnancy is dangerous. Women can die from even minor complications, and even omitting death, pregnancy can result in all kinds of permanent damage to a woman's body, her well-being, her career - and this is just pregnancy as a medical state we're talking about. This is saying nothing about how difficult actually raising a child could be.


Being pregnant is a dangerous, life-altering, and sometimes even life-threatening condition, and the state cannot compel women to enter into it for the exact same reason that a judge can't throw you in jail for bogarting that second kidney.


There is no serious philosophical grounding for opposing abortion that does not have as its animating spirit either a sectarian religious agenda, or an openly misogynistic agenda, and the Constitution could not be more unambiguous - neither of those is an acceptable basis for making laws."

Non-religious guy going to break down this argument. First a BIG assumption is that we would agree that a fetus isn't a human being, I disagree right off the bat with this assertion. Comparing a human to an extra kidney is an unusual and frankly absurd comparison. Going past that...

Yes, there are some pregnancies that are dangerous, roughly 700 women die due to pregnancy/delivery complications per the CDC. That is incredibly sad, however, with our medical practices are so advanced that number is actually a step in the right direction. Using the rare case of pregnancy related deaths as a crutch or excuse to terminate the life of a child in the womb is an extreme position to say the least. Being pregnant IS life-altering for all parties, especially for the child/human/fetus in the womb, it's a life. A change to a woman's career, she could easily have prevented a pregnancy via abstinence, purchase of contraceptives (there are many many cheap options including some covered via medical insurance).

In the cases of rape and incest...we must encourage women to come forward in right away. Plan B is readily available to women and would be encouraged to use this product in the case she thinks a pregnancy is possible. This prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall and thus preventing an unwanted pregnancy, which prevents a human being in her womb, and prevents her from needing a procedure that would ultimately kill her child. All of that being said, abortion due to rape and incest accounts for roughly 1%.

A woman absolutely has a right to body autonomy, especially in making choices that prevents a pregnancy but adding another human's life into the mix changes the equation.

 

[okcpokefan12]

Gained a lot of respect for certain posters by reading this thread. Lost a lot for certain others.

 

[Medic007]

An embryo is not a person, and I want to be perfectly clear on that, but EVEN IF IT WERE,

If an embryo isn't a person, what is it? A cow? A Firestone tire? A tennis racket? Strawberry jello? An XXL Free the Toon Tshirt? At what point does the magical conversion from non-person to person happen?

The problem with my fellow pro-choicers is that they sound like absolute idiots when discussing prenatal human development.

 

[wyomingosualum]

 

[Been Jammin]

If an embryo isn't a person, what is it? A cow? A Firestone tire? A tennis racket? Strawberry jello? An XXL Free the Toon Tshirt? At what point does the magical conversion from non-person to person happen?

The problem with my fellow pro-choicers is that they sound like absolute idiots when discussing prenatal human development.

To be clear. You quoted something from my post, but that sentence came from someone I quoted. You would have to ask him that question.

 

[okcpokefan12]

To be clear. You quoted something from my post, but that sentence came from someone I quoted. You would have to ask him that question.

Do you believe what you posted or not?

 

[OKSTATE1]

Comparing an organ to human life makes no sense. The womb is not growing one single organ, it is keeping alive all of the genetic coding for a human being, that we now knows has a beating HEART early in the pregnancy, and they are confident feels pain (once they prove this game over).

 

[HighStickHarry]

Why is no one talking about the obvious? @JimmyBob your liver grows back! Hell yeah!

 

[Been Jammin]

Do you believe what you posted or not?

Honestly, I have mixed feelings about it. I thought it was a different, and interesting angle to the discussion, and brought it over here to see what kind of dialogue it generated. If you had to pin me down to pick the poster I agree most with, ITT, it would be @aix_xpert. But, I don’t think I am 100% on the same page as him either.

One thing I definitely believe is that making it illegal if the pregnancy is in the first trimester, and the mother was raped, or her life is in danger due to the pregnancy, is a bridge too far. I would probably be fine with most anti-abortion laws that made stipulations for extenuating circumstances that incorporate basic logic and empathy into the picture for rare special situations.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

Non-religious guy going to break down this argument. First a BIG assumption is that we would agree that a fetus isn't a human being, I disagree right off the bat with this assertion. Comparing a human to an extra kidney is an unusual and frankly absurd comparison. Going past that...

Yes, there are some pregnancies that are dangerous, roughly 700 women die due to pregnancy/delivery complications per the CDC. That is incredibly sad, however, with our medical practices are so advanced that number is actually a step in the right direction. Using the rare case of pregnancy related deaths as a crutch or excuse to terminate the life of a child in the womb is an extreme position to say the least. Being pregnant IS life-altering for all parties, especially for the child/human/fetus in the womb, it's a life. A change to a woman's career, she could easily have prevented a pregnancy via abstinence, purchase of contraceptives (there are many many cheap options including some covered via medical insurance).

In the cases of rape and incest...we must encourage women to come forward in right away. Plan B is readily available to women and would be encouraged to use this product in the case she thinks a pregnancy is possible. This prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall and thus preventing an unwanted pregnancy, which prevents a human being in her womb, and prevents her from needing a procedure that would ultimately kill her child. All of that being said, abortion due to rape and incest accounts for roughly 1%.

A woman absolutely has a right to body autonomy, especially in making choices that prevents a pregnancy but adding another human's life into the mix changes the equation.

Good post. I will go even further and say that if somebody has to die because of a rape, I prefer it be the rapist and not the child.

 

[OSU_Orlando]

Good post. I will go even further and say that if somebody has to die because of a rape, I prefer it be the rapist and not the child.

Yes, if you put a gun to my head and say 1 of the two has to die I'm saying the rapist every time. Off topic, I go back and forth on the death penalty, mostly because someone rotting in jail is a pretty awful punishment for the rest of their life and death is the easy way out, IMO.

 

[OSU_Orlando]

Honestly, I have mixed feelings about it. I thought it was a different, and interesting angle to the discussion, and brought it over here to see what kind of dialogue it generated. If you had to pin me down to pick the poster I agree most with, ITT, it would be @aix_xpert. But, I don’t think I am 100% on the same page as him either.

One thing I definitely believe is that making it illegal if the pregnancy is in the first trimester, and the mother was raped, or her life is in danger due to the pregnancy, is a bridge too far. I would probably be fine with most anti-abortion laws that made stipulations for extenuating circumstances that incorporate basic logic and empathy into the picture for rare special situations.

Ok, say you're in a representative in (Insert State you live in) and a bill is proposed with the following stipulations:

-Woman who reports rape or incest activity and is concerned about pregnancy is provided Plan B to prevent pregnancy (automatically)
-Woman can abort the pregnancy due to rape or incest prior to a recognizable heart beat no later than 6 weeks (no expense to her)
-Woman can abort the pregnancy due to extreme health conditions that is life threatening to her, example, potential bleed out during child birth, some forms of cancer treatment, etc.
-Termination of pregnancy after 6 weeks is prohibited unless extreme health conditions present after consultation with licensed OBGYN or other phsycian

Yay or Nay, what's your vote?

A bill like that would decrease abortions in America (if approved in all states) by over 90%

 

[Been Jammin]

Good post. I will go even further and say that if somebody has to die because of a rape, I prefer it be the rapist and not the child.

No empathy for the woman who has already been through something horific, and now has to be reminded of it daily for the next 9 months, and then make an extremely difficult decision after the baby is born? I mean, too bad, so sad for her, right? She will just have to suck it up and deal with it.

 

[Been Jammin]

Ok, say you're in a representative in (Insert State you live in) and a bill is proposed with the following stipulations:

-Woman who reports rape or incest activity and is concerned about pregnancy is provided Plan B to prevent pregnancy (automatically)
-Woman can abort the pregnancy due to rape or incest prior to a recognizable heart beat no later than 6 weeks (no expense to her)
-Woman can abort the pregnancy due to extreme health conditions that is life threatening to her, example, potential bleed out during child birth, some forms of cancer treatment, etc.
-Termination of pregnancy after 6 weeks is prohibited unless extreme health conditions present after consultation with licensed OBGYN or other phsycian

Yay or Nay, what's your vote?

A bill like that would decrease abortions in America (if approved in all states) by over 90%

Probably yay. I would like it better if it was 8 or 10 weeks, and if there was an addendum that allowed for some kind of hearing in special extenuating circumstances not covered by your proposal. (As in something extremely rare that you and I can’t even imagine right now).

 

[OSU_Orlando]

Probably yay. I would like it better if it was 8 or 10 weeks, and if there was an addendum that allowed for some kind of hearing in special extenuating circumstances not covered by your proposal. (As in something extremely rare that you and I can’t even imagine right now).

I could definitely agree to some sort of expedited hearing to hear a case for some really rare occurrence.

It would be hard to move me off of the 6 weeks time frame due to knowing the baby likely has a detectable heartbeat but...I would compromise and say 8 weeks and get that bill signed.

 

[Been Jammin]

I could definitely agree to some sort of expedited hearing to hear a case for some really rare occurrence.

It would be hard to move me off of the 6 weeks time frame due to knowing the baby likely has a detectable heartbeat but...I would compromise and say 8 weeks and get that bill signed.

Deal. Now you and I just need to establish our own state.

 

[Medic007]

To be clear. You quoted something from my post, but that sentence came from someone I quoted. You would have to ask him that question.

Seriously? What are your thoughts regarding when human life begins? I'd ask the person you quoted, but I've only got you to quote.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

No empathy for the woman who has already been through something horific, and now has to be reminded of it daily for the next 9 months, and then make an extremely difficult decision after the baby is born? I mean, too bad, so sad for her, right? She will just have to suck it up and deal with it.

Or kill a baby. Great choice.

 

[aix_xpert]

Ok, say you're in a representative in (Insert State you live in) and a bill is proposed with the following stipulations:

-Woman who reports rape or incest activity and is concerned about pregnancy is provided Plan B to prevent pregnancy (automatically)
-Woman can abort the pregnancy due to rape or incest prior to a recognizable heart beat no later than 6 weeks (no expense to her)
-Woman can abort the pregnancy due to extreme health conditions that is life threatening to her, example, potential bleed out during child birth, some forms of cancer treatment, etc.
-Termination of pregnancy after 6 weeks is prohibited unless extreme health conditions present after consultation with licensed OBGYN or other phsycian

Yay or Nay, what's your vote?

A bill like that would decrease abortions in America (if approved in all states) by over 90%

Nay. A woman may not even know she is pregnant in those first 6 weeks. That's one missed period to a woman who is obviously under serious stress and trauma. If you push it to 12 weeks (2nd trimester), I could vote yes.

 

[JimmyBob]

Why is no one talking about the obvious? @JimmyBob your liver grows back! Hell yeah!

So genius, why hasn't my right tit grown back?

 

[AC_Exotic]

The pro life movement could have prevented millions of abortions by taking a little at a time.

It's an political position based on deep conviction, which means any time legislation is attempted, they swing for the fences, like Alabama.

 

[Been Jammin]

Seriously? What are your thoughts regarding when human life begins? I'd ask the person you quoted, but I've only got you to quote.

Clearly, the answer to that question is open for debate, and can be rationalized to fit an individual’s agenda.

But,I believe in the death penalty. On a regular basis, I relieve the suffering of living creatures via humane euthanasia. I have spayed many pregnant pets, over the years, because rescue groups wanted to help the life of the mother, but didn’t have the resources to help a larger number of dogs/cats. I am in favor of laws that would allow for humane euthanasia for people in certain situations.

Therefore, I’m not hung up on thinking about a definitive answer to your question. As @aix_xpert noted above, the baby/fetus is not viable outside the womb until a certain point in the pregnancy. In my mind, that is the point at which no one can argue that human life has not begun. Prior to that, I think there is some grey area.

One thing that can’t be debated is that the mother is an example of human life. She has a fully developed nervous system. She is capable of cognitive thought. She has to suffer through the pregnancy, and deal with the ramifications that come after. I am inclined to focus on her well being over the well being of a tiny thing that can’t yet think or feel. If you want to say that I am supporting murder, that is up to you. We’ve already established that I am ok with ending life prematurely in certain situations. Life is not fair. Not everyone gets the same fair shake as others.

With all that said, I don’t support abortion past a certain point in the pregnancy, even though the baby can not yet survive outside the womb. There should be a cutoff at which the mother has to decide whether or not to move forward. Six weeks is too early. In my mind 13 weeks is too late. I think 10-12 weeks is reasonable, but could probably live with 8-9.

 

[Been Jammin]

The pro life movement could have prevented millions of abortions by taking a little at a time.

It's an political position based on deep conviction, which means any time legislation is attempted, they swing for the fences, like Alabama.

I have to say, that your takes on this topic have really surprised me. I would have pegged you as all in on what Bama has done. Kudos.

 

[AC_Exotic]

I have to say, that your takes on this topic have really surprised me. I would have pegged you as all in on what Bama has done. Kudos.

I'm all in, but also understand in politics you need to take what you can get.

Liberals figured this out a long time ago.

Not sure anyone on the conservative side has the discipline to play the long game.

 

[PokeMBA]

Organs exist as part of your body at conception. So it’s ironic this is the analogy.

Baby in the womb exists due to actions by 2 individuals which resulted in the creation of a 3rd individual. It’s my opinion that our founding fathers had it correct in that all men are created equal.

If we are to be seen as true individuals with rights born to us and privileges granted to us by our government then this happens at conception.

Only when the Us Starts to realize that individual life is what pro-life is all about then nothing will change. It’s circular and pitfall logic that is used to defend otherwise. They idea of “women’s rights” is absurd. Approximately 50% of all abortions are of the female gender!! What about women’s rights

 

[Cowguy]

I think most pro life people are more reasonable than most pro choice people think. My major objection is the use of abortion as birth control. I personally concede that there are exceptions and I’d gladly grant those exceptions, if abortion for birth control was eliminated.

How did we come to be a society that stopped believing in consequence of action? There are ways to prevent pregnancy that are almost completely effective. Why is it your right to end a life, because you made risky choices?

I’m sorry but aborting a fetus, because you had risky sex is just evil.