Texas bans abortion.

[Stacyhs]

feel free to take out the word creator and substitute the word nature.

Nature and Creator are not the same thing so one cannot be substituted for the other. Creator would be a conscious entity with power to create. Nature has no consciousness and no willful power to create; it is the non-manmade physical and material world . As I've said before, you are personifying nature and giving it power it does not have.

 

[Warbler]

What's the right number of times to deny women their rights?

to quote you:

You don't seem to be reading what people are writing to you very well.

 

[Warbler]

The point is that if you think abortion is a bad thing you should be out on the street corner handing out contraceptives. You should be pushing for legislation that provides women with free and easy access to contraceptives. But you don’t, none of you do.

contraceptives are readily available, at least in my area, I don't think I need be out on a street corner giving them away.

 

[Stacyhs]

technically any cell has life. If you can't see the different between a sperm cell and a fertilized egg that is developing into a human being, I don't know.

In the early stages, there really is no difference. They both are "alive" in the biological sense but certainly not in the sense that anti-choice people give to a zygote.

As I've said before, a seed, once it germinates, is in the process of becoming a flower. At what stage would you say it becomes an actual flower?

 

[Warbler]

I do. And you do, too.

The same person who decides for every other medical risk: the patient.

but this is unlike every other medical decision: another life is at stake.

I will repeat myself:


If we had a law banning abortion under normal circumstances, but wanted to provide a exception for when the risk to the life of the mother was too great, I don't know who but medical experts you would go to, to figure out when the risk to the mother was too great.

please read the bold.

 

[Warbler]

How does that help? How does replacing a non existent god/creator with a non existent personified nature help in any way?

some non-religious folks don't like the idea of rights coming from God or a creator, so we substitute nature, a non-religious term. Also hence the term: natural rights.

 

[acbytesla]

Uhhh...I never said abortion should be illegal.

That's the point. No one can nail you down on what you do believe. You just lean on "personal accountability" as if that means something to the rest of us.

I'm pro choice because I'm a man and I don't have to live with the consequences.

When I was a teenager I had sex regularly with my girlfriend. The best times of my life. We took precautions. We used condoms, we practiced the rythm method. She got a diaphragm. But admittedly, sometimes we were reckless. And sometimes the condoms did break. And we know that neither the rythm method or the diaphragm are foolproof.

What would have happened if she became pregnant? She didn't, but she easily could have. I knew girls that did.

Personal accountability might have meant me and her quitting school. I probably would have become a construction worker. Nothing wrong with construction work. My brothers are all in construction. But I hated it. She became a Dentist. What would have happened if her very religious parents had found out she was pregnant?

I worried about all of this when I was a teenager. But that didn't keep my hands off her.

The only true method to prevent pregnancy is to abstain from sex entirely. An option which I find empty and unrealistic.

 

[Warbler]

How in the world do you think that? None of us are forcing people to abort

but you do want to give women the right to force the fetus to die.

 

[Warp12]

That's the point. No one can nail you down on what you do believe. You just lean on "personal accountability" as if that means something to the rest of us.

If the concept of "personal accountability" means nothing to you, that would explain a whole lot in regard to your arguments.

Thank you for that clarification.

 

[Stacyhs]

If one really wants to reduce the number of abortions then one should focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies by providing contraceptives to women who do not want to be pregnant. In fact, they should be free and easy to obtain. That would have the best chance of reducing the number of abortions.

PP puts a lot of effort into such efforts. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, rarely put any real effort into effective prevention programs.
Do I need to expand further?

I beg to differ. They put a lot of effort into telling young people*, especially girls, "Just say No". I mean it worked so well with drugs!

*But we all know that "boys will be boys".
In some cultures, post-pubescent girls have to cover themselves because seeing them just drives men wild and they can't control themselves.

Hijab or covering, for example, is so that women's sexuality will not become a source of temptation or enter into their interactions with men.

 

[Warp12]

In some cultures, post-pubescent girls have to cover themselves because seeing them just drives men wild and they can't control themselves.

In some cultures, women can walk around dressed as harlots desiring sexual attention, and men aren't supposed to be affected. Go figure.

 

[Warbler]

Oh for crying out loud. Please tell me where you know of a womb that isn't part of a person.

I don't think I ever said the womb wasn't part of a person.

You said conception is when a new human starts to develop. And that is wrong. Objectively wrong. You can only make that statement true by assuming some subjectively chosen definition of human.

The formation of any human does not start at conception. It certainly can't be denied that the formation of the sperm days before conception and the egg decades before conception were necessary to get to that point. How can you deny that those aren't starting points?

I don't how you can say it is objectively wrong to say "conception is when a new human life starts to develop" THAT IS WHEN THE WHOLE PREGNANCY STARTS! I don't know what else to say.

And please pay attention to what I said just a few posts back which you immediately lied about.

lied? I don't think I lied about anything, at least not intentionally.

No one is telling you you can't place whatever value you like on that chemical reaction. It's forcing other people to live your fantasy that is a problem.

you are for allowing women the right to kill a fetus based on the value that you, and other pro choice people, put on the fetus.

 

[Warbler]

Nature and Creator are not the same thing so one cannot be substituted for the other. Creator would be a conscious entity with power to create. Nature has no consciousness and no willful power to create; it is the non-manmade physical and material world . As I've said before, you are personifying nature and giving it power it does not have.

If you really are a history teacher, you would know the word nature has been substituted for create in terms of where natural rights come from.

 

[acbytesla]

If the concept of "personal accountability" means nothing to you, that would explain a whole lot in regard to your arguments.

Thank you for that clarification.

Apparently it means nothing to you since you are incapable of saying what it means situationally.

Being personally accountable when I break a window means I pay for the window. It means when I take out a loan I pay my debts.

But I don't know what you mean as it applies to an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy. How is that you think the answer is accountability when you can't and won't say what that means?

 

[Stacyhs]

If we had a law banning abortion under normal circumstances, but wanted to provide a exception for when the risk to the life of the mother was too great, I don't know who but medical experts you would go to, to figure out when the risk to the mother was too great.

Women who are diagnosed with cancer and are pregnant are recommended not to continue their pregnancy because they cannot receive chemo or radiation without direct harm or death to the fetus. In some cases, the woman may not be able to survive the cancer if she doesn't undergo treatment until after the birth of the baby. So who decides if the risk to her life is 'too great'? Her or the doctor?

As of now, the law says the woman decides if she wants to abort or continue without treatment. So, what if the doctor says the chances of the mother beating the cancer without treatment is about 20%? Is that enough that she could abort and not be violating the TX law? Or would it have to be at least 50%? Who decides that?

 

[Warp12]

Apparently it means nothing to you since you are incapable of saying what it means situationally.

Being personally accountable when I break a window means I pay for the window. It means when I take out a loan I pay my debts.

But I don't know what you mean as it applies to an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy. How is that you think the answer is accountability when you can't and won't say what that means?

Wrong again. See my response to Paul2 where he posed the exact scenario that you describe.

 

[Warbler]

In the early stages, there really is no difference. They both are "alive" in the biological sense but certainly not in the sense that anti-choice people give to a zygote.

like I said if you can't see difference between an embryo and a sperm cell, I give up.

As I've said before, a seed, once it germinates, is in the process of becoming a flower. At what stage would you say it becomes an actual flower?


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_716696154fb227c3a3.jpg[/qimg]

a flower is not the same a human. We don't talk about flower rights.

 

[acbytesla]

Wrong again. See my response to Paul2 where he posed the exact scenario that you describe.

There you go again not saying what it means.

 

[Stacyhs]

If abortion is legal, those that think the fetus has no value and no rights are by definition asking everyone else to accept their opinion.

No. Because no one is telling anyone else what they have to believe just as they are not telling them they have to have an abortion if it is not their choice.

 

[Warp12]

In some cultures, post-pubescent girls have to cover themselves because seeing them just drives men wild and they can't control themselves.

In some cultures, women can walk around dressed as harlots desiring sexual attention, and men aren't supposed to be affected. Go figure.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

I believe my statement to be a valid counterpoint.