Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Oh yay! I agree with you for once.
- Status
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
( 
)kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,930
Better get to proving that already.
That's what skeptics do, of course. Assume everything written or said to be truth, unless proven otherwise.
Evidence is only required in order to refute claims. Right?
It is amazing that only a few people are suggesting that this story should be supported by additional facts. Some are even making statements to the effect that it doesn't matter if the story is true or not. I guess unsupported claims are sometimes acceptable, if it fits the desired narrative.
Last edited:
slyjoe
Illuminator
It's not about just quoting, and I think you know it. It is about making the same argument.
mikegriffith1
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2012
- Messages
- 803
If you want to talk science, then the first thing that must be observed is that the baby is not part of the mother's body. He is *in* the mother's body, but he is not a part of her body. The baby is a separate living being with a unique DNA set, his own blood supply (often with a different blood type than the mother's), his own brain, his own heart, his own eyes, his own limbs, etc., etc.
So the argument "my body, my choice" is scientifically baseless. A more accurate slogan would be "my baby, my choice," but that would be problematic because it would highlight that the "choice" is whether or not to allow the baby to live. It would be a much more honest argument, but it would be tantamount to saying, "I should be allowed to kill my baby if I decide I don't want the baby."
So the argument "my body, my choice" is scientifically baseless. A more accurate slogan would be "my baby, my choice," but that would be problematic because it would highlight that the "choice" is whether or not to allow the baby to live. It would be a much more honest argument, but it would be tantamount to saying, "I should be allowed to kill my baby if I decide I don't want the baby."
As I often say, "My body, my choice" is fine...the problem is, there is a second body involved. If it wasn't so, there would be no reason for all of this debate.
Last edited:
The right wing is actively trying to create a world where 10 year old girls who have been raped and impregnated by their father will have to give birth to their own half-sibling. I think getting bogged down in a zillion post argument over whether or not this one particular story is true or not is a distraction, that's all.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,875
so what's the line?
is a pregnant person allowed to do anything that makes early termination more likely?
Well, I don't think women should have to carry incest babies to term.
However, loudly screeching over such things is pointlessly dramatic. These incidents are not statistically significant. Let's say 100 instances of this were to occur each year; in the US, over 600k abortions are performed annually.
This is all just a game the liberals play, anyway. The only reason they keep bringing those examples up is that they are seemingly more outrageous and extreme. If you said rape and incest abortions are ok, they will then make something else the issue. The bottom line is they want the right to terminate the unborn, with as few limitations as possible.
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 6,030
Exactly, only other men should be able do decide what happens to a pregnant women.
Right up until giving birth of course, once that happens all the responsibility is on the mother.
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,930
Except that said baby cannot live outside of the mother's body until very late in term.
So is a virus.
So, now we have people here on the forum who consider the unborn on par with both parasites and viruses. Lovely.
Last edited:
Ultimately the world view of the forum is materialist. Nothing has intrinsic or transcendent value, except where we choose to be inconsistent with our world view.
Yup. Pro-Choicers want to have the pregnant woman be able to make the choice over whether or not they carry their pregnancy to term. Pro-lifers want to be able to force pregnant women to bring their pregnancy to term regardless or their wishes.
But I don't think the pro-lifers have thought through all the real-world implications of their position. Roe v Wade allowed women in the uncomfortable outlier situations to go off and quietly have abortions where pro-lifers didn't have to think about it, so pro-lifers could continue to fight for the unborn without worrying about the pesky nitty-gritty details. But with it gone, a lot of pro-lifers are going to have to think about things like miscarriage police, border pregnancy checkpoints, and pregnant ten-year-olds.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Why not?
So what? Assume for the sake of argument that a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. Why should one person be required to risk her life and health, not to mention her economic status and social well-being, for the benefit of another? We don't require anyone to donate a kidney or a liver to anyone else, even to save their lives. We don't even require anyone to donate blood. On what basis do we tell a pregnant woman "This mass of cells has rights that are superior to yours." Women are not incubators.
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,956
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
And you in turn want to disallow the termination with as few exceptions as possible.
Statistics are useful for many things but not so much for the victims of utilitarian doctrine. Outliers inconveniently insist on existing.
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
Do try to pay attention.WTF?
No 10 yr olds have ever gotten abortions?
We're talking about a made-up story of a nine-year-old girl who was statutorily raped just a handful of weeks before the Supreme Court overturned Roe and has since travelled to Indiana for her abortion. That's what we're talking about, Skeptic Ginger. Not whether 10-year-olds have ever gotten abortions, but rather about how many 9-year-olds who were impregnated shortly before the SC decision will need to travel to another state for an abortion because they are just now slightly over six weeks pregnant and therefore ineligible to receive an abortion in the state of Ohio. It hasn't happened, not in this case or any other.
- Status