Babies or tissue?

[layoutshooter]

I won't debate the abortion issue on it's own. I have EVERY RIGHT to refuse to pay for them. I also have EVERY RIGHT to refuse to pay for OTHER PEOPLE'S RESPONSIBILITIES!

Like maternity and new born care. With my wife being 60 THAT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!! (thank GOD for that!) Like pediatric vision care, I DON'T have any kids any more!

When WE had OUR kids WE covered their costs. That is what RESPONSIBLE ADULTS DO. We took on a responsibility and fulfilled it. Not looking for praise, it was right thing to do so we did it. It is MORE than reasonable to expect the same of anyone who willingly accepts adult responsibilities. We are past that point in our lives, and yet, we are being taxed to cover those who either can't or won't, cover their own lives.

Is that EASY? NO FREAKIN' WAY! Guess what, it was not easy for us either. Life's tough, get tough, pay your own way. Sticking those who already did their jobs, with the cost for other's is wrong.

 

[spongebox1]

I apologize for the Nazi angle...
Its the government telling others what they can do with there bodies that get to me, many countries around this world have before are now and will continue to tell woman what they can do with there bodies and that's morally wrong IMO it starts with abortion then goes to only one child to forced sterilization and so on .. certain decisions need to remain the individuals decision and this is one that needs to remain that way, regardless of the laws its going to **** off someone on the other side of the issue

Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app

 

[layoutshooter]

I apologize for the Nazi angle...
Its the government telling others what they can do with there bodies that get to me, many countries around this world have before are now and will continue to tell woman what they can do with there bodies and that's morally wrong IMO it starts with abortion then goes to only one child to forced sterilization and so on .. certain decisions need to remain the individuals decision and this is one that needs to remain that way, regardless of the laws its going to **** off someone on the other side of the issue

Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app

But the government is telling us what WE have to do, AND, we are not even involved! Makes no sense. Other than it is pure Marxist redistribution of wealth, BY FORCE!

 

[LDB]

What some fail to grasp is that it ISN'T the woman's body. The woman is just the container, not the contents. The baby is the contents but not the container.

If a woman wants to have her breasts removed due to fear of breast cancer, like Angelina Jolie or whoever it was, that's fine. That IS her body and it IS her right to choose to do so. If she wants to get a tattoo that's going to look SO fine and sexy when she's 80 and wrinkled that's fine. That IS her body and it IS her right to choose to do so.

Aborting a baby isn't doing something JUST to her body and herself. It is taking away the life of another person.

 

[LDB]

wants no welfare and talks about killing people all the time

Wrong. I want sensible welfare. Well, you are partially correct. I want NO welfare for criminal aliens or anyone formerly a criminal alien. For legitimate legal citizens there should be sensible welfare. Those able to work should be doing all the yard maintenance at all public buildings and parks. They should be picking up litter. They should be doing any number of other things in exchange for their welfare.

Guilty people convicted of crime with absolutely irrefutable evidence are the ones I talk about killing, not innocent babies who did nothing more than be conceived by someone who decides it's inconvenient. Major difference. Different GALAXIES.

 

[pandora2112]

That container as you call the woman is a viable living breathing person, the contents as you call the fertilized egg is not...so you're choosing the fertilized egg, which I personally agree is life, but is not capable of sustaining life outside the container. Again that's your choice but not your right to make that decision...regardless of your opinion of said container.

Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app

 

[spongebox1]

What some fail to grasp is that it ISN'T the woman's body. The woman is just the container, not the contents. The baby is the contents but not the container.

If a woman wants to have her breasts removed due to fear of breast cancer, like Angelina Jolie or whoever it was, that's fine. That IS her body and it IS her right to choose to do so. If she wants to get a tattoo that's going to look SO fine and sexy when she's 80 and wrinkled that's fine. That IS her body and it IS her right to choose to do so.

Aborting a baby isn't doing something JUST to her body and herself. It is taking away the life of another person.

Barefoot and pregnant supporter I assume?

Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app

 

[layoutshooter]

That container as you call the woman is a viable living breathing person, the contents as you call the fertilized egg is not...so you're choosing the fertilized egg, which I personally agree is life, but is not capable of sustaining life outside the container. Again that's your choice but not your right to make that decision...regardless of your opinion of said container.

Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app

I would suggest that you be VERY careful about the "not capable of sustaining life" part. NO human is able to sustain it's own like, until it is at least 5 or 6 years old. Then later in life, many older people cannot do the same without help. That is part of the "slippery slope" that is often talked about. There is a VERY fine line out there and there are MANY who would have no problem crossing it.

 

[spongebox1]

Wrong. I want sensible welfare. Well, you are partially correct. I want NO welfare for criminal aliens or anyone formerly a criminal alien. For legitimate legal citizens there should be sensible welfare. Those able to work should be doing all the yard maintenance at all public buildings and parks. They should be picking up litter. They should be doing any number of other things in exchange for their welfare.

Guilty people convicted of crime with absolutely irrefutable evidence are the ones I talk about killing, not innocent babies who did nothing more than be conceived by someone who decides it's inconvenient. Major difference. Different GALAXIES.

The only galaxy difference I see here is the galaxy those of us live in and the galaxy you live in ... two separate galaxys

Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app

 

[spongebox1]

Haha.........

 

[pandora2112]

I would suggest that you be VERY careful about the "not capable of sustaining life" part. NO human is able to sustain it's own like, until it is at least 5 or 6 years old. Then later in life, many older people cannot do the same without help. That is part of the "slippery slope" that is often talked about. There is a VERY fine line out there and there are MANY who would have no problem crossing it.

Very true, I was talking in the sense of at least breathing on your own, suckling to take in milk, very basics. Yes once born a baby is still dependent on at minimum a caregiver. Let's face it aside from the bare minimum of eating and breathing some adults are still dependent and not capable of sustaining their own life...

Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app

 

[layoutshooter]

Very true, I was talking in the sense of at least breathing on your own, suckling to take in milk, very basics. Yes once born a baby is still dependent on at minimum a caregiver. Let's face it aside from the bare minimum of eating and breathing some adults are still dependent and not capable of sustaining their own life...

Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app

OH, I understand what you are saying. I also understand that there are many out there who would have NO PROBLEM killed a child born with Downs or a person who is wheel chair bound etc. As stated, it is a VERY thin line.

I can think of SEVERAL politicians that fit the bill of the last sentence you wrote!

 

[Turtle]

I like how we've now reduced women to mere objects, property, nothing more. Property doesn't need to be consulted about where it's put, what is extracted from it or forced into it. Property has no voice and cannot shape policy or choices. Property can be moved, disregarded, discarded, demolished, and if it breaks under the load, it can be easily replaced. And that's how it's been for women for a very long time. It's no accident that the father gives away his daughter to her new husband. It's the symbolic act of a literal thing - the handing over of an object, of property, of a container to be used in husbandry.

The question becomes, is a woman property, or a person?

In these United States a beachhead was established, at great cost, that said that by law, women were to be treated equally as persons. Now, due to the anti-abortion and blatantly anti-contraception movement of the religious right (the vast majority of whom are the Republican right), there is a vigorous attempt to get back to the simpler time when women were property and didn't vote, where they did as they were told and didn't make waves. Thanks to the window of media, it's now possible to look directly into the Middle Ages by watching the struggle of women in places like Saudi Arabia to gain even the simplest of freedoms such as to walk unaccompanied or to <gasp!> drive a car. These conservatives don't want to go quite that far, tho, just back to the predictable, male-dominated world of Ozzie and Harriet is fine.

If a woman is a person, then it must be her business whether and when to have children. If societies keep women pregnant and producing lots of children, the property status of women as non-persons ties them to the men who continue to own them and other property. Women with young children have fewer choices and less opportunity to shape their own lives, it makes them easier to manage, less demanding, less trouble. That appeals to most men, especially conservatives, very, very much.

So, which is it? Is a woman a person, or is she property? It's really that simple. And she can't be both at the same time. If she is property, then the property owners (men) can dictate what she can and cannot do. If she is a person, then it's entirely up to her what she can and cannot do, same as it is with men.

So, which is it?

 

[xiggi]

I like how we've now reduced women to mere objects, property, nothing more. Property doesn't need to be consulted about where it's put, what is extracted from it or forced into it. Property has no voice and cannot shape policy or choices. Property can be moved, disregarded, discarded, demolished, and if it breaks under the load, it can be easily replaced. And that's how it's been for women for a very long time. It's no accident that the father gives away his daughter to her new husband. It's the symbolic act of a literal thing - the handing over of an object, of property, of a container to be used in husbandry.

The question becomes, is a woman property, or a person?

In these United States a beachhead was established, at great cost, that said that by law, women were to be treated equally as persons. Now, due to the anti-abortion and blatantly anti-contraception movement of the religious right (the vast majority of whom are the Republican right), there is a vigorous attempt to get back to the simpler time when women were property and didn't vote, where they did as they were told and didn't make waves. Thanks to the window of media, it's now possible to look directly into the Middle Ages by watching the struggle of women in places like Saudi Arabia to gain even the simplest of freedoms such as to walk unaccompanied or to drive a car. These conservatives don't want to go quite that far, tho, just back to the predictable, male-dominated world of Ozzie and Harriet is fine.

If a woman is a person, then it must be her business whether and when to have children. If societies keep women pregnant and producing lots of children, the property status of women as non-persons ties them to the men who continue to own them and other property. Women with young children have fewer choices and less opportunity to shape their own lives, it makes them easier to manage, less demanding, less trouble. That appeals to most men, especially conservatives, very, very much.

So, which is it? Is a woman a person, or is she property? It's really that simple. And she can't be both at the same time. If she is property, then the property owners (men) can dictate what she can and cannot do. If she is a person, then it's entirely up to her what she can and cannot do, same as it is with men.

So, which is it?

I disagree on your basic question. Phrased is an unborn child a life or not? That changes everything you wrote.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

 

[pandora2112]

Thank you Turtle...I wasn't going to go there, because as a container, a piece of property I didn't feel my opinion on that matter would count!

Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app

 

[layoutshooter]

Thank you Turtle...I wasn't going to go there, because as a container, a piece of property I didn't feel my opinion on that matter would count!

Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app

Too bad this is serious because I could have a TON of FUN if it were not!

 

[LDB]

Unable to live outside their "container". OK, fine. Then all astronauts in space and all scuba divers underwater are no longer real living beings. By your definition they can't sustain their lives on their own. And as already mentioned, those less than several years old are not "life" either as they can't sustain themselves. Many many seniors are the same.

The problem is that any argument made to try to justify the murder of innocent life does nothing but prove the other side right and the arguing side wrong.

Certainly the woman is live and as mentioned is welcome to cut off her breasts, get eventually if not immediately ugly tattoos, pierce any and all parts of her body, whatever ridiculous things she wants to do that only affect HER body and HER life.

Jane Doe is pregnant. Jane Doe decides to murder me. Pleased as that would make some people, she doesn't have that right. My life is my own. It's no different for John/Mary Doe/Smith, the boy or girl who will be born to Jane Doe. That life is the baby's, not the mother's.

 

[pandora2112]

Layout someone oiled the slope it's real slippery now!


Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app

 

[layoutshooter]

layout someone oiled the slope it's real slippery now!


sent from my vs910 4g using eo forums mobile app

I know nothing! (Go for it Ragman!)

 

[Turtle]

I disagree on your basic question. Phrased is an unborn child a life or not? That changes everything you wrote.

Yes, that certainly would change everything I wrote. But that's not the question. "Is the unborn child a tap dancer?" would also change everything I wrote. I can think of several hundred questions that all would change what I wrote. They would, of course, change entirely the context of what I wrote. Let's stay in context, shall we?

Even the question, "Is an unborn child life or not?" isn't the question, beyond being rhetorical, as most reasonable and intelligent people will conclude that life begins at conception. The question isn't even, "Is the unborn child human life?" since the same conclusion will be reached by the same people.

The question, however, "Is the unborn child a person?" The answer to that is obvious: of course not, not until it is born, not anymore than an unhatched chicken is a chicken. All life on this planet, and the entire history of human legalities and morality, has made a distinction between born and unborn, between hatched and unhatched, between conception and fruition. The very term "unborn" is itself a qualifier of something yet to come, something not yet realized. When women are pregnant they are going to have, future tense, a baby, but they don't have one yet. An unborn baby isn't a baby, or a person. It will be, but it ain't yet, not as long as it remains unborn.

But it's good to know that, to you, the simple question of, "is a woman property, or a person?" is one you are unable or unwilling to answer. It's a touchy question for a lot of men, so I understand your reticence to answer it, since it'll open a can of parthenogenetic worms.