Iowa Congressman Steven King Abortion Bill

[Endus]

Consent to sex IS consent to impregnation though, just not directly, it's an assumed risk. Nobody signs up to get into an accident when driving a car, but just driving automatically puts you at risk of getting into a driving accident. It's not a consent to carry the child to term, per se, but to say that getting pregnant is not an inherent risk from sex is ridiculous.

Look, if I admit to your interpretation here, it doesn't help you. Because denying abortion becomes equivalent to denying medical care to a car accident victim, because "they knew the risks when they got into the car".

That's why I said it's not consent to impregnation. You didn't choose it. You accepted the risk, which means it's nobody else's fault, but you still should have full access to your human rights and access to medical care.

Denying abortion rights attacks both of those on inconsistent and poorly-defined moralistic clauses.

[Cebel]

Then how do you know the fetus didn't opt in to give consent to be aborted?

Because thats physically and mentally impossible. Stop trying to incite flaming.

[Endus]

You keep saying the same thing over again, I keep saying the same thing over again, we disagree, move on.

The difference is that we have firm definitions for things like "human being". Definitions a fetus does not fall under. You can not like that fact, but you don't get to make up your own facts because you don't want to admit the reality of the situation.

It's like insisting that an apple is an orange, and refusing to budge, because that's "your opinion", and you somehow think that's an argument. That isn't how anything works; that just means you're obstinate about being wrong.

[Masark]

Also we're talking life or death of another human life, versus the incapacitated life of another.

No, we are talking about an un-capacitated object. It does not have organized brain activity. It is as much alive as the organ donor, which is to say not by modern medical definitions.

[Kyriani]

I would fight and I would kill to protect my right to determine what happens within my body. Anyone who tries to take that right away from me had better be willing to do the same or its going to be a very one-sided, very painful, and very quick end to the issue.

[Cebel]

No need to get so defensive over not being able to support your own arguments when you know nothing of what you're talking about. I'd say you ignoring me hurts but I'd be lying as I've heard far worse from far better people .

As for your reply to Machismo not having empathy and whatnot. Since you want to apply the same to me you absolutely pinned me down, seeing as I've dedicated my life to a profession where my sole purpose is caring for others lol.

Seriously, grow up and educate yourself. Cheers.

Your profession is being a troll on some forums. Enjoy your infraction, that is unless Endus continues to prove that he only infracts conservative posters to keep promoting the liberal echo chamber we have here.

[Machismo]

Because thats physically and mentally impossible. Stop trying to incite flaming.

I'm just mocking you, because you refuse to be logically consistent.

If an abortion technique induces labor, it gets rid of your complain that it is killing a fetus. After all, birth is the only way for that fetus to live independently of its mother. It's EXACTLY what you are demanding to happen.

- - - Updated - - -

Your profession is being a troll on some forums. Enjoy your infraction, that is unless Endus continues to prove that he only infracts conservative posters to keep promoting the liberal echo chamber we have here.

Ironically enough, calling someone a troll is worthy of an infraction, so you literally just broke a rule to complain about someone else breaking a rule... when that person didn't actually break a forum rule.

[Cebel]

I'm just mocking you, because you refuse to be logically consistent.

If an abortion technique induces labor, it gets rid of your complain that it is killing a fetus. After all, birth is the only way for that fetus to live independently of its mother. It's EXACTLY what you are demanding to happen.

Incorrect, we've been over this. Please continue to troll and flame away. All future posts will be ignored. Have a great day, enjoy your unfulfilling life.

[derpkitteh]

as against abortion as i am, no laws should ever be written based on religious authority.

we have separation of church and state, and the republicans(as so called upholders of the constitution) need to be reminded of that.

[Machismo]

Incorrect, we've been over this. Please continue to troll and flame away. All future posts will be ignored. Have a great day, enjoy your unfulfilling life.

You are not being consistent. If the fetus is living, it should be allowed to live on its own, so let it.

[Thepersona]

Because thats physically and mentally impossible. Stop trying to incite flaming.

Because it cant think, mostly because it doesnt have any brain activity... and we dont call that a human being. To be one you must have brain activity... thats why brain dead humans that are kept with their organs working are just corpses awaiting harvest (as brutal as it sounds)

[Cebel]

The difference is that we have firm definitions for things like "human being". Definitions a fetus does not fall under. You can not like that fact, but you don't get to make up your own facts because you don't want to admit the reality of the situation.

It's like insisting that an apple is an orange, and refusing to budge, because that's "your opinion", and you somehow think that's an argument. That isn't how anything works; that just means you're obstinate about being wrong.

Except like most things the definition of a fetus not being a human being was interpreted decades ago by less knowledgeable individuals. I've read many scientific studies that believe their interpretation was incorrect based on the advancement of technology allowing us to understand issues more than ever. God forbid we view things with today's data rather than data from years and years ago.

[Zenfoldor]

Strawman. There is space. But it has nothing to do with us. We are insignificant compared to the rest of the universe.

Hmm, yet we are part of the cosmos and the cosmos is part of us. I'm just pointing out that indeed just because one is an atheist doesn't exempt them from the concept of inalienable rights. In the laws of the US, certain rights are considered inalienable, perhaps a more adept definition of that term would suffice. IE: those rights are non-alienate-able, or not removable. Life, for example, is one of those rights. In the US, we believe life is a basic human right.

All that said, this is really a tangent, because it has nothing at all to do with my view on the subject matter at hand. It is just a handy note when mansplaining the term inalienable rights, nothing more. I've stated my view here for quick reference:

You can remove anything from your body you want. A doctor can too, unless it would kill another dude. If it would kill another dude, that's okay as long as the dude is young enough. If the dude is too old and it would kill him, then no, the doctor cannot perform the procedure.

The current issue at hand is how old is too old to kill that other dude.(IE: 8.9 months is probably considered too old by most, but 0.01 months is too young, we are trying to find that goldylocks zone)

[Machismo]

Except like most things the definition of a fetus not being a human being was interpreted decades ago by less knowledgeable individuals. I've read many scientific studies that believe their interpretation was incorrect based on the advancement of technology allowing us to understand issues more than ever. God forbid we view things with today's data rather than data from years and years ago.

Then please provide us with that scientific data that discusses it.

[Cebel]

Because it cant think, mostly because it doesnt have any brain activity... and we dont call that a human being

Or because its a CHILD, we also dont allow human beings under 18 to give consent yet we consider them human beings.

You dont consider the "brain dead" individuals a human being because they stop having brain activity? No, absolutely not. We just accept the fact that given the situation we can use them for the greater good, so we view it as morally acceptable.

[Thepersona]

Except like most things the definition of a fetus not being a human being was interpreted decades ago by less knowledgeable individuals. I've read many scientific studies that believe their interpretation was incorrect based on the advancement of technology allowing us to understand issues more than ever. God forbid we view things with today's data rather than data from years and years ago.

What defines a human being RIGHT NOW is the brain activity. A foetus doesnt have brain activity (coordinated, like a normal, living human), till week 24-26

[Machismo]

Or because its a CHILD, we also dont allow human beings under 18 to give consent yet we consider them human beings.

You dont consider the "brain dead" individuals a human being because they stop having brain activity? No, absolutely not. We just accept the fact that given the situation we can use them for the greater good, so we view it as morally acceptable.

Actually, it's a fetus. If you like, i can post the definitions for you. And a fetus is not viable until 21 weeks and five days of gestation, that is currently the earliest one has ever been born.

[Thepersona]

Or because its a CHILD, we also dont allow human beings under 18 to give consent yet we consider them human beings.

You dont consider the "brain dead" individuals a human being because they stop having brain activity? No, absolutely not. We just accept the fact that given the situation we can use them for the greater good, so we view it as morally acceptable.

No. They arent human beings. They are human corpses. Thats much different. We define a human as a living being if he/she does have brain activity

[Cebel]

No. They arent human beings. They are human corpses. Thats much different

Agree to disagree. Inb4 "no, we dont agree to disagree because I'm so smart, and you're so dumb you conservative trash blahblahblah". Enjoy your echo chamber, god forbid you guys be exposed to another point of view.

[Endus]

Except like most things the definition of a fetus not being a human being was interpreted decades ago by less knowledgeable individuals. I've read many scientific studies that believe their interpretation was incorrect based on the advancement of technology allowing us to understand issues more than ever. God forbid we view things with today's data rather than data from years and years ago.

"Human being" isn't a scientifically-defined term. It's a legal one; https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

Biology will deal with terms like "homo sapiens", and "human", but they don't describe personhood; they can just as accurately be used to describe a human corpse, or a tissue sample, things that obviously aren't people. That we can use the same terms to talk about a fetus does not mean it's suddenly being granted personhood by science, because again, "personhood" is a legal concept; there is no scientific test for it.