Alabama pro-life Senator only thinks the egg is a person if it's in a woman

[Kumorii]

This post specifically is the one I am talking about - one is clearly logically superior, as the other side doesn't actually use any type of logic to dictate their opinions. Its always either something incredibly vague, or based on feelings, or because ''God commands," or "think of the children!" ... all of which ignore reality and logic.

As you can see I didn't say they were right. I hold fast in with that it's not logically superior to have one value or the other. One is more factual correct when it comes down to if they are considered a person or not, but that wasn't my point.

The point is there are people who value LIFE above all, they don't care about the person or the baby per se...but life in of itself. That LIFE have intrinsic value that supersedes the right of bodily autonomy. Doesn't matter if science says it's not a baby or a person, it's still life and thus it should be protected. You can't be "logically superior" in any way to remove the fact that it's life. Because it is.

Take note, since you like to make head canons, I was never talking about the people in power pushing for legalisation or for what purpose they are doing it. Most people, regardless of side in power, rarely do things out of benevolence, but rather ways to stay in power. We all know that.

I was talking about how pointless a discussion in reality rarely leads anywhere, simply because two parties are coming from two different angles with two different values. Like if we were discussing different ice cream flavors. We can throw logic and facts about any flavor to try and persuade someone but it won't change the fact in which you think tastes the best and thus are superior. Same goes for the intrinsic value of life.

You are a prime example of my entire point btw. You keep harping about definitions of what constitutes a person while others harp about the value of life. Two different angles and values trying to change a common practice that both are involved in.

It's like if we take the ice cream example where you argue that it's bad because it has more sugar. While I don't care about sugar amount and I enjoy it because I like it for another reason, lets say they have choco chips in it. You keep going on about facts on how much sugar and how it's bad for me, but all that matters to me in that case is just if I enjoy it. You are trying to convince someone based on what you value and what you find important to support your values but forgetting that the other person probably don't care about the sugar and only cares if it has choco chip in it or not.

PS. I'm not talking about what science says about fetuses being persons or not, so don't harp on about it. I cba explaining something over and over again and I don't even know how to phrase it differently. If you go on about scientific definitions I will just not respond since we are talking about different points and I wish you a continued good evening.

[Elegiac]

The point is there are people who value LIFE above all, they don't care about the person or the baby per se...but life in of itself. That LIFE have intrinsic value that supersedes the right of bodily autonomy. Doesn't matter if science says it's not a baby or a person, it's still life and thus it should be protected. You can't be "logically superior" in any way to remove the fact that it's life. Because it is.

Fun Fact: Just because people value something doesn't mean that their values are worth respecting. Especially if said values are actively harmful to others.

[Kumorii]

Fun Fact: Just because people value something doesn't mean that their values are worth respecting. Especially if said values are actively harmful to others.

Fun Fact: I never made such claim nor did I say you should respect any value.
Fun Fact 2: not sure what the purpose of the post was since it had no relevance.

[cubby]

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/201...y-inconsistent

So basically, he's conceded that he is not interested in whether the embryo is a "person" and therefore sacrosanct to the pro-life movement, because they aren't inside a woman. Pretty much a naked statement that this has nothing to do with the embryo at all, and that their only interest is in control of a woman's body.

And don't forget the naked stupidity, where eggs are always in a women, unless otherwise removed.

[Elegiac]

Blacks weren't considered people during slavery, and jews weren't considered people in nazi germany. Just because you don't think they're people, doesn't make you right.

Tell you what, if the baby is killed, and it's heart beat is stopped, who's heart beat stops? Is it the mother? Does the mother have two hearts now? Two brains?

Better question: why does it matter.

[Elegiac]

Because killing babies is fucked up. I can't believe you can't understand that.

Know what’s more fucked up? Depriving an actual person of their bodily rights because of a fetus.

[ellieg]

Know what’s more fucked up? Depriving an actual person of their bodily rights because of a fetus.

If only there was some way to prevent pregnancy!

[Elegiac]

If only there was some way to prevent pregnancy!

If only this weren't a non sequitur.

[s_bushido]

Blacks weren't considered people during slavery, and jews weren't considered people in nazi germany. Just because you don't think they're people, doesn't make you right.

Yes, and there was one other thing black people and Jews have in common (with each other and every other person who has ever lived): They were all born and no longer entirely reliant on the bodily functions of another human for their development and survival.

Tell you what, if the baby is killed, and it's heart beat is stopped, who's heart beat stops? Is it the mother? Does the mother have two hearts now? Two brains?

What, precisely, is so significant about a heartbeat? But since you do think it's so important: If the mother's heartbeat stops, what happens to her baby?

[Elegiac]

Bodily rights? You mean the ability to kill someone (that you went out of your way to make, because making a baby doesn't happen because you decide to eat peanut butter toast instead of jelly toast one morning) because they're an inconvenience, man you're a pretty evil dude.

No, I mean bodily autonomy. In no other case does the right to life supersede it.

[Elegiac]

What, precisely, is so significant about a heartbeat? But since you do think it's so important: If the mother's heartbeat stops, what happens to her baby?

Didn't you hear? Women give up their personhood the moment they decide to spread their legs.

Pregnancy is just god's punishment for being a slut, clearly. /s

- - - Updated - - -

Everyone to an extant is reliant on another to continue existence. Are you okay with infanticide? Of course if the mother dies so does the baby. Let me ask you a question now. Say your mother/sister/girlfriend/female friend is pregnant. Say someone on the street beats the piss out of her stomach to the point of the baby being miscarried. Should that personal only be charged with assault and battery?

Yes. Next question.

[Elegiac]

Unless a woman is going to die from the pregnancy/birth, what gives her the right to kill a life she went out of her way to create?

The fact that we as a society have come to the conclusion that people are invariably better off with a strong right to bodily autonomy gives her that right.

If you cause a car accident and the other person needs a blood transfusion and you are a type match, you cannot be legally compelled to surrender your blood even if it would save that person's life and even if you were at fault.

Same thing applies here. Whether or not the fetus is a person/alive/human or what the fuck ever doesn't matter.

- - - Updated - - -

At least you're consistent in being pure evil.

You're going to have to justify this beyond saying "killing babies is bad", because it's not an argument. It's an appeal to emotion.

[Elegiac]

There's literally only one thing that will get a woman pregnant.

And I ask again; why does it matter.

Consent to sex is no more consent to pregnancy than driving a car is consent to be hit by a drunk driver.

[Didly]

I'm comfortable in my belief that while abortion may be morally wrong, the utilitarian benefits outweigh that moral question. After listening to both sides of the debate in the Alabama Senate session, I found the Democratic stance on the issue was more convincing of an argument than a Republican trying to legislate his interpretation of "God's will."

I feel it was best summed up by an Alabama representative during the initial debate : https://youtu.be/8mzXw_wzXUg?t=892

People get so bogged down in the morality debate, which to me is only one component of the overall abortion debate. All facets need to be considered before voting for or against, not just morality.

[Elegiac]

It doesn't need to be explained that killing babies is fucked up and wrong.

Then you should be able to elaborate the argument quite easily, if it's so apparent, rather than just repeating "killing babies is bad".

It's no different than killing a baby outside the womb, or killing some random guy down the street. Human life is human life, and the only time it's fine to kill someone is when they're preying on society.

I mean, it's entirely different because neither the baby nor the rando are inside someone else's body.

[s_bushido]

Everyone to an extant is reliant on another to continue existence. Are you okay with infanticide?

"To an extent."
Name me a circumstance that would require one person to have their bodily functions tied to the bodily functions of another. We have dialysis machines, but perhaps there is a secret underground human-to-human dialysis procedure going on in hospitals around the world that I've just never heard about before. A procedure that is compulsory and illegal for you to refuse.

Since the pro-birth crowd love to tug at our heart strings, what would you say to a law that required you, under penalty of law, to donate blood on a monthly/yearly basis, or required you to donate your organs if someone with failing health was in need of replacements, or required you to become an organ donor after your death with no way to opt out whatsoever?

Say someone on the street beats the piss out of her stomach to the point of the baby being miscarried. Should that personal only be charged with assault and battery?

Yes.

This is that awkward moment where you are completely oblivious to the fact that enhanced penalties for crimes against pregnant women are advocated by the same pro-birth people that want to see abortions banned entirely (and use those laws as a way to erode women's rights), isn't it?

[Didly]

The life of a baby is no different than the life of another. By your style of argument cold blood murder isn't an issue. "It doesn't affect people I care about. What's wrong with lowering the overwhelming population? The person probably deserved it." This is your style of reasoning.

I have a few questions for you. These are not meant to be antagonistic, I'm actually curious how you feel about them:

1) Why do you believe human life is so precious and worth preserving?
2) Do you see any value in the ability of a parent to determine when, if at all, they are ready to have a child?
3) What do you feel is in-store for the life of a child who was born because the government mandated they have to be, to a parent that isn't ready to have a child?
4) Continuing with the above question- do you think a child born under those circumstances has a good chance of being a well-adjusted, successful, or at least productive member of society?

Thanks.

Edit: I encourage you to watch this excerpt from the Alabama Senate debate to see what you think : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mzXw_wzXUg&t=925s

[The Stormbringer]

Unless a woman is going to die from the pregnancy/birth, what gives her the right to kill a life she went out of her way to create?

Because there's literally no evidence she "went out of her way" to "create" the fetus, unless your automatic assumption is that any woman who wants to have sex is 100% set on having a baby, in which case you would be very, very wrong.

That's not even including cases where contraceptives failed, where rape is involved, and so on.

[Cruor]

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/201...y-inconsistent

So basically, he's conceded that he is not interested in whether the embryo is a "person" and therefore sacrosanct to the pro-life movement, because they aren't inside a woman. Pretty much a naked statement that this has nothing to do with the embryo at all, and that their only interest is in control of a woman's body.

Do you do anything but make posts crying about Republicans? You do understand there is no achievement, prize or pay for highest post count on mmo champion right? It just makes you look like you have a sad boring life.

[s_bushido]

I would donate to anyone if I caused their problem and if it didn't threaten my life or remove anything that would be missed.

That's not what I asked and you know it. Would you be cool with being REQUIRED to donate and having legal action taken against you if you refused?

Also you're cool with beating up pregnant women till they miscarry as well. What the absolute fuck is wrong with you people? Also it's not an awkward moment, it's just exposing how shitty of a person you are. I'm more amazed than anything.

Not even worth responding to this horseshit.