Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

My body MY CHOICE

11314151719

Comments

  • pawzpawz Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 22,097 Founders Club

    I didn’t say you never said it wasn’t a life. I said you agree that it is.

    Your analogy is that if no abortion happens then both the mother and baby die 100% of the time. With the abortion the baby dies and the mother lives 100% of the time.

    My point stands.

    You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.

    All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion. It’s just noise.
    Conflating issues.

    Creep's argument is from the poont of conception.

    The slippery slope between the two is of no interest to my position.

    Either way, it isn't a decision to abdicate to the State. That decision is between the mother, the mother's doctor and the mother's creator.

    Hope this helps.

  • creepycougcreepycoug Member Posts: 23,863
    edited May 2022
    pawz said:

    The problem with that analogy is that we both decided to go rock climbing. We both put ourselves at risk and I never agreed to make sure you got through the climb unscathed. I can make either decision ethically in that case.

    Now, if we were in that position because I coerced you into the climb and I cut you loose, I would say my action to cut you loose is at the very least unethical.

    A better analogy to pregnancy would be that you unilaterally decided to be tied to me and thus put me in a position of having to decide whether to cut you loose or not. In that case, it's at least mostly your fault. Why should I pay for your mistake?

    In general, why should I die because I'm tied to you? We might agree I'm not a hero by not sacrificing myself to fall with you, we're not going to agree that by cutting you loose I've committed a morally unacceptable act.
  • creepycougcreepycoug Member Posts: 23,863
    edited May 2022
    pawz said:

    Conflating issues.

    Creep's argument is from the poont of conception.

    The slippery slope between the two is of no interest to my position.

    But this is the key to the whole thing. It has to be of interest to you or we're just going to talk past each other to infinity.

  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    edited May 2022
    pawz said:

    Conflating issues.

    Creep's argument is from the poont of conception.

    The slippery slope between the two is of no interest to my position.

    Either way, it isn't a decision to abdicate to the State. That decision is between the mother, the mother's doctor and the mother's creator.

    Hope this helps.

    I don’t know why you keep harping on your clear position.

    Your position is a person has no rights of any kind (natural, social, statutory, moral) as long as they are attached to the birthing person via an umbilical cord. And while attached to the birthing person the state (or any other person) has no authority to protect and/or preserve the life of the person while attached to the birthing person (they do not have the right to life).. The instant the cord is cut and the person is no longer physical attached to another, that person has all rights afforded to anyone including the basic rights of life and liberty as well as the protection of the law and authority of the state to protect those rights.

    It’s not complicated.
  • creepycougcreepycoug Member Posts: 23,863

    I don’t know why you keep harping on your clear position.

    Your position is a person has no rights of any kind (natural, social, statutory, moral) as long as they are attached to the birthing person via an umbilical cord. And while attached to the birthing person the state (or any other person) has no authority to protect and/or preserve the life of the person while attached to the birthing person (they do not have the right to life).. The instant the cord is cut and the person is no longer physical attached to another, that person has all rights afforded to anyone including the basic rights of life and liberty as well as the protection of the law and authority of the state to protect those rights.

    It’s not complicated.
    Right. The spatial argument, which is one of the worst. So, seconds before being pushed out and the cord cut, full person, and before, not a person at all? Horrible argument. Come on over to Savery Hall pawz.
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    edited May 2022

    Right. The spatial argument, which is one of the worst. So, seconds before being pushed out and the cord cut, full person, and before, not a person at all? Horrible argument. Come on over to Savery Hall pawz.
    There really is no other argument if your position is it isn’t a decision to abdicate to the state. Since we know and agree a decision to kill a person living outside a womb is very much within the state’s purview.
  • pawzpawz Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 22,097 Founders Club

    There really is no other argument if your position is it isn’t a decision to abdicate to the state. Since we know and agree a decision to kill a person living outside a womb is very much within the state’s purview.
    While it lives inside the womb it is inextricably linked to the mother who risks her own life to participate in the process. While her own life is in jeopardy, it is her decision alone.

    We? continue to talk past each other. I'm running out of energy for that.


    The most compelling argument I've heard in the last month as a Gates Hall matter is Creep's - unfortunate necessity.

    As far as a Savery Hall, late term is gross unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother. I have no interest in the slippery slope game from conception until delivery day.

    For myself, I would elect to keep the child under any circumstance with the lone, very narrow instance that mother's life is in immanent danger.


    In any instance, I still don't need, nor want, the fucking State to decide for me. "Here have this jab. It's just a we prick."
  • hardhathardhat Member Posts: 8,344
    I was asked to show my vax card today before I could bring my dog into the vet office for his shots. My body my choice?
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 111,032 Founders Club
    hardhat said:

    I was asked to show my vax card today before I could bring my dog into the vet office for his shots. My body my choice?

    Was the dog getting the covid vax?
  • hardhathardhat Member Posts: 8,344

    Was the dog getting the covid vax?
    Distemper and rabies. But yeah, so glad my vet is super vigilant.
    When Seattle goes full China Zerocovid,
    I think they’ll be killing the pets.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 111,032 Founders Club
    We had to put our dog down in May of 2020. The vet people risked Concentration camp to let my wife and I be in there. Vet asked me to give the dog the needle

  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 46,852 Standard Supporter
    hardhat said:

    Distemper and rabies. But yeah, so glad my vet is super vigilant.
    When Seattle goes full China Zerocovid,
    I think they’ll be killing the pets.
    Except the dogs owned by the homeless tranny heroin addicts.



  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    edited May 2022
    pawz said:

    While it lives inside the womb it is inextricably linked to the mother who risks her own life to participate in the process. While her own life is in jeopardy, it is her decision alone.

    We? continue to talk past each other. I'm running out of energy for that.


    The most compelling argument I've heard in the last month as a Gates Hall matter is Creep's - unfortunate necessity.

    As far as a Savery Hall, late term is gross unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother. I have no interest in the slippery slope game from conception until delivery day.

    For myself, I would elect to keep the child under any circumstance with the lone, very narrow instance that mother's life is in immanent danger.


    In any instance, I still don't need, nor want, the fucking State to decide for me. "Here have this jab. It's just a we prick."
    Why are you still responding to me? You're position has been clear for sometime.

    Abortion anytime, anywhere, for any reason. Why do you keep talking about it?
  • pawzpawz Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 22,097 Founders Club

    Why are you still responding to me? You're position has been clear for sometime.

    Abortion anytime, anywhere, for any reason. Why do you keep talking about it?
    Per usual, you are full of yourself.

    While nominally clicking the quote option to your post, the post itself was written to Creep.

    Either way, thanks for reading.


  • creepycougcreepycoug Member Posts: 23,863
    pawz said:

    While it lives inside the womb it is inextricably linked to the mother who risks her own life to participate in the process. While her own life is in jeopardy, it is her decision alone.
    Understood. But who put that young person in that position vis a vis the mother? Was it the young person? No. Somebody else did.

    So, that young person, now in existence, has rights. Or he/she doesn't, but if you take the latter position, you are going to have to start at birth and walk backwards and tell me where the line is. Without that, you're sunk.

    I have failed in my attempt to recruit you to Savery, even though this was a perfect conversaton. Sad, really. Now you must wallow in the moral mud and filth with the Practical Necessity Bros. I pray for Race, and I pray for you. Not sure about the others yet.

    It's never too late to join the right team Pawz.
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    edited May 2022
    pawz said:

    Per usual, you are full of yourself.

    While nominally clicking the quote option to your post, the post itself was written to Creep.

    Either way, thanks for reading.


    How am I wrong? Abortion anytime, anywhere, for any reason. The Pat Hill of abortion. Unless you're going to say there is a point where you think the state should intervene... but you've said the opposite.

    Point out where I misrepresent your position.

    Also, learn how to use the quote function!
  • creepycougcreepycoug Member Posts: 23,863
    Sad that this beautiful thread has almost dropped off the first page. Sad, really.
  • creepycougcreepycoug Member Posts: 23,863
    edited May 2022

    I heard that getting rid of Roe v Wade might end up with taking away a women's right to vote


    And am wondering why that is bad

    I'm hearing that overturning Roe might just be what this country needs to rediscover its moral center. After that, we need a case challenging the constitutionality of any state statute that allows it under any circumstances and the SCOTUS to strike it down as unconstitutional. Make that the law of the land. No circumstances, ever. There is no other version of a good outcome. I hope it happens. Then we'll be where we need to be; otherwise, there is no "we".
Sign In or Register to comment.