Netcees - View Single Post - Old Racists

House of Leaves · 05-01-2023, 06:35 PM

"You are wrong because no person should be forced to share their body with another. Common sense tells us that a person's body is their own and they shouldn't be forced by others to share their body and its nutrients with a being..."

Yes, a person's body is their own.

But you refuted none of my points about separate DNA, separate skeleten&organs, separate BEING. Yes, it's in the womb. But it's not just the woman's body. I hope we can agree on that?

Regarding sharing nutrients etc... I mean...that's biology, Tocs.

Most species of female mammals have pregnancies, and wombs for such a thing...

[Hypothetical]:

?What would we humans think if pregnant apes or dogs or elephants practiced their "choice" of aborting their offspring while it developed in the womb. Let's say the apes harmed their own lower stomach area, or bellyflopped on hard ground...because of the "inconvenience" of carrying the offspring in the womb, god forbid sharing nutrients, and then raising the youngster when it's born.

I don't know...I'D look on it as kind of barbaric...those sub-human species killing their potential offspring...

I used the phrase common sense because terminating a developing fetus that will soon be an infant human seems wrong on it's face. The main reason I am appalled by some of the late-termers & "parasite" claims.... The main reason I am intellectually/morally drawn to some of the BASIC concepts that pro-lifers "try" to articulate. [Yes,2many are religious fanatics who don't want exceptions,etc.]

Replied toTocsin 12w ago
Thanks for responding.

My comment about miscarriages was indeed a bit heartless. I do apologize for the wording. I was trying to make a stark point but I shouldn't have been so snide on that particular "both ways" comment.

Regarding your closing sentence and your "both ways" rebuttal:

I would never chastise women for receiving public assistance. I realize that many pro-life/anti-abortion folks do. That is wrong to me.

Optimistically, I truly think we are making progress already within 2 posts....based on this comment of yours:

"Once the being inside the other being can survive outside, the "host" being shouldn't be allowed to kill it without consequence."

That sounds like reasonable middle-ground to me.

The scientific community says viability is currently around 22-23 weeks...there are various %s for survival, but most range from 12 - 50% at 22-23 weeks.

I understand abortions after that are fairly rare (compared to the total # of abortions).

However, they still happen, particulary in the deep blue states. (And you cannot tell me that many of the pro-abortion crowd think a termination at 22-23 weeks is no big deal.)

How about a law that outlaws elective abortion after the 22nd or 23rd week??...WITH exceptions for life/health of the mother, deadly birth defects, rape/incest. (Although I would hope a victim would decide to terminate before waiting that long)....

05-01-2023, 06:35 PM	#17
House of Leaves Banned Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: reality Posts: 165 Rep Power: 0	abort "You are wrong because no person should be forced to share their body with another. Common sense tells us that a person's body is their own and they shouldn't be forced by others to share their body and its nutrients with a being..." Yes, a person's body is their own. But you refuted none of my points about separate DNA, separate skeleten&organs, separate BEING. Yes, it's in the womb. But it's not just the woman's body. I hope we can agree on that? Regarding sharing nutrients etc... I mean...that's biology, Tocs. Most species of female mammals have pregnancies, and wombs for such a thing... [Hypothetical]: ?What would we humans think if pregnant apes or dogs or elephants practiced their "choice" of aborting their offspring while it developed in the womb. Let's say the apes harmed their own lower stomach area, or bellyflopped on hard ground...because of the "inconvenience" of carrying the offspring in the womb, god forbid sharing nutrients, and then raising the youngster when it's born. I don't know...I'D look on it as kind of barbaric...those sub-human species killing their potential offspring... I used the phrase common sense because terminating a developing fetus that will soon be an infant human seems wrong on it's face. The main reason I am appalled by some of the late-termers & "parasite" claims.... The main reason I am intellectually/morally drawn to some of the BASIC concepts that pro-lifers "try" to articulate. [Yes,2many are religious fanatics who don't want exceptions,etc.] Replied toTocsin 12w ago Thanks for responding. My comment about miscarriages was indeed a bit heartless. I do apologize for the wording. I was trying to make a stark point but I shouldn't have been so snide on that particular "both ways" comment. Regarding your closing sentence and your "both ways" rebuttal: I would never chastise women for receiving public assistance. I realize that many pro-life/anti-abortion folks do. That is wrong to me. Optimistically, I truly think we are making progress already within 2 posts....based on this comment of yours: "Once the being inside the other being can survive outside, the "host" being shouldn't be allowed to kill it without consequence." That sounds like reasonable middle-ground to me. The scientific community says viability is currently around 22-23 weeks...there are various %s for survival, but most range from 12 - 50% at 22-23 weeks. I understand abortions after that are fairly rare (compared to the total # of abortions). However, they still happen, particulary in the deep blue states. (And you cannot tell me that many of the pro-abortion crowd think a termination at 22-23 weeks is no big deal.) How about a law that outlaws elective abortion after the 22nd or 23rd week??...WITH exceptions for life/health of the mother, deadly birth defects, rape/incest. (Although I would hope a victim would decide to terminate before waiting that long)....