Social Texas lawmakers considering death penalty for abortion

  • Thread starter Deleted member 159002
  • Start date
Read: Don’t want to pay to raise someone else’s baby, don’t complain if we murder it.
 
The problem with abortion is that it's an act that concerns both what someone is doing with their own body and what they are doing to the body of another.

Yes abortion is a bitch because it's an exception to most rules
 
it requires the mother to do so, a mother who does not want it and knows that they will have to put it into a broken foster system, so they should be forced to do so by the government?

Is the foster system any more broken than the families these kids were born into?
 
I think that for most 'pro-lifers' it's more a case of not sentencing the innocent to death.
Except for the whole part where they kill someone for dumping unconscious cells out of their uterus.
 
Yeah, no. You could make the same analogy with a baby and an elderly person, which is why it's a terrible analogy. Is the elderly person not "technically alive", because everyone would choose to save the baby in that situation? All it comes down to is the value of the life. Not whether or not it's actually life.
That's a non-sequitor. You're making an argument that has nothing to do with abortion or fetal personhood now.
 
It’s not that simple when you see abortion as murder.

“Don’t like murder? Don’t kill anyone.”

It doesn’t work quite as well.
I think it is, b/c it's not murder not by any legal definition at least

Besides, we enforce laws against crimes like murder because there are other ramifications for living family members, etc.... That can't be said for abortion, barring the 'father' that the law literally could not care less about.
 
Abortion has driven women completely insane. No one ever talks about this. It is the real toxic femininity.
 
Last edited:
A laughable proposal to say the least.

If anything the amount of abortions ought to increase exponentially.
 
But I mean it is pretty obvious what is happening here, isn't it? This, the Ohio thing. They aren't necessarily serious about their laws. But they want the SC to review their laws in order to revisit Roe vs Wade.
 
What does any of that matter? You don't get to define what is and is not valuable life. Someone could make that very same argument for killing newborns. What does it matter, right? It's not like the newborn was contributing to society or anything, or was all that aware of it's existence, so what kind of value does it really have? Meh, not murder.
You realize that argument works perfectly in reverse too?
Why doesn't it matter? Why do you get to say what is and is not valuable life?

If someone goes through the trouble of carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth, it is safe to assume that they *wanted* to be pregnant and give birth. At that point, it would be indefensible. Likewise, I would say that intentionally harming a pregnant woman who has the intent of having a child should logically be more of a crime than harming a woman that did not know she was pregnant.
 
I believe human life starts at conception. You’ve got a developing human being at that point. Everything else, in my opinion, is an arbitrary cutoff.
Some contraceptives work by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. Would you send those people to the gulag as well?
 
Makes sense: Eye for an eye.

Getting Biblical in this mf'er.

Seriously, I'm sure the hypocrisy escapes them and I'm someone who supports both abortion and the death penalty.
 
I honestly believe the number of cases you are describing if honestly investigated would be extraordinarily small. I also believe in a fallen world where every human at one time or another is victim to the sins of others. And I believe that two wrongs don't make a right. We each have a moral choice despite the hand we're dealt. Giving birth and then putting up the baby for adoption is the moral option in this case, unless the woman does want to keep the child and be the mother to it.

If you think a woman who is raped should have to carry her rapist's child, why did you even bring up contraception?
 
If you think a woman who is raped should have to carry her artist's child, why did you even bring up contraception?

I had to think what you were asking me for a bit. I think cases of actual rape that leads to pregnancy aren't super common. So in the strict definition of rape, yes, a woman wouldn't have contraception for that.
 
Seriously, I'm sure the hypocrisy escapes them.
Absolutely. These are the same people that have come to the conclusion that the best way to punish an irresponsible person is to force them raise a child.
 
Absolutely. These are the same people that have come to the conclusion that the best way to punish an irresponsible person is to force them raise a child.
Tough love...unless you're addicted to opioids.
 
What the hell does that have to do with abortion, or murder?
It points out the noncentral fallacy.

Calling abortion murder is a rhetorical strategy. It works by implying that we should have the same feelings about killing a fertilized egg (abortion) as we should about any other death/murder/killing.

My example points out that that this is, in fact, not the case. If it were, then the question: Who to save in the fire, the infant or the fertilized egg? would be a difficult one.

It is not.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCW...ntral-fallacy-the-worst-argument-in-the-world
 
I had to think what you were asking me for a bit. I think cases of actual rape that leads to pregnancy aren't super common. So in the strict definition of rape, yes, a woman wouldn't have contraception for that.

Stupid autocorrect changes rapist to artist. I realize most abortions are not in response to rape. But some are.
 
Back
Top