"That’s what welfare is for. To help pay for people who don’t have money and can’t get a job." Is what I said.
There are many people on welfare who can physically not be on it, could get a job, yet choose not to. Then taxes are raised so they can have money they don't deserve.
So while what you said is technically correct, your argument is actually a straw man since that's not what I even implied. "Can" doesn't mean "has to."
Anyway now that we have that cleared up, shall we continue?
House Bill 206 was introduced by Republican state Representative Cathrynn Brown, who suggests that a rape victim who ends her rape-caused pregnancy with abortion would receive a third-degree felony charge for “tampering with evidence.” A third-degree felony in New Mexico carries a sentence of up to three years in prison.
Not gonna get jailed for abortion eh?
What I said is in italics with bold for emphasis to make it clear that's not what I said.
Pro-choicers are alot more sensitive.
Sensitive? To the mother, maybe. If pro-choicers were as sensitive as they say they are, then they would be sensitive to the life of the child living in the mother. And I’ve met some pretty hateful pro-choicers.
Yes there are some hateful pro-choicers but they are sensitive to those who are already living, where as ironically pro-lifers are not.
Stop right there. "Pro-choicers... are sensitive to those who are already living." Clearly they're only half-sensitive. They only care about the connivance of the woman instead of both her, and her child's lives. Yes I did say her life. My father is in a high office at a mental hospital, where they see girls and women everyday emotionally struggling because they had an abortion by their own choice. Most people who are Pro-life care about the mother as much as the child.
Your argument is an appeal to pity, and a sweeping generalization.
I’d actually disagree, some premeditated murders are set up so they get away, so they are pretty ignorant of the justice and csi system.
Well last I checked if you murder someone, you know the person’s going to die. Clearly they’ll try to avoid the law, but they know that murder is murder. Therefore a killing of a human being. That’s kind of what I meant.
While I tend to agree with making sure the mother is 100% sure they want to have an abortion. I tend to go the route on educating them on birth control and safe sex to reduce the number of abortions. So I believe forcing the mother to hear a heart beat before they make the choice is overkill. Imagine if we forced gun owners to watch a video of someone being shot and watching their heart beat fade away?
There is no guaranteed ’safe sex’ route unless the woman can physically not carry a baby when she doesn’t have the necessary anatomy. Birth control is also not completely effective, and many woman use abortion as the back up plan to an abortion. Besides, by the time a woman comes into an abortion clinic, there is already an embryo or fetus inside her womb.
Why is it overkill? I was forced to see a video of dead people at a car crash with their bodies thrown about in order to get my driver’s license. The point is that a graphic image can shock someone into thinking a little more about what they’re doing, so I don’t see the overkill in that.
Yes birth-control is not 100%, that is pretty well known. Birth control is a kindof abortion, I’ll touch on this later.
Well you didn't. Elaborate.
There's birth control that's the morning-after pill, which I disagree with, and there's birth control meant to be taken before sex.
And people do use abortion as a type of birth control.
Yes but if someone is going to have an abortion they usually know they are going to end that fetus, where as how likely are you going to get into an accident?
Apparently, every 18 years.
And if someone is going to drive they usually know people die from accidents.
That's a false analogy by the way.
Also they do not do that for guns as far as I know, which they should be.
Let's take your last statement and show something you literally just said.
I believe forcing the mother to hear a heart beat before they make the choice is overkill. Imagine if we forced gun owners to watch a video of someone being shot and watching their heart beat fade away?
Implying abortion is premeditated murder throws you into the group that is very happy to demonize and mock those who have abortions.
Where did I imply that? I contrasted the two. However, if the woman goes in and doesn’t care whether it’s alive or not, but doesn’t want anything to do with a child, then sure. She’s heartless. She has the same value of human life as a premeditated murderer does, so how could that be anything other than premeditated murder? Again, I do not think a woman who doesn’t understand what she’s doing deserves the title of a murderer.
Projection is something that a lot of conservatives do, not just on here. So I point it out to help someone snap out of it.
Meh. Liberals too. But like I can’t see many conservatives using projection, I guess you don’t see the liberals using projection. Regardless, it happens on both sides, not just mine. :)
It does but I believe its more common among conservatives.
But beliefs have nothing to do with facts. I believe the opposite, but I'm not going to say it's fact.
I have got to say I'm really getting tired of your fallacies; this was a Sweeping Generalization. Again.
I'm just going to say "Various Definitions" here since you had like 7 of them.
How is an embryo formed?
By a unity of an egg and a sperm cell.
How is a fetus formed?
By… oh wait. It’s not.
How is a child formed?
It’s not.
A fetus becomes a fetus because the embryo grew up. A child becomes a child because an embryo grew up. A teen becomes a teen because the child grows up. And so on.
However, if an egg and a sperm cell don’t meet, you don’t have an embryo.
If an embryo doesn’t grow up, it doesn’t become a fetus.
If a fetus doesn’t grow up, it doesn’t become a child.
And if a child doesn’t grow up, it doesn’t become a teen.
I think you get the point.
By simple logic, a teen is a “grown up version” of an embryo.
If a child dies, then the child will never become a teen. In the same way, if an embryo dies, then the embryo will never become a child.
But if the embryo hadn’t died, and the fetus didn’t die, then the child would then be a child.
Is a child a Homo Sapiens? None would say the weren’t. Therefore through extended logic, so is an embryo.
When is Human used as an adjective? I can’t think of a sentence in which it would make sense.
While the killing of a fetus or embryo through abortion or any other method can be quite inhumane, I’m not going to use that part of the definition.
I like this, with this line of thinking we should outlaw women having periods because that is releasing an egg that could have been a child and any man that jerks off should be jailed for wasting sperm that could have been a child.
I gave you a chance. I kind of hoped you wouldn't go this route for your own sake. I have not once seen this argument be effective, so why do so many people use it?
All you need to do is look at the first line and you'll know your straw man can't possibly be true. "How is an embryo formed?/ By a unity of an egg and a sperm cell."
If you leave an egg where it is and add nothing new, does it become an embryo? Is there any chance for it to become a embryo? No, it stays the egg and if nothing happens after a length of time, it's flushed out as part of a bodily process.
Likewise, if you don't do anything with sperm, then it won't do anything but live as sperm. Thank God, because it would be painful if a baby grew inside a man's testicles.
So since we've established that an egg won't become an embryo without any interaction, sperm won't become an embryo without interaction, and an embryo is formed by the unity of an egg and a sperm cell, then why would it be illegal to have a period, or why would it give jail time to a man that jerks off?
A child is not a grown up version of a sperm, because sperm can't become an embryo without an egg. Until then, sperm is pretty useless.
Oh a new one! This was a false cause. And a straw man if you didn't catch it when I said it earlier.
Murder: The killing (“An act of causing death, esp. deliberately” an abortion is deliberate) of another human being (logically an embryo or a fetus is a human being) under conditions specifically covered in law.
Okay it appears I’m only without the law defn. And that’s a simple one. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a law that recognizes a fetus as a legal victim. But of course an exemption was written in in the case of abortion, but that was because of Roe vs. Wade and it’d be unconstitutional to do otherwise. Regardless, a fetus is a legal victim and therefore covered in law. (at least mine)
Yes this is assuming you want the fetus because if the women didn't it would be an abortion.
I.e man murders a pregnant women, two counts of murder.
Listen to yourself! Think about what you just said. Do you not see any problem there? First, you say a dead fetus by means of a purposeful move is not murder. But as soon as the mother wants a kid then suddenly, a dead fetus by means of a purposeful move is murder.
That is saying the family did want the fetus and of course say women that want their pregnance are more valued then anyone else. That is all this law is.
"The law defines 'child in utero' as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb,'" so quotes my source. It then makes an exception in the case of abortion, so the law actually completely contradicts itself. Apparently the 'child in utero' is a human ('a member of the species Homo sapiens') unless of course, the child's life ends purposefully by a doctor or the mother.
So there you are. using your definitions, I logically proved to you that an abortion is murder. But more importantly, logic showed that an embryo is a human being.
You see, being pro-choice is actually pro-women’s choice. For being pro-choice gives no choice to the human being living inside the mother’s womb. The mother has all the choice, all the control, but the future child has none.
I’d appreciate it if you’d at least reevaluate your stance on abortion. Pro-life people could use a debater like yourself.
Yes and I showed how your line of logic could wildly spin out of control because after abortion is outlawed then that will not be good enough, then the line of logic will want to outlaw more and more. Therefore limiting liberty and freedom.
You didn't "show" any of that until now. And you didn't even show it now. There's no proof in this paragraph either, just a straw man, false cause, and an ad hominem.
Is this why people don't like debating you? Because you make so many logical fallacies? Could you please prove me wrong without using them? You've done it before, I've seen you.
"The line of logic will want to outlaw more and more"
I will not re-evaluate my stance on abortion because I believe in a person should always choose what is best for their personal life.
Then by your logic, if a woman gives birth to a child who she wanted, then after about a year decides that her child is too much of a burden and too time consuming and too much money for her, it's completely okay if the mother chooses to kill her child. Because it's best for her personal life. She has time and money now, and her personal life is better.
I'm really not sorry if this offends you, but I disagree.
