Republicans explain yourself

Author: Bringerofrain ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 19
  • Bringerofrain
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 516
    3
    4
    7
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Bringerofrain
    Is there a single good argument as to why the morning after pill should be banned or is this really about controlling a woman's body. I used to give some credence to republican arguments and believe them that they actually cared about the unborn child, but I realized when they opposed the morning after pill, that it really was about controlling a woman's body. Republican, explain why you want control of another person's body.
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 7,255
    3
    5
    10
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @Bringerofrain
    Is there a single good argument as to why the morning after pill should be banned or is this really about controlling a woman's body. I used to give some credence to republican arguments and believe them that they actually cared about the unborn child, but I realized when they opposed the morning after pill, that it really was about controlling a woman's body. Republican, explain why you want control of another person's body.
    Life begins at conception. Plain and simple
  • Bringerofrain
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 516
    3
    4
    7
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Bringerofrain
    --> @ILikePie5
    Bare assertion, also I think a more important question might be when does consciousness appear and that isn't until at least one month after a child is born. 
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 7,255
    3
    5
    10
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @Bringerofrain
    Bare assertion, also I think a more important question might be when does consciousness appear and that isn't until at least one month after a child is born. 
    Consciousness isn’t indicative of life
  • Bringerofrain
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 516
    3
    4
    7
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Bringerofrain
    --> @ILikePie5
    Technically plants are alive, but nobody cares because they don't have consciousness. Same thing with human life prior to the 2nd month of life
  • Bringerofrain
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 516
    3
    4
    7
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Bringerofrain
    Honestly receiving an abortion is no more unethical than eating a salad. Both kill unconscious life
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 7,255
    3
    5
    10
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @Bringerofrain
    Technically plants are alive, but nobody cares because they don't have consciousness. Same thing with human life prior to the 2nd month of life
    People in coma don’t have consciousness, should it be legal to kill them lol
  • Bringerofrain
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 516
    3
    4
    7
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Bringerofrain
    --> @ILikePie5
    I fully support euthanasia. Euthanasia is no more unethical than eating a banana. Both remove life from a vegetable.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @ILikePie5
    Life does not "begin," even at conception, because the female and male gametes, themselves, are alive before they meet. There is not ever a time when life does not exist. For the female, in particular, she develops the sum total ova she will ever have as a fetus, while the male produces sperm throughout his life, or, at least, most of it.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Bringerofrain
    Although not a Republican, by registration [independent], I agree with the notion of the sanctity of life. I don't even believe that life only begins at conception, because the female and male gametes are already alive when conception occurs. As I oppose abortion because of that fact, that life never "begins," but is continuous, I cannot abide the morning-after pill, either.

    The notion of trying to overwhelm a woman's right to her body is likewise a myth because the individual creature[s] in the womb, including the tissue of the amniotic sac and its fluid, the placenta, and the umbilical, do not in any way match the mother's DNA; they match the fetus. They do not share blood; there is a blood barrier through which only nutrients pass. Therefore, the mother's "privacy" - a curious concept considering the invasion that is abortion - extends to the limit of her body, which merely contains the fetus and its associated external tissue, all of which comes out with a normal birth. It's a harsh comparison, but the fetus and its tissue is like a ping pong ball held in a fist. it, too, is "contained," but is not part of the hand. When the hand opens... well, you know what happens. Were it otherwise, when a woman opened her mouth, her tongue would fall out.

    So, let's understand the true parameters of this "It's her body" routine. For all the constitutional ties Roe v. Wade made constitutionally in its majority argument, isn't it curious that "privacy" is not once mentioned in the Constitution. The linkage was made by the most puerile of arguments. It's also curious, by the way, that four of the seven who sided with the majority were appointed by Republican Presidents, and two of the dissenters were Democrat appointees. So much for the alleged political stripe of SCOTUS.
  • coal
    coal avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,250
    3
    3
    7
    coal avatar
    coal
    --> @Bringerofrain @ILikePie5
    Is there a single good argument as to why the morning after pill should be banned or is this really about controlling a woman's body. I used to give some credence to republican arguments and believe them that they actually cared about the unborn child, but I realized when they opposed the morning after pill, that it really was about controlling a woman's body. Republican, explain why you want control of another person's body.
    The debate over when life begins is philosophically complicated, abstract and an area where reasonable people can disagree for moral, religious, pragmatic or other reasons.   So, I don't see framing the question of whether the morning after pill should be legal or sold in that context as particularly helpful. 

    The question is whether, given the fact that reasonable people can and do disagree on essentially all of the issues implicated by this and all other issues relevant to abortion, at what point is it acceptable to constrain an individual's liberty/freedom and give the state power over another's bodily autonomy.  

    This is a "women's" issue, but it's also more than that, because what we are really talking about is empowering the state to limit individual freedom and autonomy.  

    Regardless of the varying conceptualizations from philosophical, religious, practical and other perspectives; the point at which a fetus is medically viable seems to be the clearest place to draw the line in the sand between pre-person and person.  

    So right now, viability is about 15 weeks or so.  That's right on the line of most of the heartbeat bills.  Before that time, the extent of disagreement among reasonable people on the topic of abortion is enough to show that the state has no business legislating morality.  After that time, there's no way to reasonably argue that what you're talking about aborting is not a human life. 

    Abortion disgusts me, but giving the state power it has no right to claim disgusts me even more.  
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,176
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @coal
    If Republicans were to be logically consistent with "life begins at the moment of conception" then they have to also believe that the Government exercises more ownership over the fetus than the parent does by intervening through a form of Child Protective Services mandating how a parent should treat the fetus.

    The logical end to that position would be that the Government intervention begins at the moment of conception. If the Government is going to take on all that responsibility, then it should also pay for adoptive services plus the costs of bearing a child for 9 months if the parent does not want the child. As a matter of fairness.
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 7,255
    3
    5
    10
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @coal @Greyparrot
    I agree with y’all. It’s a moral standpoint for sure. There’s no way for the government to enforce the laws anyway. My belief is that zero government funding should go to organizations that perform abortions. The government shouldn’t be promoting abortion rather discouraging it 
  • Intelligence_06
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Debates: 61
    Forum posts: 1,872
    4
    7
    11
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Intelligence_06
    The same argument made over and over again. 

    If you are pro-life, you should probably support healthcare, childcare, foster care, education as well as generally, women. That way, when a child is born, it is actually a full-fledged child and isn’t just an extended abortion.

    No, I am serious. If a child was forced to be in the womb till 9 months even if the parent had no remedy to make up the things for the child, then the child would be suffering otherwise.

    If you can’t afford to support all of those, at least you should support contraception. If you detest contraception then you get mad at abortions then you are an asshole. The Bible says it? Okay, which one is more important? A 2000 year old book series or the current structural stability(or instability, should I say)?

    I am Pro-life. If foster care, education, contraception and all those were supported, then no fetus would die unnecessarily.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,176
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @ILikePie5
    I agree with y’all. It’s a moral standpoint for sure. There’s no way for the government to enforce the laws anyway. My belief is that zero government funding should go to organizations that perform abortions. The government shouldn’t be promoting abortion rather discouraging it 

    If the Federal government is set on funding abortions, then an amount of funding also needs to be set aside for adoptions plus childbearing costs. If it's the socially accepted policy of the government to subsidize personal lifestyle choices, then it needs to subsidize all lifestyle choices.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,963
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @ILikePie5
    Life begins at conception. Plain and simple

    Life is, plain and simple.... And you are a selective moralist.

    Prove me wrong.
  • FLRW
    FLRW avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 526
    3
    2
    5
    FLRW avatar
    FLRW
    Clearly, life begins when you draw your first breath. That is when God places your soul in your body. Your soul enters your body with your first breath and it leaves with your last. The body is just a vessel — your being, your humanity, is your immortal soul. That's what the Bible says, and for the life of me I cannot understand why so many people, especially supposedly religious people, get this wrong. There is no question, no moral ambiguity. Abortion destroys an empty vessel, it does not kill a human being.
    This is why you won't see any fetuses floating arounfd in Heaven.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @FLRW
    Clearly, life begins when you draw your first breath. 
    How clear is that, exactly? You're going to have to describe exactly what you mean by "draw your first breath" by timing from conception, or even before, since the female and male gametes express all the biological signs of life that biology defines as "life." By that description, life doesn't really "begin," its existence is continuous.  Further, if human life is the immortal soul[ I happen to agree] why do you maintain it begins and ends at all. Don't confuse the life of the mortal, physical body, which it has, relatively briefly in consideration of eternity, compared with the life of the immortal spirit, which has no beginning or end of life..

    As for a fetus floating in heaven, you're going to have to wait until you get there to know that for sure. You're guessing, and it's not such a great guess.

    Meanwhile, here's a good read relative to mortal life: https://lozierinstitute.org/fetal-eegs-signals-from-the-dawn-of-life/  but even this does not account for the pre-extant life of the gametes.
  • Double_R
    Double_R avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 257
    1
    2
    4
    Double_R avatar
    Double_R
    Republicans during pregnancy: “You don’t want to have that child? Sorry, we’re making that choice for you”

    Republicans after pregnancy: “You can’t afford to take care of that child? Well, guess you should have made better choices”