Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Biden's 6:30 press conference today

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by cocodrilo, Jul 11, 2024.

  1. tilly

    tilly Superhero Mod. Fast witted. Bulletproof posts. Moderator VIP Member

    I am not arguing that an abortion vote does not force something on others. Of course it does.

    I am arguing so do all sorts of votes.

    You may vote for someone that impacts my taxes. That forces something on me.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  2. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    20,591
    1,684
    1,763
    Apr 8, 2007
    At least you in agreement with what I have stated in several other posts. The subject of when a fetus is considered a human being is matter of religion and faith not science and for that reason is impossible to debate rationally.
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Wish I would have said that Wish I would have said that x 1
  3. AgingGator

    AgingGator GC Hall of Fame

    3,682
    794
    2,088
    Apr 24, 2007
    Oh I read plenty. The difference between us is you only read left wing garbage.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    15,745
    2,030
    1,718
    Dec 9, 2010
    You were arguing "every vote" did. That is obviously false, as I pointed out. Are there other votes that force beliefs on others? Yes.

    So then the question becomes about the basis of the belief and how reasonable it is to be able to force that belief on others. In this country, heavily religious beliefs (especially when those beliefs are not consistently held across religions) are supposed to be some of the ones we are most reluctant to force on others.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  5. citygator

    citygator VIP Member

    11,036
    2,477
    3,303
    Apr 3, 2007
    Charlotte
    The US has zero history treating a fetus as a person. No tax deduction allowed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. gatordavisl

    gatordavisl VIP Member

    31,716
    54,898
    3,753
    Apr 8, 2007
    northern MN
    It's not a strong argument, though. It's a ubiquitous standard argument, which fails under a multitude of circumstances.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. gatordavisl

    gatordavisl VIP Member

    31,716
    54,898
    3,753
    Apr 8, 2007
    northern MN
    I don't feel this is the correct argument either. There are various interpretations of what constitutes a life and some of the scientific interpretations do not support your argument. The argument, imo, should be that the gov should have no business in determining women's/families' reproductive healthcare rights. You might argue that it's not a matter of terminating a life, but that's not the argument. There are circumstances under which terminating a life are deemed legally/logically/morally acceptable (some will argue the moral component and that's fine). Consider war, perpetual coma, and the death penalty. Although there are arguments for & against, many of those who deem it unacceptable to terminate a fetus also deem it acceptable to terminate the life of a wartime adversary, a person perpetually on life support, or a person sentenced to execution. Therein lies one of the problematic hypocrisies.

    It's a highly complex issue which cannot call for a simple solution (i.e. "abortion should be illegal" or even "abortion up to xx weeks of pregnancy" should be illegal). Those are arbitrary criteria which fail to account for the litany of complexities involved. Don't get drug into the mud, though, on what constitutes a living human. It's not the argument.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  8. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    8,637
    830
    2,843
    Apr 16, 2007
    Bingo.

    This seems very complicated for some.
     
  9. eastowest

    eastowest GC Hall of Fame

    22,495
    7,944
    6,031
    May 13, 2007
    IMG-0530.jpg
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. gatorpa

    gatorpa GC Hall of Fame

    11,301
    1,004
    698
    Sep 5, 2010
    East Coast of FL
    It is not uncommon when a woman who is pregnant is murdered or killed for the perpetrator of that crime to be charged with two homicides.
    I’d say the state is treating a “fetus” as a person in that instance would you not?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. gatordavisl

    gatordavisl VIP Member

    31,716
    54,898
    3,753
    Apr 8, 2007
    northern MN
    Good point and illustrates why I suggest the fetus/life is not the proper argument for reproductive healthcare rights.
     
  12. Emmitto

    Emmitto VIP Member

    8,888
    1,656
    933
    Apr 3, 2007
    Indeed.

    But this is back to the core of the argument.

    I may even agree that a pregnant lady killed is actually two murders.

    But that is a step beyond the whole concept of a lady and her pregnancy.
     
  13. gatorpa

    gatorpa GC Hall of Fame

    11,301
    1,004
    698
    Sep 5, 2010
    East Coast of FL
    Just to play devils advocate here, so if the mother decides to abort the fetus/baby it’s not murder but if someone else does it is.
    That’s hard to reconcile logically to me.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. gatorpa

    gatorpa GC Hall of Fame

    11,301
    1,004
    698
    Sep 5, 2010
    East Coast of FL
    Can you elaborate on that?
     
  15. gatordavisl

    gatordavisl VIP Member

    31,716
    54,898
    3,753
    Apr 8, 2007
    northern MN
    I wrote a little in post 227. Would prefer not to engage this topic further.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  16. Emmitto

    Emmitto VIP Member

    8,888
    1,656
    933
    Apr 3, 2007
    I would be open to debate. A woman who wants that baby, yeah, I could go with that.

    But again, that is beyond the original concept.

    I am not against babies, I used to be one after all. Some might say I haven’t made a lot of progress.

    I am also not against women who want to be mothers.

    My reasons are mine. Maybe you like them, maybe you don’t.

    I am against The State telling women what is what.

    Also, The State telling me my reasons are unacceptable. Not for that.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  17. OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Jedi Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    122,700
    163,757
    116,973
    Apr 3, 2007
    If by saying US, you are speaking federally, then I think you are incorrect.

    Under federal law, harming an unborn child (in utero) during the commission of certain other crimes carries the same penalty as if you had committed the crime directly against the mother—and is charged as a separate offense. This law is embodied in Title 18 U.S.C. 1841 (Unborn Victims of Violence Act).

    Protection of Unborn Children | 18 U.S. Code § 1841).

    If you are only speaking from the tax aspect, then you are correct.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    12,887
    1,727
    3,268
    Jan 6, 2009
    what about the sperm, is it not alive? Is masturbating mass murder?
     
  19. l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    12,887
    1,727
    3,268
    Jan 6, 2009
    You can certainly argue there is an inconsistency. But ultimately murder is what we define it to be. There are many forms of killing that aren’t murder.

    There is a key difference in your example - in one scenario a third party kills the fetus, against the will of the mother, the other, the mother ends the life of the fetus, as it is tied to her bodily autonomy.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  20. vaxcardinal

    vaxcardinal GC Hall of Fame

    6,987
    1,054
    2,043
    Apr 8, 2007
    Is that why the prorate your tax deduction on the birth of a child?