PDA

View Full Version : Freedom of Choice



Pages : [1] 2

Yukon
01-15-2011, 11:44 AM
Why do Conservatives, the great defenders of freedom, refuse to accept that a woman should and does have the legal right to rid her body of unwanted fetal tissue?

Pray tell my children but why ?

p.s. If you really want to live in a theocracy you should move to Sauid Arabia, abortion is illegal, laws are based on the Holy Books, etc, etc - a real home for Conservatives.

Apache
01-15-2011, 12:44 PM
Why do Liberals want to deny personal responsibilty and push the price on to someone who has no say in the matter?

Pray tell my Canuck but why?

NJCardFan
01-15-2011, 12:53 PM
Why do Conservatives, the great defenders of freedom, refuse to accept that a woman should and does have the legal right to rid her body of unwanted fetal tissue?

Pray tell my children but why ?

p.s. If you really want to live in a theocracy you should move to Sauid Arabia, abortion is illegal, laws are based on the Holy Books, etc, etc - a real home for Conservatives.

Wow. Talk about stupid. But I'll answer that easily. Because I believe that that child has a human right to exist so tell me, why do liberals, the supposed advocates of human rights, want to deny life to millions of children? Also, why do liberals fall all over themselves wanting to kill unborn children but also fall all over themselves saving convicted murderers and terrorists?


Oh, and it's spelled FREEDOM. But considering a liberal wouldn't know freedom if it bit them in the ass, I can understand you're not knowing how it's spelled.

Novaheart
01-15-2011, 01:08 PM
Why do Liberals want to deny personal responsibilty and push the price on to someone who has no say in the matter?

Pray tell my Canuck but why?

So you oppose all abortions?

Apache
01-15-2011, 01:11 PM
So you oppose all abortions?

As a matter of principle, yes.

Yukon
01-15-2011, 01:21 PM
As a matter of principle, yes.

Apache,

Let me put forward a hypothetical situation to you which I would ask that you attempt to answer honestly:

Your 15 year old daughter is coming home from her friend's house one lovely summer evening. As she approaches the local park three men attack her, they beat her badly and gang rape her leaving her for dead. She is able to stagger to the raod and is helped to a hospital by a passer-by.

After a two week stay in hospital she is tested for pregnancy and it is determined she is pregnant as a result of the gang rape. She is but 15 and tells you she wants an abortion, she doent want her life ruined by thisw, she cant bear to carry this fetal tissue to term. Would you permit her to have an abortion?

YES or NO

Novaheart
01-15-2011, 01:26 PM
As a matter of principle, yes.

Does that mean there is wiggle room? Let's get specific.

In case of a rape?

In case of gross deformity?

In case of almost certain still birth?

In case of known medical risk to the mother (like kidney damage)?

In case of >50% risk of death to the mother?

Constitutionally Speaking
01-15-2011, 01:26 PM
Why do Conservatives, the great defenders of freedom, refuse to accept that a woman should and does have the legal right to rid her body of unwanted fetal tissue?

Pray tell my children but why ?

p.s. If you really want to live in a theocracy you should move to Sauid Arabia, abortion is illegal, laws are based on the Holy Books, etc, etc - a real home for Conservatives.


Perhaps you could explain to me how a liberal who is SO in love with SCIENCE makes up euphemisms to deny that the "fetal tissue" is actually a human being.

There is no theology involved. It is pure science. It is a live, independent human being.

Bailey
01-15-2011, 01:35 PM
Apache,

Let me put forward a hypothetical situation to you which I would ask that you attempt to answer honestly:

Your 15 year old daughter is coming home from her friend's house one lovely summer evening. As she approaches the local park three men attack her, they beat her badly and gang rape her leaving her for dead. She is able to stagger to the raod and is helped to a hospital by a passer-by.

After a two week stay in hospital she is tested for pregnancy and it is determined she is pregnant as a result of the gang rape. She is but 15 and tells you she wants an abortion, she doent want her life ruined by thisw, she cant bear to carry this fetal tissue to term. Would you permit her to have an abortion?

YES or NO

If it was my daughter, I'd say no and tell her to give it up for adoption.

NJCardFan
01-15-2011, 01:36 PM
Apache,

Let me put forward a hypothetical situation to you which I would ask that you attempt to answer honestly:

Your 15 year old daughter is coming home from her friend's house one lovely summer evening. As she approaches the local park three men attack her, they beat her badly and gang rape her leaving her for dead. She is able to stagger to the raod and is helped to a hospital by a passer-by.

After a two week stay in hospital she is tested for pregnancy and it is determined she is pregnant as a result of the gang rape. She is but 15 and tells you she wants an abortion, she doent want her life ruined by thisw, she cant bear to carry this fetal tissue to term. Would you permit her to have an abortion?

YES or NO
This is straight out of the liberal playbook. Kindly list the % of all pregnancies due to rape or incest. I'll wait.

And I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.

NJCardFan
01-15-2011, 01:38 PM
Is this what you call fetal tissue:
http://weblogs.cw11.com/news/local/morningnews/blogs/baby.jpg

Novaheart
01-15-2011, 01:44 PM
Is this what you call fetal tissue:
http://weblogs.cw11.com/news/local/morningnews/blogs/baby.jpg

You could say the same thing about a fertilized egg, and women have been getting rid of the preventively for a long long time.

Novaheart
01-15-2011, 01:47 PM
This is straight out of the liberal playbook. Kindly list the % of all pregnancies due to rape or incest. I'll wait.

And I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.

How is the proportion relevant? If abortion is murder, then it's always murder except in the case of saving the life of the mother. We recognize that as self defense.

NJCardFan
01-15-2011, 01:53 PM
How is the proportion relevant? If abortion is murder, then it's always murder except in the case of saving the life of the mother. We recognize that as self defense.

Um, aborting a pregnancy is self defense? And I ask again, give me the % of these events to all other pregnancies. Abortion rights are nothing more than an excuse for irresponsible behavior. If terminating a pregnancy is done to save the mother's life, that's one thing. But terminating a pregnancy because a baby might cramp one's style is another and a vast, and I do mean vast, majority of unwanted pregnancies are of this, not due to rape, incest, or saving the life of the mother and you know it. So, your argument fails on it's face.

And the proportion is very relevant because this is the crux of the liberal argument. Yukon himself is using it, genius. So you simply cannot throw that out there as the crux of your argument then when it's turned on it's head, now declare it irrelevant. But then again, this is a prime tactic of the left.

Jfor
01-15-2011, 01:59 PM
Um, aborting a pregnancy is self defense? And I ask again, give me the % of these events to all other pregnancies. Abortion rights are nothing more than an excuse for irresponsible behavior. If terminating a pregnancy is done to save the mother's life, that's one thing. But terminating a pregnancy because a baby might cramp one's style is another and a vast, and I do mean vast, majority of unwanted pregnancies are of this, not due to rape, incest, or saving the life of the mother and you know it. So, your argument fails on it's face.

And the proportion is very relevant because this is the crux of the liberal argument. Yukon himself is using it, genius. So you simply cannot throw that out there as the crux of your argument then when it's turned on it's head, now declare it irrelevant. But then again, this is a prime tactic of the left.

I highlighted the most important part of that post so the resident libtards can read and understand.

fettpett
01-15-2011, 01:59 PM
How is the proportion relevant? If abortion is murder, then it's always murder except in the case of saving the life of the mother. We recognize that as self defense.

it's not self defense but a choice between one life and another...sometimes it's one that has to be made.

AmPat
01-15-2011, 02:00 PM
Apache, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah
RAPE!


YES or NO


It always comes back to this. This was the issue that allowed the camel's nose under the tent. Of course liberals were true to nature and lied about this as well saying it would only be a small fraction. Not many abortions will occur. It will be for rape, incest and health of the mother. All lies. We are approaching 50 million aborted babies since the liberal liar's favorite "right" has been law of the land. Since that time, these millions of potential DIMoRAT voters haven't been around to vote. What fraction of these millions do you think were health, rape, or incest related?

Ding ding ding, that's right retard, nearly ZERO!

What does he win mods?

Kay
01-15-2011, 02:01 PM
Why do Conservatives, the great defenders of freedom, refuse to accept that a woman should and does have the legal right to rid her body of unwanted fetal tissue?

Answer: Because that 'fetal tissue' is a baby with a life and soul of it's own.

Now answer my question Yukon, why do abrasive liberals as yourself always come to boards like this and start a thread on this topic? I think you already knew the answer to that question before you posted it. You're just trying to kick a shit pile with this and stir up a stink. That's my answer above, and all I have to say on the issue.

fettpett
01-15-2011, 02:02 PM
What does he win mods?

a Ban for being a troll

it would be nice if liberals could have a discussion and not just spout the talking points

Apache
01-15-2011, 02:08 PM
Apache,

Let me put forward a hypothetical situation to you which I would ask that you attempt to answer honestly:

Your 15 year old daughter is coming home from her friend's house one lovely summer evening. As she approaches the local park three men attack her, they beat her badly and gang rape her leaving her for dead. She is able to stagger to the raod and is helped to a hospital by a passer-by.

After a two week stay in hospital she is tested for pregnancy and it is determined she is pregnant as a result of the gang rape. She is but 15 and tells you she wants an abortion, she doent want her life ruined by thisw, she cant bear to carry this fetal tissue to term. Would you permit her to have an abortion?

YES or NO

I love these worst case scenerios you guys put out :rolleyes:

The answer is NO!


Waiting for Yukon to pick jaw off ground


Because my daughter would be taught to cherish life and wouldn't have even thought abortion a possibilty.

Rockntractor
01-15-2011, 02:15 PM
I love these worst case scenerios you guys put out :rolleyes:

The answer is NO!


Waiting for Yukon to pick jaw off ground


Because my daughter would be taught to cherish life and wouldn't have even thought abortion a possibilty.

King Kong is ravishing New York and captures a beautiful young girl. The girl is miraculously impregnated by escaped DNA from King Kong During his Excitement. The girl will explode everywhere if she doesn't get an abortion. Would you abort Artie Ape?

Apache
01-15-2011, 02:17 PM
Does that mean there is wiggle room? OkLet's get specific.

In case of a rape? NO

In case of gross deformity?No

In case of almost certain still birth? NO

In case of known medical risk to the mother (like kidney damage)? No

In case of >50% risk of death to the mother? No

Why do you find reasons to take innocent life?

Apache
01-15-2011, 02:26 PM
King Kong is ravishing New York and captures a beautiful young girl. The girl is miraculously impregnated by escaped DNA from King Kong During his Excitement. The girl will explode everywhere if she doesn't get an abortion. Would you abort Artie Ape?

http://www.whynotad.com/_mm/_d/_ext/35327/big_supper%20affectionate%20baby%20chimpanzee%20fo r%20adoption01.jpg


IT'S A BOY!!! :p

lacarnut
01-15-2011, 02:29 PM
Why is this dumb ass Canucklehead so stupid?:eek:

wilbur
01-15-2011, 02:30 PM
Perhaps you could explain to me how a liberal who is SO in love with SCIENCE makes up euphemisms to deny that the "fetal tissue" is actually a human being.

Fetal tissue is more accurate a description, depending on the stage of development. Its less deceptive than calling a fetus or zygote "human being", quite frankly.



There is no theology involved. It is pure science. It is a live, independent human being.

With science we can easily detect and investigate the various stages of human development, but it can't tell us what kind of value the organisms have at those stages (or any stage). Values are rather unscientific.

So.... you're view is not pure science because the question of abortion is one about values. In fact, you're view is PURELY unscientific, and I'd bet your values on the topic are nearly entirely developed from your theology. So it really is actually PURE theology.

Sorry... you simply don't get a 'science' trump card here.

Apache
01-15-2011, 02:37 PM
Why is this dumb ass Canucklehead so stupid?:eek:

Cranial frostbite :confused:

Apache
01-15-2011, 02:39 PM
Fetal tissue is more accurate a description, depending on the stage of development. Its less deceptive than calling a fetus or zygote "human being", quite frankly.



With science we can easily detect and investigate the various stages of human development, but it can't tell us what kind of value the organisms have at those stages (or any stage). Values are rather unscientific.

So.... you're view is not pure science because the question of abortion is one about values. In fact, you're view is PURELY unscientific, and I'd bet your values on the topic are nearly entirely developed from your theology. So it really is actually PURE theology.

Sorry... you simply don't get a 'science' trump card here.

Right right right :rolleyes:

AmPat
01-15-2011, 02:39 PM
Fetal tissue is more accurate a description, depending on the stage of development. Its less deceptive than calling a fetus or zygote "human being", quite frankly.



With science we can easily detect and investigate the various stages of human development, but it can't tell us what kind of value the organisms have at those stages (or any stage). Values are rather unscientific.

So.... you're view is not pure science because the question of abortion is one about values. In fact, you're view is PURELY unscientific, and I'd bet your values on the topic are nearly entirely developed from your theology. So it really is actually PURE theology.

Sorry... you simply don't get a 'science' trump card here.

Human life is the VALUE that matters. Otherwise,eventually liberals will test at the earliest opportunity to assess the potential "value" the newborn brings to society. We can then see the "value" in post birth abortions for the sake of society. Resources will then be saved for those deemed of more "value" to society.:cool:

Rockntractor
01-15-2011, 02:40 PM
Fetal tissue is more accurate a description, depending on the stage of development. Its less deceptive than calling a fetus or zygote "human being", quite frankly.



With science we can easily detect and investigate the various stages of human development, but it can't tell us what kind of value the organisms have at those stages (or any stage). Values are rather unscientific.

So.... you're view is not pure science because the question of abortion is one about values. In fact, you're view is PURELY unscientific, and I'd bet your values on the topic are nearly entirely developed from your theology. So it really is actually PURE theology.

Sorry... you simply don't get a 'science' trump card here.

Wilbur is fecal tissue.

obx
01-15-2011, 02:45 PM
Wilbur is fecal tissue.

LOL. Short, and to the point.

wilbur
01-15-2011, 02:50 PM
Human life is the VALUE that matters.

I disagree, but you'll note that your claim, "Human life is the value that matters", is not a scientific one, is it? That was my point. And that's why CS was mistaken.

You can't point to a science paper anywhere that can tell you what matters, or what should matter.

Kay
01-15-2011, 03:08 PM
http://www.whynotad.com/_mm/_d/_ext/35327/big_supper%20affectionate%20baby%20chimpanzee%20fo r%20adoption01.jpg


IT'S A BOY!!! :p

LOL! Good one. :p

Yukon
01-15-2011, 03:13 PM
APACHE,

At least you had the intestinal fortitude to answer the question I put to. That being said I don't actually think you would deny her the RIGHT to abort fetal tissue that resulted from a gang rape. I dont even think you could be that callous.

Apache
01-15-2011, 03:25 PM
APACHE,

At least you had the intestinal fortitude to answer the question I put to. That being said I don't actually think you would deny her the RIGHT to abort fetal tissue that resulted from a gang rape. I dont even think you could be that callous.

Whoa! Slow down the horses and back-up there buddy. You don't get to pose a question, have it answered honestly, and then come to your own conclusions about my hypothetical daughter. You gave a scenerio, you did not give her the values I would instill in her...

Yukon
01-15-2011, 03:30 PM
In Canada abortion is legal and will remain legal. It is a woman's right and this has been decided by the SCoC. Some interesting data with respect to the continued attempt by religious zealots in the USA to outlaw this medical procedure is available. I provide to with the follwoing sample and I say do not shoot the messenger:

ABORTION WAS criminalized throughout the U.S. between the late 1800s and 1973. But during that time, millions of women sought and obtained abortions anyway. Of these, tens upon tens of thousands died from illegal abortions or complications arising from them. One 1932 study estimated that illegal abortions or complications from them were the cause of death for 15,000 women each year. Current, more conservative, estimates of the death toll still stand at between 5,000 and 10,000 deaths per year.

More facts are available at:
http://socialistworker.org/2005-2/562/562_06_Abortion.shtml

Do you really want to revert to the barbaric practice of back alley abortions where women die? It could be your daughter or sister that dies.

Yukon
01-15-2011, 03:35 PM
Whoa! Slow down the horses and back-up there buddy. You don't get to pose a question, have it answered honestly, and then come to your own conclusions about my hypothetical daughter. You gave a scenerio, you did not give her the values I would instill in her...


APACHE,
Based on the scenario I put forward you woud force your daughter to carry to term a fetus that came to be as a result of a gang rape. Based on the scenario put to you this is not what she would want to do.

Apache
01-15-2011, 03:35 PM
In Canada abortion is legal and will remain legal. It is a woman's right and this has been decided by the SCoC. Some interesting data with respect to the continued attempt by religious zealots in the USA to outlaw this medical procedure is available. I provide to with the follwoing sample and I say do not shoot the messenger:

ABORTION WAS criminalized throughout the U.S. between the late 1800s and 1973. But during that time, millions of women sought and obtained abortions anyway. Of these, tens upon tens of thousands died from illegal abortions or complications arising from them. One 1932 study estimated that illegal abortions or complications from them were the cause of death for 15,000 women each year. Current, more conservative, estimates of the death toll still stand at between 5,000 and 10,000 deaths per year.

More facts are available at:
http://socialistworker.org/2005-2/562/562_06_Abortion.shtml

Do you really want to revert to the barbaric practice of back alley abortions where women die? It could be your daughter or sister that dies.

It mainly comes down to personal responsibilty. Don't wanna pay, don't play.

Apache
01-15-2011, 03:38 PM
APACHE,
Based on the scenario I put forward you woud force your daughter to carry to term a fetus that came to be as a result of a gang rape. Based on the scenario put to you this is not what she would want to do.


...you did not give her the values I would instill in her...

Pretty clear to me...

Yukon
01-15-2011, 03:41 PM
APACHE,

People like you sadden me.

fettpett
01-15-2011, 03:42 PM
In Canada abortion is legal and will remain legal. It is a woman's right and this has been decided by the SCoC. Some interesting data with respect to the continued attempt by religious zealots in the USA to outlaw this medical procedure is available. I provide to with the follwoing sample and I say do not shoot the messenger:

ABORTION WAS criminalized throughout the U.S. between the late 1800s and 1973. But during that time, millions of women sought and obtained abortions anyway. Of these, tens upon tens of thousands died from illegal abortions or complications arising from them. One 1932 study estimated that illegal abortions or complications from them were the cause of death for 15,000 women each year. Current, more conservative, estimates of the death toll still stand at between 5,000 and 10,000 deaths per year.

More facts are available at:
http://socialistworker.org/2005-2/562/562_06_Abortion.shtml

Do you really want to revert to the barbaric practice of back alley abortions where women die? It could be your daughter or sister that dies.

you and every other libtard out there don't get the reason Conservatives have issues with the current Abortion Ruling.

Roe vs Wade that legalized abortion, (Debra Roe by the way as done a 180 on the issue and bemoans the day she filed that suit) was not a law that pass through the House, Senate, debated in public and signed by the President. It was a Ruling by the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment somehow allowed a woman to have an abortion. IT'S BAD LAW. And not within the bounds of the Constitution nor does the 14th Amendment's due process clause have anything to do with the health of a person.

Apache
01-15-2011, 03:59 PM
APACHE,

People like you sadden me.

Why? Because values actually matter?

AmPat
01-15-2011, 04:10 PM
I disagree, but you'll note that your claim, "Human life is the value that matters", is not a scientific one, is it? That was my point. And that's why CS was mistaken.

You can't point to a science paper anywhere that can tell you what matters, or what should matter.

I don't worship science like you do. Science to me is a tool, not a god.:rolleyes:
In addition, Science is only a tool when tools don't politicize it.

AmPat
01-15-2011, 04:12 PM
APACHE,

At least you had the intestinal fortitude to answer the question I put to. That being said I don't actually think you would deny her the RIGHT to abort fetal tissue that resulted from a gang rape. I dont even think you could be that callous.
He is definitely not as callous as liberals who indiscriminately abort babies by the millions for convenience.

fettpett
01-15-2011, 04:14 PM
The CDC had a report from 2005 that Abortion was the #1 killer of Blacks in the US, more than the 7 other leading causes combined.

wilbur
01-15-2011, 04:46 PM
I don't worship science like you do. Science to me is a tool, not a god.:rolleyes:
In addition, Science is only a tool when tools don't politicize it.

Seriously, anytime you guys disagree with someone do you have to start falsely accusing "worship"? Of course, I guess when one finds themselves out of their depth, it can be an effective (though usually false) way to make a lot of noise, while pretending one is saying something relevant or intelligent.

Anyhow, my posts in this thread were addressing Constitutionally Speaking, who mistook his own value judgments for scientific conclusions. He's trying to use science as a political tool, therefore you need to be sending your criticisms his way, not towards me.

I was the one who was insisting on properly disentangling the scientific claims from the political/ethical/theological claims here.

AmPat
01-15-2011, 05:02 PM
Sorta like an anti God-anti Christian trying to sound off on religious matters? Just because one doesn't buy into your science religion doesn't mean he is "out of his depth." I'm sure Christian scientists could wade the waters of the great science god and religion easily. Your incessant attacks on Christianity make you and your science god a valid target.

http://i54.tinypic.com/2rm0d8h.jpg

Yukon
01-15-2011, 05:09 PM
Why? Because values actually matter?

What value do you refer to, the one that woud force a young girl who was raped to carry the fetal tissue to term, simply because you say so, is that the value you refer to ? You would put that sort of stress on a young girl because of your sense of right and wrong.

wilbur
01-15-2011, 05:09 PM
Sorta like an anti God-anti Christian trying to sound off on religious matters? Just because one doesn't buy into your science religion doesn't mean he is "out of his depth." I'm sure Christian scientists could wade the waters of the great science god and religion easily. Your incessant attacks on Christianity make you and your science god a valid target.



What the....??! I've been talking about abortion and values and science... where the fuck you are, I don't know...

Lager
01-15-2011, 05:19 PM
In Canada abortion is legal and will remain legal. It is a woman's right and this has been decided by the SCoC. Some interesting data with respect to the continued attempt by religious zealots in the USA to outlaw this medical procedure is available. I provide to with the follwoing sample and I say do not shoot the messenger:

ABORTION WAS criminalized throughout the U.S. between the late 1800s and 1973. But during that time, millions of women sought and obtained abortions anyway. Of these, tens upon tens of thousands died from illegal abortions or complications arising from them. One 1932 study estimated that illegal abortions or complications from them were the cause of death for 15,000 women each year. Current, more conservative, estimates of the death toll still stand at between 5,000 and 10,000 deaths per year.

More facts are available at:
http://socialistworker.org/2005-2/562/562_06_Abortion.shtml

Do you really want to revert to the barbaric practice of back alley abortions where women die? It could be your daughter or sister that dies.

Yukon, don't you think abortion is a brutal method of birth control for any society that considers itself civilized? Especially one with the most effective and varied means of birth control in history, as well as access to all kinds of information on conception and prevention thru the miracle of the internet? You are a progressive, aren't you? And that is cool how you trained and conditioned yourself to say " fetal tissue" at all the appropriate times. You guys are so good at being conditioned. It's fun to watch.

Yukon
01-15-2011, 05:19 PM
Sorta like an anti God-anti Christian trying to sound off on religious matters? Just because one doesn't buy into your science religion doesn't mean he is "out of his depth." I'm sure Christian scientists could wade the waters of the great science god and religion easily. Your incessant attacks on Christianity make you and your science god a valid target.



Pray tell my son but what the heck does 'science religion' (whatever that is) have to do with a woman's right to chose if she will abort unwanted fetal tissue ?

wilbur
01-15-2011, 05:29 PM
Yukon, don't you think abortion is a brutal method of birth control for any society that considers itself civilized? Especially one with the most effective and varied means of birth control in history, as well as access to all kinds of information on conception and prevention thru the miracle of the internet? You are a progressive, aren't you? And that is cool how you trained and conditioned yourself to say " fetal tissue" at all the appropriate times. You guys are so good at being conditioned. It's fun to watch.

Don't you think referring to a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, or a fetus as a child, or as a baby, or as a human being is misleading? Just like abortion-gore porn plastered on protester posters, its meant to make something seem like you or I, when in reality it has very little in common with us at all... and has none of the sorts of the qualities which so cause us to deplore suffering or injustice inflicted upon others.

Kay
01-15-2011, 05:32 PM
And that is cool how you trained and conditioned yourself to say " fetal tissue" at all the appropriate times. You guys are so good at being conditioned.

I know, he uses the phrase "shed fetal tissue"
like the woman's just having a mole removed.
No regard for the life that is being taken from the baby.

fettpett
01-15-2011, 05:35 PM
Don't you think referring to a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, or a fetus as a child, or as a baby, or as a human being is misleading? Just like abortion-gore porn plastered on protester posters, its meant to make something seem like you or I, when it reality it has very little in common with us at all... and has none of the sorts of the qualities which so cause us to deplore suffering or injustice on others.

why not? When does a baby become a human in your mind?

For a group of people so bent on being "civil" and looking out for animal's rights, the Leftist out there sure are quick to snuff out a Human baby and define it in the lest human terms possible.

Kay
01-15-2011, 05:38 PM
ts meant to make something seem like you or I,
when in reality it has very little in common with us at all...

Except of course that we all started out just exactly like that ourselves.

Here's another hypothetical:
You have the 15 year old daughter, she gets knocked up.
You have a premonition that the baby will grow up to be Wilbur.
Man, it would be a tough decision not to abort that one.

JB
01-15-2011, 05:42 PM
...Hey noob, the topic has been beaten to death a thousand times over on CU.

What's your next great thread going to be...Prostitution or the Legalization of Drugs?

Search the forum first before your next great "gotcha" moment.

:rolleyes:

Lager
01-15-2011, 05:43 PM
You might be scientifically correct in your argument. But human beings aren't machines who can think in purely emotionless scientific terms, and divorce their feelings from their thoughts. So, perhaps in biological terms, a husband is incorrect when he talks about his wife who is 6 weeks pregnant, as carrying his baby. But it's easily forgiven.

When you make an obvious effort to de-humanize something and describe it in only cold, methodical medical terms, it sounds too much like some of the justifications the Nazis made.

Apache
01-15-2011, 05:50 PM
What value do you refer to, the one that woud force a young girl who was raped to carry the fetal tissue to term, simply because you say so, is that the value you refer to ? You would put that sort of stress on a young girl because of your sense of right and wrong.

You are under some absurd notion that all females are in desperate need of/desire for an abortion. Is that some rite of passsage for you?

"Fetal tissue to term"? They're called 'babies' or humans, or are you too blinded by your views to see that?

...and finally
You would put that sort of stress on a young girl because of your sense of right and wrong.Get off your high-horse, abortions do not magically make everything go away. Studies have shown that abortions do harm to reproductive organs and emotionally as well. It's fine for you to impose your views of right or wrong, but no one else can? It doesn't work that way. You are one side of an argument, I am the other. You are; If it feels good, do it. I am; Actions have consequences...

m00
01-15-2011, 05:56 PM
Apache,

Let me put forward a hypothetical situation to you which I would ask that you attempt to answer honestly:

Let me put forward a series of questions that I ask you to answer in all honesty.

1) Is it moral (or "freedom of choice" as you put) it to kill a newborn?

If no,

2) Is it moral (or "freedom of choice" as you put) to kill a newborn who was born prematurely at 26 weeks?

If no,

3) Is it moral (or "freedom of choice" as you put) to kill the exact same fetus I listed above at 26 weeks, but inside the womb rather than outside the womb. Note that at 26 weeks, the fetus has 90% viability if it was born right there on the spot.

If yes, what's the moral difference between killing the exact same fetus inside vs outside the womb?

If no,

4) Now we are at a point where the morality of abortion depends on fetus viability. However, this is a moving target. What was not viable in the 1990s is viable today. This means over time the viability of a fetus is earlier and earlier. So do you believe that morality itself is a moving target, or if something is immoral/moral in 1990 the same thing is still moral/immoral in 2011?

If you believe that "in what decade does something happen" has no impact on whether something is right or wrong, and you have arrived at this step you must logically conclude that any abortion is criminal.

Conversely, if you believe that "in what decade does something happen" does have an impact on whether something is right or wrong (such as, slavery was "right" in the 1700s) then feel free to continue your beliefs.

Madisonian
01-15-2011, 07:01 PM
One question that I rarely see liberals answer about abortion...
If the mystical gay gene was discovered and it could be determined that a baby was going to be born gay and the mother wanted to abort it for that reason alone, is it still a valid reason or is it now a hate crime or subject to any other legal prohibition?

wilbur
01-15-2011, 07:15 PM
One question that I rarely see liberals answer about abortion...
If the mystical gay gene was discovered and it could be determined that a baby was going to be born gay and the mother wanted to abort it for that reason alone, is it still a valid reason or is it now a hate crime or subject to any other legal prohibition?

Nope.

Apache
01-15-2011, 07:18 PM
Nope.

Why not?

wilbur
01-15-2011, 07:36 PM
Why not?

Oops - had a dyslexic moment and inverted the question in my head.

The actual answer is:

Yep.

Apache
01-15-2011, 07:52 PM
Oops - had a dyslexic moment and inverted the question in my head.

The actual answer is:

Yep.

At least you're consistent...

AmPat
01-15-2011, 08:26 PM
Pray tell my son but what the heck does 'science religion' (whatever that is) have to do with a woman's right to chose if she will abort unwanted fetal tissue ?
I'm not your son "gramps." The question was not to you. It is also not a question between science god and a woman's right to choose.

Abortion has gone a long way toward our society devaluing a human life. I will not play into that for a simple woman's right to choose to kill. I prefer we emphasize a woman's right to keep her legs closed. You do realize that this is a viable and less destructive option on the health and the morality side?

Rockntractor
01-15-2011, 08:29 PM
At least you're consistent...
Oh he is consistent, other than a few pieces of undigested corn here and there.

BadCat
01-15-2011, 09:13 PM
I'm a conservative and I'm all for abortion.

I think Wilbur and Yukon should have been aborted.

wilbur
01-15-2011, 09:16 PM
At least you're consistent...

My stance doesnt mean that, as a culture, we shouldnt look down upon or have some sort of stigma against abortion for that reason.... but it shouldnt be illegal.

Constitutionally Speaking
01-15-2011, 10:27 PM
Fetal tissue is more accurate a description, depending on the stage of development. Its less deceptive than calling a fetus or zygote "human being", quite frankly.



With science we can easily detect and investigate the various stages of human development, but it can't tell us what kind of value the organisms have at those stages (or any stage). Values are rather unscientific.

So.... you're view is not pure science because the question of abortion is one about values. In fact, you're view is PURELY unscientific, and I'd bet your values on the topic are nearly entirely developed from your theology. So it really is actually PURE theology.

Sorry... you simply don't get a 'science' trump card here.

Not my point. The values come later - AFTER the scientific determination of whether or not it is an independent human being.


The DNA says the "fetal tissue" is human. The Fetal tissue is by ALL definitions alive. So we know that it is a live human. But some claim that it is merely part of the mother's body. If that were true, it would have the same DNA as the mother - yet it does not.

It is alive, it is human, and it is not merely part of another human but a separate, living being. - a HUMAN being.

NOW comes the values part - Do we as a culture accept killing innocent human beings?

NJCardFan
01-16-2011, 01:05 AM
APACHE,

At least you had the intestinal fortitude to answer the question I put to. That being said I don't actually think you would deny her the RIGHT to abort fetal tissue that resulted from a gang rape. I dont even think you could be that callous.

Unfortunately for you, you didn't have the testicular fortitude to answer my question.



I disagree, but you'll note that your claim, "Human life is the value that matters", is not a scientific one, is it? That was my point. And that's why CS was mistaken.

You can't point to a science paper anywhere that can tell you what matters, or what should matter.
And, again, you liberals fall all over yourselves trying to save murderers from being executed. So, again I ask, what makes the life of a convicted murderer worth more than a child who isn't given the chance to have any kind of potential. This argument makes you people hypocrites.

PoliCon
01-16-2011, 01:13 AM
Why do Conservatives, the great defenders of freedom, refuse to accept that a woman should and does have the legal right to rid her body of unwanted fetal tissue?

Pray tell my children but why ?

p.s. If you really want to live in a theocracy you should move to Sauid Arabia, abortion is illegal, laws are based on the Holy Books, etc, etc - a real home for Conservatives.

And where is the fathers right of choice in a pregnancy? You wanna claim to defend choice - defend his.

And let me ask you this - if a 12 year old girl is mature enough to make the choice to terminate her pregnancy - why isn't she mature enough to have sex with anyone she wants?

arguing with someone who claims to be pro-choice about when life begins is fruitless. Hit them in their hypocrisy.

Zathras
01-16-2011, 03:21 AM
Unfortunately for you, you didn't have the testicular fortitude to answer my question.

Remember who you're dealing with. Pukeon is a liberal and therefore has no balls.

NJCardFan
01-16-2011, 03:24 AM
Remember who you're dealing with. Pukeon is a liberal and therefore has no balls.

Of course. There's no doubt. I'm beginning to think this person is Hazldick.

Adam Wood
01-16-2011, 08:53 AM
Apache,

Let me put forward a hypothetical situation to you which I would ask that you attempt to answer honestly:

Your 15 year old daughter is coming home from her friend's house one lovely summer evening. As she approaches the local park three men attack her, they beat her badly and gang rape her leaving her for dead. She is able to stagger to the raod and is helped to a hospital by a passer-by.

After a two week stay in hospital she is tested for pregnancy and it is determined she is pregnant as a result of the gang rape. She is but 15 and tells you she wants an abortion, she doent want her life ruined by thisw, she cant bear to carry this fetal tissue to term. Would you permit her to have an abortion?

YES or NOOK, dishonest Leftist, you won't have the balls to answer this, but here you go:

I'll gladly give you rape, incest, and as a necessary means to save the life of the mother as valid reasons for abortion at any time prior to 60 days prior to birth. I'll even throw in federal funding for all of these abortions.

Will you accept that, and that alone, to make abortion completely legal and free for the mothers involved?

fettpett
01-16-2011, 10:29 AM
OK, dishonest Leftist, you won't have the balls to answer this, but here you go:

I'll gladly give you rape, incest, and as a necessary means to save the life of the mother as valid reasons for abortion at any time prior to 60 days prior to birth. I'll even throw in federal funding for all of these abortions.

Will you accept that, and that alone, to make abortion completely legal and free for the mothers involved?

hey...isn't that what most reasonable people consider valid reason's for abortions?

wilbur
01-16-2011, 10:47 AM
Not my point. The values come later - AFTER the scientific determination of whether or not it is an independent human being.

The DNA says the "fetal tissue" is human. The Fetal tissue is by ALL definitions alive. So we know that it is a live human. But some claim that it is merely part of the mother's body. If that were true, it would have the same DNA as the mother - yet it does not.

It is alive, it is human, and it is not merely part of another human but a separate, living being. - a HUMAN being.


Right, science can tell us all the facts of the matter surrounding reproduction and development.



NOW comes the values part - Do we as a culture accept killing innocent human beings?

And yes, the values are a separate issue - but at least thanks for (sort of) acknowledging that your position is not based on science, like you originally claimed. Nobody really disagrees about the facts of the matter of the well understood portions of human development.


There's two categories of thing in the world, one category has moral significance, the other does not. Things with minds have it, things without minds don't. So according to my values (not science), there is no real problem with killing things that are mindless, even if they are human. If they have minds, then it becomes questionable. So yes, as a culture we should find it permissible to kill mindless things, even when they are human.


And c'mon.. "innocent"? You guys can't have it both ways here.. you want to complain about the opposition using terms like "fetal tissue" or "ball of cells", then turn around and pull every loaded term out of your own bag of tricks. A fetus isn't any more innocent than a rock or a bacteria or any other mindless thing is innocent. The term simply does not apply, at least not until a fetus has a mind.

Constitutionally Speaking
01-16-2011, 11:24 AM
Fetus is simply a euphemism to help you lefties deny that it is a live, individual human being.

Scientifically speaking it is a human being - there is no "values" or theology in that statement.

Yukon
01-16-2011, 11:25 AM
APACHE,

Pray tell my son but do you have children ?

Bailey
01-16-2011, 11:27 AM
APACHE,

Pray tell my son but do you have children ?

Do you have some crush on apache? you seem to be stalking him. :rolleyes:

BadCat
01-16-2011, 11:44 AM
Do you have some crush on apache? you seem to be stalking him. :rolleyes:

Yukkie has already proven that it cannot differentiate between a he or a she. But it's a liberal and probably doesn't care.

wilbur
01-16-2011, 11:46 AM
Fetus is simply a euphemism to help you lefties deny that it is a live, individual human being.

Scientifically speaking it is a human being - there is no "values" or theology in that statement.

Uh, no, fetus is the scientific term.. at the stage of prenatal development that starts at the beginning of the 11th week in gestational age.

AmPat
01-16-2011, 11:58 AM
Uh, no, fetus is the scientific term.. at the stage of prenatal development that starts at the beginning of the 11th week in gestational age.

Of what? :rolleyes:

Apache
01-16-2011, 11:59 AM
APACHE,

Pray tell my son but do you have children ?

nunyo

Yukon
01-16-2011, 12:00 PM
Do you have some crush on apache? you seem to be stalking him. :rolleyes:

Not at all Bailey. APACHE stated that "it" would not permit "its" child to have an abortion even if she were gang raped. I find it rather callous and heratless to make such a claim. To me, it would seem that such a heartless person probably has no female children.

BadCat
01-16-2011, 12:02 PM
Not at all Bailry. APACHE stated that "it" would not permit "its" child to have an abortion even if she were gang raped. I find it rather callous and heratless to make such a claim. To me, it would seem that such a heartless person probably has no female children.

Apache is a dude, YOU are an "it".

Yukon
01-16-2011, 12:04 PM
I have no idea what gender APACHE is. I dont want to insult him/her.

Apache
01-16-2011, 12:05 PM
Not at all Bailry. APACHE stated that "it" would not permit "its" child to have an abortion even if she were gang raped. I find it rather callous and heratless to make such a claim. To me, it would seem that such a heartless person probably has no female children.

Yawn! Still trying to get that abortion huh? Sorry to have punched a hole in that box you tried to put me in...

Adam Wood
01-16-2011, 12:08 PM
hey...isn't that what most reasonable people consider valid reason's for abortions?Sure, but I want the dishonest Leftist to respond. I have my reasons.

NJCardFan
01-16-2011, 12:12 PM
I have no idea what gender APACHE is. I dont want to insult him/her.

However you find it necessary to condescend by referring to Apache, and the rest of us as "my child". :rolleyes:

And answer my question you chicken shit.

Yukon
01-16-2011, 12:14 PM
Adam,

Just wanting an abortion is reason enough, its called free choice.

Zathras
01-16-2011, 12:16 PM
I am clueless about pretty much everything in the real world.

Fixed.

Adam Wood
01-16-2011, 12:17 PM
Adam,

Just wanting an abortion is reason enough, its called free choice.
So, if some woman is on the birthing table, and decides that she doesn't want to have a child as that child breaches the cervix, that's good enough for you? It's just her choice to terminate that life even if that baby is about to come out of the birth canal to embrace the new world?

BadCat
01-16-2011, 12:23 PM
Adam,

Just wanting an abortion is reason enough, its called free choice.

Glad you feel that way. I just want all liberals deported from North America. Glad that's OK with you.

NJCardFan
01-16-2011, 12:25 PM
Adam,

Just wanting an abortion is reason enough, its called free choice.

Answer the question, chickenshit. It's in the dome now.

Kay
01-16-2011, 02:12 PM
Adam,

Just wanting an abortion is reason enough, its called free choice.

Right up until it clashes with the free choice of another.
Then who's free choice takes precedence?

That little baby growing in the womb would like the choice to live.
Just because he can't speak up for himself yet, doesn't make his
right to live any less important than the woman's right to kill him.

m00
01-16-2011, 02:26 PM
Glad you feel that way. I just want all liberals deported from North America. Glad that's OK with you.

Why wouldn't he be? It's your free choice to deport all liberals from North America. Dead or Alive. Free choice.

Apache
01-16-2011, 02:27 PM
Right up until it clashes with the free choice of another.
Then who's free choice takes precedence?

That little baby growing in the womb would like the choice to live.
Just because he can't speak up for himself yet, doesn't make his
right to live any less important than the woman's right to kill him.

Kay! Kay kay kay. it's called fetal tissue, don't go around and humanize what a woman is carrying in her womb. Children are made in brick ovens every Wenesday and every other Friday except for holidays and floods...:rolleyes:

Kay
01-16-2011, 02:44 PM
Kay! Kay kay kay. it's called fetal tissue, don't go around and humanize what a woman is carrying in her womb. Children are made in brick ovens every Wenesday and every other Friday except for holidays and floods...:rolleyes:

Well I have living proof that what is in the womb is a living baby
long before it comes out. I was in my 7th month when they had
to take my son by an emergency C-section. He only weighed
3 lb 14 oz. The instant they cut open the womb, he was laying
there looking up smiling at the doctor.

So Yukon, you can't tell me that he was "fetal tissue" one instant
and miraculously became a live human baby in the next instant
just because the air hit him. Please explain to me at what point
you feel that transformation from tissue to baby occurs?

I also had a still born baby prior to this. She was full of life kicking
and moving around, and then in the 7th month she died and was
still born. This is one thing that really pisses me off whenever a man
especially throws up the "it's only tissue" argument. If you have never
felt a life growing and moving inside you, how can you be the judge
of whether its a life or not Yukon. Around 4 or 5 months when you
start to feel the baby moving inside you, you definitely know that it is
a separate being from you. A living separate being with a life of its own.

Apache
01-16-2011, 02:52 PM
Well I have living proof that what is in the womb is a living baby
long before it comes out. I was in my 7th month when they had
to take my son by an emergency C-section. He only weighed
3 lb 14 oz. The instant they cut open the womb, he was laying
there looking up smiling at the doctor.

So Yukon, you can't tell me that he was "fetal tissue" one instant
and miraculously became a live human baby in the next instant
just because the air hit him. Please explain to me at what point
you feel that transformation from tissue to baby occurs?

I also had a still born baby prior to this. She was full of life kicking
and moving around, and then in the 7th month she died and was
still born. This is one thing that really pisses me off whenever a man
especially throws up the "it's only tissue" argument. If you have never
felt a life growing and moving inside you, how can you be the judge
of whether its a life or not Yukon. Around 4 or 5 months when you
start to feel the baby moving inside you, you definitely know that it is
a separate being from you. A living separate being with a life of its own.


Whoa! Bad joke. I'm sorry Kay if I upset you... shoulda thought it out better :o

Kay
01-16-2011, 03:08 PM
Apache dear, that wasn't directed at you. I wasn't responding to your post, just to the topic in general.

It's been so many years ago, but there is still a very big hole in my heart just like it was yesterday. Losing a baby and having complicated pregnancies is hard. I know that we have at least three other posters here who experienced miscarriages or still births, two recently. So I just get riled sometimes at these abortion conversations with idiots like Yukon who so casually dismiss the life of a baby still in the womb like it was just tissue to be thrown out with the garbage. :mad:

fettpett
01-16-2011, 03:17 PM
Here is your "fetal tissue"

10 Weeks
http://www.sciencephoto.com/images/showEnlarged.html/C0011992-Foetus_at_10_weeks,_3D_ultrasound-SPL.jpg?id=670011992

20 Weeks
http://dadthing.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/3d_ultrasound2.jpg

30 Weeks

http://www.prenatalpeek.com/3dultrasoundphotosAZ/ababy3.jpg


so, when is it a baby, a human being again?

wilbur
01-16-2011, 06:21 PM
Of what? :rolleyes:

Of pregnancy..... derp

Yukon
01-16-2011, 06:25 PM
Answer the question, chickenshit. It's in the dome now.

I answed it. What is it that you don not understand? Removing parasitic fetal tisse from the body is the legal right of every woman. You have lost. Live with it.

Constitutionally Speaking
01-16-2011, 08:28 PM
Adam,

Just wanting an abortion is reason enough, its called free choice.


How does that differ from the choice of a person to murder kindergartners?

Yukon
01-16-2011, 08:32 PM
How does that differ from the choice of a person to murder kindergartners?

Your question is outrageous and I will not dignify it with an answer. It appears that you are equating an abortion to the killing of a child attending school. Im sure than you would call for the execution of the murderer of the school child and the Doctor who performed the abortion?

Rockntractor
01-16-2011, 08:36 PM
Are you equating an abortion to the killing of a child attending school ? If yes would you call for the execution of the murderer of the school child and the Doctor who performed the abortion?

Answer his question and perhaps he will answer yours, we do that a lot here.

Yukon
01-16-2011, 08:40 PM
How does that differ from the choice of a person to murder kindergartners?

The killing of a child in school can not be equarted with the removal of unwanted fetal tissue from the womb of a female human being. One is a living breathing thinking being and the lother is simply a mass of tissue incapable of living independent of the mothers body. Im stunned that you would pose such a question.

Madisonian
01-16-2011, 08:50 PM
The killing of a child in school can not be equarted with the removal of unwanted fetal tissue from the womb of a female human being. One is a living breathing thinking being and the lother is simply a mass of tissue incapable of living independent of the mothers body. Im stunned that you would pose such a question.
So once the "unwanted fetal tissue" can live independently outside the womb, you are against abortion, right?

fettpett
01-16-2011, 08:50 PM
The killing of a child in school can not be equarted with the removal of unwanted fetal tissue from the womb of a female human being. One is a living breathing thinking being and the lother is simply a mass of tissue incapable of living independent of the mothers body. Im stunned that you would pose such a question.

I'm stunned by your complete lack of humanity....


but then agian i'm not, you're a libtard

Yukon
01-16-2011, 08:55 PM
So once the "unwanted fetal tissue" can live independently outside the womb, you are against abortion, right?

Yes.

PoliCon
01-16-2011, 10:48 PM
hey...isn't that what most reasonable people consider valid reason's for abortions?

And sadly those reasons account for less than 10% of abortions conducted in America each year.

PoliCon
01-16-2011, 10:49 PM
Uh, no, fetus is the scientific term.. at the stage of prenatal development that starts at the beginning of the 11th week in gestational age. And in this debate it is a term used by the left to dehumanize.

PoliCon
01-16-2011, 10:50 PM
nunyo

QFT!

PoliCon
01-16-2011, 10:51 PM
Adam,

Just wanting an abortion is reason enough, its called free choice.

And what about the fathers rights? Where is his free choice?

PoliCon
01-16-2011, 10:58 PM
The killing of a child in school can not be equarted with the removal of unwanted fetal tissue from the womb of a female human being. One is a living breathing thinking being and the lother is simply a mass of tissue incapable of living independent of the mothers body. Im stunned that you would pose such a question.

So the conditions on which you value life are:

development:
mass of tissue

dependency:
incapable of living independent of the mothers body

location:
the womb

Cognitive
ability: thinking being

Would that be correct?

NJCardFan
01-17-2011, 03:03 AM
I answed it. What is it that you don not understand? Removing parasitic fetal tisse from the body is the legal right of every woman. You have lost. Live with it.

I lost huh. Let's see something here. In order for something to be parasitic, this means that something like, say, a cyst, that shows up through no fault of the person. However, a developing fetus, well, you should remember the old saying 'it takes 2 to tango', right? So, having a cyst removed is understandable because it wasn't her fault, however, she got pregnant due to her own irresponsibility. Not the child's fault. So you can take 'fetal tissue' and shove it up your ass you contemptible dick. Leave it to liberals to always be on the wrong side of the issues. Love a criminal, hate a baby.

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 10:17 AM
So, if some woman is on the birthing table, and decides that she doesn't want to have a child as that child breaches the cervix, that's good enough for you? It's just her choice to terminate that life even if that baby is about to come out of the birth canal to embrace the new world?Earth to the Lying Leftist! Helllloooooooo!!!!

wilbur
01-17-2011, 10:28 AM
And in this debate it is a term used by the left to dehumanize.

Sometimes... but most of the time it is more accurate. I generally use the terms zygote, embryo, blastocyst, fetus, or child depending on the stage of development. And to me, it doesn't become a child - that is a fully human, conscious baby, till - at earliest - the 20th-22nd week.

How bout we all just start using the proper terms here, instead of calling single cell organisms and blastocysts and the like with rhetorically loaded and misleading terms like "innocent children"?

fettpett
01-17-2011, 10:34 AM
Sometimes... but most of the time it is more accurate. I generally use the terms zygote, embryo, blastocyst, fetus, or child depending on the stage of development. And to me, it doesn't become a child - that is a fully human, conscious baby, till - at earliest - the 20th-22nd week.

How bout we all just start using the proper terms here, instead of calling single cell organisms and blastocysts and the like with rhetorically loaded and misleading terms like "innocent children"?

so you don't see this

http://www.sciencephoto.com/images/showEnlarged.html/C0011992-Foetus_at_10_weeks,_3D_ultrasound-SPL.jpg?id=670011992
with all the defined body parts there as a human being as a child? because it's not able to live outside the womb?

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 10:42 AM
Why do Conservatives, the great defenders of freedom, refuse to accept that a woman should and does have the legal right to rid her body of unwanted fetal tissue?

Pray tell my children but why ?

p.s. If you really want to live in a theocracy you should move to Sauid Arabia, abortion is illegal, laws are based on the Holy Books, etc, etc - a real home for Conservatives.

Why does the woman choose to have the fetal material implanted in her in the first place?

Yukon
01-17-2011, 10:44 AM
"...however, she got pregnant due to her own irresponsibility..."



The above quote says an awful lot about you. Ladies of the Message Board pray tell but this is the comment of your atypical conservative zealot. These guys would fit right in with the Taliban - control women for they need to be controlled.

Her fault is it? Typical stoneage, caveman mentaility. I thought dinosaurs were extinct but alas they live on. Thank God people with your narrow-minded, sexist and chauvanistic beliefs are no longer taken seriously.

Yukon
01-17-2011, 10:46 AM
So, if some woman is on the birthing table, and decides that she doesn't want to have a child as that child breaches the cervix, that's good enough for you? It's just her choice to terminate that life even if that baby is about to come out of the birth canal to embrace the new world?

At the point you describe, outrageous as it is, Iit is too late at that stage for abortion to be permitted.

Apache
01-17-2011, 10:48 AM
The above quote says an awful lot about you. Ladies of the Message Board pray tell but this is the comment of your atypical conservative zealot. These guys would fit right in with the Taliban - control women for they need to be controlled.

Her fault is it? Typical stoneage, caveman mentaility. I thought dinosaurs were extinct but alas they live on. Thank God people with your narrow-minded, sexist and chauvanistic beliefs are no longer taken seriously.

http://i384.photobucket.com/albums/oo290/mindyobeeznis/retarded.jpg

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 10:49 AM
The above quote says an awful lot about you. Ladies of the Message Board pray tell but this is the comment of your atypical conservative zealot. These guys would fit right in with the Taliban - control women for they need to be controlled.

Her fault is it? Typical stoneage, caveman mentaility. I thought dinosaurs were extinct but alas they live on. Thank God people with your narrow-minded, sexist and chauvanistic beliefs are no longer taken seriously.Ah. So she bears no responsibility whatsoever for getting pregnant? The woman had no part in it? She didn't ... I dunno ... engage in some sort of activity that led to her getting pregnant?

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 10:50 AM
At the point you describe, outrageous as it is, Iit is too late at that stage for abortion to be permitted.And how about one week before that moment?

Yukon
01-17-2011, 10:57 AM
This is your best example of right-wing hypocricy yet. BRAVO !




I'll gladly give you rape, incest, and as a necessary means to save the life of the mother as valid reasons for abortion at any time prior to 60 days prior to birth. I'll even throw in federal funding for all of these abortions.
HYPOCRIT ! You SUPPORT abortion on YOUR TERMS.


Will you accept that, and that alone, to make abortion completely legal and free for the mothers involved?
NO

wilbur
01-17-2011, 11:05 AM
so you don't see this with all the defined body parts there as a human being as a child? because it's not able to live outside the womb?

I see something that is a rough analog to a human shape - but mere shape, in this case, actually tells us very little about the nature of the thing. Of course, its got some rough outlines of human parts, so it naturally leads many to feel that it shares our most morally significant human qualities, such as the ability to think, feel, desire, suffer, etc. But it can't. That's why pictures like this deceive you. And they are meant to deceive.

Until it has a cerebral cortex, it is an empty vessel, not unlike so many of those unfortunate people who ended up in vegetative states. I has no capacity to think, feel, desire, or suffer. But the women who must carry one to term certainly have all those qualities - as such, I care more for them.

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 11:06 AM
This is your best example of right-wing hypocricy yet. BRAVO !That's not hypocrisy. You don't even know what my stance is on abortion; as such, it is not possible for you to accurately accuse me of hypocrisy. I offered a compromise for you to see if it would be acceptable. You say it is not. You want to use abortion as a form of birth control. You are willing to murder babies for the convenience of the mother.

That is all I needed to know. Thank you.

Yukon
01-17-2011, 11:06 AM
I see something that is a rough analog to a human shape - but mere shape, in this case, actually tells us very little about the nature of the thing. Of course, its got some rough outlines of human parts, so it naturally leads many to feel that it shares our most morally significant human qualities, such as the ability to think, feel, desire, suffer, etc. But it can't. That's why pictures like this deceive you. They are meant to deceive.

Until it has a cerebral cortex, it is an empty vessel, not unlike so many of those in vegetative states. I has no capacity to think, feel, desire, or suffer. But the women who must carry one to term certainly have all those qualities - as such, I care more for them.

Thank you Wilbur.

fettpett
01-17-2011, 11:09 AM
The above quote says an awful lot about you. Ladies of the Message Board pray tell but this is the comment of your atypical conservative zealot. These guys would fit right in with the Taliban - control women for they need to be controlled.

Her fault is it? Typical stoneage, caveman mentaility. I thought dinosaurs were extinct but alas they live on. Thank God people with your narrow-minded, sexist and chauvanistic beliefs are no longer taken seriously.

whats stoneage, caveman thinking for being responsible and using contraceptive (condom, the pill, iud, etc) to prevent pregnancy?

responsibility falls on both the man and woman, but since you're all about the freedom of choice for women, and it's the "womans body', the onus is on her to prevent said pregnancy.

I as a conservative, have no problem giving women all the information they need to make a wise choice with her body and any child that she may decide to have. Also believe that the best way not to deal with this is not having sex to begin with.

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 11:16 AM
Why does the woman choose to have the fetal material implanted in her in the first place?

I'm still waiting for Yukon to answer this.

fettpett
01-17-2011, 11:21 AM
I see something that is a rough analog to a human shape - but mere shape, in this case, actually tells us very little about the nature of the thing. Of course, its got some rough outlines of human parts, so it naturally leads many to feel that it shares our most morally significant human qualities, such as the ability to think, feel, desire, suffer, etc. But it can't. That's why pictures like this deceive you. And they are meant to deceive.

Until it has a cerebral cortex, it is an empty vessel, not unlike so many of those unfortunate people who ended up in vegetative states. I has no capacity to think, feel, desire, or suffer. But the women who must carry one to term certainly have all those qualities - as such, I care more for them.

what are you talking about? by week ten the brain has developed, it's moving, the neural tube has closed and it is moving around and can be felt moving around. it closes it's eyes at this point too to protect is eyes.

Apache
01-17-2011, 11:23 AM
I'm still waiting for Yukon to answer this.

Hope you brought something to drink :p

wilbur
01-17-2011, 11:29 AM
what are you talking about? by week ten the brain has developed, it's moving, the neural tube has closed and it is moving around and can be felt moving around. it closes it's eyes at this point too to protect is eyes.

Any movements at week 10 are simply involuntary, mechanical spasms.

The brain has not developed by week 10, not even close. It's beginning to develop... but in any case, I specifically mentioned the cerebral cortex, which is the essential element for consciousness.

Yukon
01-17-2011, 11:32 AM
I'm still waiting for Yukon to answer this.

Your question is not worthy of a response.

wilbur
01-17-2011, 11:34 AM
I'm still waiting for Yukon to answer this.

Why, why does it matter?

Sometimes it seems as if pro-lifers are more concerned about socially engineering people away from sexual behaviors that they find sinful, rather than saving (what they consider to be) human lives.

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 11:36 AM
Your question is not worthy of a response.What happened to "I try to answer all questions?" Why is his question (and mine) not worthy of a response? Is that just a tad uncomfortable for you to deal with?

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 11:37 AM
Why, why does it matter?

Sometimes it seems as if pro-lifers are more concerned about socially engineering people away from sexual behaviors that they find sinful, rather than saving (what they consider to be) human lives.It matters because that's how babies are made!

Yukon
01-17-2011, 11:38 AM
It matters because that's how babies are made!

Okay Adam. Let's discontinue this debate. it is going in curcles. We will never agree so at best we can agree to disagree and close the topic. Okay ?

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 11:47 AM
Your question is not worthy of a response.

So you have no response. I thought so. At least you admit it.

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 11:50 AM
Okay Adam. Let's discontinue this debate. it is going in curcles. We will never agree so at best we can agree to disagree and close the topic. Okay ?No, not OK. You started the thread, and you need to have the balls to actually answer the questions asked you.

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 11:55 AM
Why, why does it matter?

Sometimes it seems as if pro-lifers are more concerned about socially engineering people away from sexual behaviors that they find sinful, rather than saving (what they consider to be) human lives.

If any one is doing any social engineering it is the abortion crowd. An why bring religion in to this? Still obsessed I see.

She made hear choice. She chose to have the fetal material inserted in to her person with two possible outcomes, one being nothing happens and the other being the process of human creation starts. She has already made her choice and now wants a do over instead of accepting the consequences that she knew could result from her actions.

This isn't that hard to understand. Actions have consequences and living with the result of bad choices shows one to be of higher character that one who wants deny the choice they already accepted.

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 11:56 AM
No, not OK. You started the thread, and you need to have the balls to actually answer the questions asked you.

I don't think he has the ability to answer those questions.

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 11:57 AM
I don't think he has the ability to answer those questions.And if he can't, that's fine. He just needs to have the balls to say "well, I can't answer that." Then he and everyone else would know that their argument holds no water.

wilbur
01-17-2011, 11:58 AM
It matters because that's how babies are made!

If the nature of the being in the womb is such that to kill it, is to murder, then it doesn't matter what choices, either moral or immoral, caused it to be created - to kill it is murder, and that cannot be permitted.

But conversely, what if the nature of the being is such that it can be permissibly killed? Well, then it can be killed regardless who bears personal responsibility for its creation.

Personal responsibility should be irrelevant to the debate.

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 12:03 PM
Personal responsibility should be irrelevant to the debate.Holy shit. I can't believe you actually typed that out loud.

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 12:05 PM
Holy shit. I can't believe you actually typed that out loud.

You and me both!:eek::eek::eek:

wilbur
01-17-2011, 12:12 PM
Holy shit. I can't believe you actually typed that out loud.

Believe it. Personal responsibility is only relevant to the abortion debate if it isnt really the being inside the womb that you actually care about. If your main concern punishing people based on the manners and ways in which they choose to have sex, then maybe its relevant.

The nature of the being inside the womb is the same, no matter how responsible or irresponsible the parties involved in its creation are.

Yukon
01-17-2011, 12:16 PM
It never fails to amaze me how holier than thou some people can be. If some of those so-called holy Joes were tempted by one of those evil women down the street and got her pregnant would he do the Christian thing and support the child, have his wife find out, destroy his marriage? Or would he opt for her to have an abortion?

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 12:21 PM
It never fails to amaze me how holier than thou some people can be. If some of those so-called holy Joes were tempted by one of those evil women down the street and got her pregnant would he do the Christian thing and support the child, have his wife find out, destroy his marriage? Or would he opt for her to have an abortion?

Some would accept the consequences of their actions and some wouldn't. Christians are no different than anyone else in that they have the same shortcomings and failures that all people do.

How about you. Which would you choose?

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 12:23 PM
Believe it. Personal responsibility is only relevant to the abortion debate if it isnt really the being inside the womb that you actually care about. If your main concern punishing people based on the manners and ways in which they choose to have sex, then maybe its relevant.

The nature of the being inside the womb is the same, no matter how responsible or irresponsible the parties involved in its creation are.

That is just about the biggest cop out I've seen from you in a while. Personal responsibility is relevant to all topics where a decision has to be made that may affect the life of others.

It goes back to just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should do something.

Yukon
01-17-2011, 12:29 PM
Some would accept the consequences of their actions and some wouldn't. Christians are no different than anyone else in that they have the same shortcomings and failures that all people do.

How about you. Which would you choose?


Gator,
Using the scenario I posted I would be a coward and chose abortion. That being said at least Im honest.

wilbur
01-17-2011, 12:29 PM
That is just about the biggest cop out I've seen from you in a while. Personal responsibility is relevant to all topics where a decision has to be made that may affect the life of others.

It goes back to just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should do something.

If we determine that it is permissible to kill the being inside the womb, then where exactly does your interest lie in restricting a woman's choice to do that?

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 12:32 PM
Believe it. Personal responsibility is only relevant to the abortion debate if it isnt really the being inside the womb that you actually care about. If your main concern punishing people based on the manners and ways in which they choose to have sex, then maybe its relevant.

The nature of the being inside the womb is the same, no matter how responsible or irresponsible the parties involved in its creation are.
That has to be the most ridiculous pretzel-twisting I've ever seen.

First of all, this "nature of the being" business is just bullshit deflection.

Secondly, go ahead and drop the ludicrous "punishment" argument. Only in the very sick and twisted world of the Left is a baby "punishment." This has nothing to do with punishing anyone. It has to do with actions having consequences. If a man and a woman have sex, there is the possibility that a baby will be conceived. It's that simple.

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 12:32 PM
Gator,
Using the scenario I posted I would be a coward and chose abortion. That being said at least Im honest.

All I can say is that I would hope I would do the right thing. However, being a Christian doesn't not exempt me from the failings that we humans are subject to. That is the whole point of being a Christian. Christianity doesn't make us perfect, it gives us someone to turn to for comfort when we aren't perfect.

Wei Wu Wei
01-17-2011, 12:33 PM
This entire debate rests on the definition of a Person, in the full moral sense of the word. The distinction of this term is crucial./

Not a human being in the sense that it has human DNA, but a Person in the sense that it is a member of the moral community, with rights and responsibilities.

What is the definition of a Person? Does a fetus at whatever period of gestation apply?

NJCardFan
01-17-2011, 12:34 PM
The above quote says an awful lot about you. Ladies of the Message Board pray tell but this is the comment of your atypical conservative zealot. These guys would fit right in with the Taliban - control women for they need to be controlled.

Her fault is it? Typical stoneage, caveman mentaility. I thought dinosaurs were extinct but alas they live on. Thank God people with your narrow-minded, sexist and chauvanistic beliefs are no longer taken seriously.
Yeah. I want people to be responsible for their actions and choices. That sure makes me a Neanderthal doesn't it. :rolleyes:And really makes you a moron. Sooo, per your logic, the woman bears no responsibility at all? Are you Kathy Ireland of NOW who believes that all sex is rape? That says a lot about you...but it's something we already know and that is you are a contemptible prick.

And I need to ask another question of Wilbur. You seem to be stuck on this 'live outside the womb' meme. So, what you're saying is that something that cannot sustain itself outside the womb is not a viable human being and can be terminated? Please say yes. Please tell me this is your position. I'll gladly wait.

Yukon
01-17-2011, 12:34 PM
Adam,

Neither Wilbur or myself uses foul and profane language when addressing your threads. Why do you chose the opposite method? I think you would be taken a lot more seriously if you toned down the language and I suspect young people may be reading the Messages and as adults we should set an example.

Thanks,
Yukon

Molon Labe
01-17-2011, 12:35 PM
This entire debate rests on the definition of a Person, in the full moral sense of the word. The distinction of this term is crucial./

Not a human being in the sense that it has human DNA, but a Person in the sense that it is a member of the moral community, with rights and responsibilities.

What is the definition of a Person? Does a fetus at whatever period of gestation apply?

I see you all are over complicating things again.

Yukon
01-17-2011, 12:37 PM
I see you all are over complicating things again.

MOLON,
It isnt at all complicated. Its rather simple. fetal tissue in the womb of a female person is not a human being. If that were the case would miscarried fetal tissue require the dignity of a formal funeral ? I think not.

NJCardFan
01-17-2011, 12:39 PM
MOLON,
It isnt at all complicated. Its rather simple. fetal tissue in the womb of a female person is not a human being. If that were the case would miscarried fetal tissue require the dignity of a formal funeral ? I think not.

Tell that to any mother who's miscarried a child fuckdick. As a matter of fact. I dare you to, on tape, say that to a mother who has miscarried a child. Do it to one who has recently. C'mon, have some guts.

nightflight
01-17-2011, 12:39 PM
MOLON,
It isnt at all complicated. Its rather simple. fetal tissue in the womb of a female person is not a human being. If that were the case would miscarried fetal tissue require the dignity of a formal funeral ? I think not.

We call you a human being, so there is some latitude.

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 12:41 PM
If we determine that it is permissible to kill the being inside the womb, then where exactly does your interest lie in restricting a woman's choice to do that?

I haven't personally determined if it is ever ok to kill in the womb. I know that it happens and I would like to think that there is justification to abort the product of a forced impregnation but I don't know if it is morally sound to do so. I do know in my heart of hearts that the willful killing of an unborn child who was conceived through consensual sex where the woman knew full well that the act she was engaging in had as a result of that act the possibility of life being created is murder. Anything outside of this is a moral decision that should be made by the potential parents who are willing to accept any social or spiritual judgment that may fall upon them.

NJCardFan
01-17-2011, 12:42 PM
I haven't personally determined if it is ever ok to kill in the womb. I know that it happens and I would like to think that there is justification to abort the product of a forced impregnation but I don't know if it is morally sound to do so. I do know in my heart of hearts that the willful killing of an unborn child who was conceived through consensual sex where the woman knew full well that the act she was engaging in had as a result of that act the possibility of life being created is murder. Anything outside of this is a moral decision that should be made by the potential parents who are willing to accept any social or spiritual judgment that may fall upon them.

I guess you're a Neanderthal too.

The Night Owl
01-17-2011, 12:45 PM
All I can say is that I would hope I would do the right thing. However, I am human and being a Christian doesn't not exempt me from the failings that we humans are subject to. That is the whole point of being a Christian. Christianity doesn't make us perfect, it gives us someone to turn to for comfort when we aren't perfect.

Hey, I guess we finally have something (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301216,00.html) we can agree Ann Coulter is wrong about.

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 12:47 PM
I guess you're a Neanderthal too.

If Neanderthals had the capacity to exercise personal responsibility when it came to moral matters then I guess I am of the Neanderthal persuasion.

Since personal responsibility is a sign of a higher evolutionary status what does that make those who see no need accept personal responsibility... piltdown men?

NJCardFan
01-17-2011, 12:48 PM
Hey, I guess we finally have something (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301216,00.html) we can agree Ann Coulter is wrong about.

That's because atheists don't get it. If you understood Christianity even a single iota you'd know that we all know that we are imperfect human beings. All. There has only been one who was perfect. Just one. The rest of us are all fallible beings.

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 12:48 PM
Adam,

Neither Wilbur or myself uses foul and profane language when addressing your threads. Why do you chose the opposite method? I think you would be taken a lot more seriously if you toned down the language and I suspect young people may be reading the Messages and as adults we should set an example.

Thanks,
YukonI see.


Rush Limpdick has a habit of mocking people. He likes to mock people who suffer from incuarable disease - Michael J. Fox. Limpdick aka Limbaugh is a disgusting man with no manners. He appeals only to "mud-people". Was he raised in a Nazi family?


I deal with facts not Conservative lies, check out your god Limpdick, read what he did, search it on YouTube to witness it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102400691.html


There are NO lies, I watched Limpdick mock a sick man. Limbaugh is the sicko. Dont believe me? Watch for yourself:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mock+michael+j+fox+youtube+&docid=419375349870&mid=91319B6E2539804352B091319B6E2539804352B0&FORM=VIRE2


So the CONSERVATIVE god of greed, lust, and hatred, Rush Limpdick (Limbaugh) did not mock a sick man...is that what you are trying to say but do not have the intestinal fortitude to say....is truth like another "N" word to you people ?


I stand corrected. Rush Limpdick is a kind and generous man, he would never lust after women for he is a relgious man, he is also a man consumed with love for his fellow man. The video link I provided must have been doctored for a kind, loving, religious man would never mock a man suffering from a horribly dibilitating disease like Parkinsons. I aplogize for I am a mere liberal who has erred.


Me thinks ole Limpdick has a drug problem, and needs Viagra. Poor Rush:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2006/06/27/m1a_limbaugh_0627.html


Yes Im sure ole Rush Limpdick carriues a bottle of Viagra around with him for the fun of it. He doesnt need them does he? I wonder if that's why he has been married four times? the other three were per-Viagra and found out after that he needed it.


You were saying, fuckface?

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 12:49 PM
Hey, I guess we finally have something (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301216,00.html) we can agree Ann Coulter is wrong about.

I personally think that Ann Coulter has less understanding of Christianity than either you or wilbur ;)

NJCardFan
01-17-2011, 12:49 PM
If Neanderthals had the capacity to exercise personal responsibility when it came to moral matters then I guess I am of the Neanderthal persuasion.

Since personal responsibility is a sign of a higher evolutionary status what does that make those who see no need accept personal responsibility... piltdown men?

Well, according the resident knucklehead, expecting women to accept personal responsibility likens us to the Taliban or "stoneage caveman" thinking.

Molon Labe
01-17-2011, 12:50 PM
MOLON,
It isnt at all complicated. Its rather simple. fetal tissue in the womb of a female person is not a human being. If that were the case would miscarried fetal tissue require the dignity of a formal funeral ? I think not.

That's even more complicated than I was insinuating. It's others that have complicated into "personhood" or "potential life", or fetal tissue..etc. You can keep all that Orwellian bull.

My High school biology book says on the first page of page 1 explains exactly when life begins. That's a scientific fact. From there is where the argument must be twisted to fit into others false mindset.

NJCardFan
01-17-2011, 12:50 PM
I see.
















You were saying, fuckface?
Don't you know that hypocrisy is the favorite dish of liberals.

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 12:50 PM
I personally think that Ann Coulter has less understanding of Christianity than either you or wilbur ;)Heh!

Yukon
01-17-2011, 12:51 PM
Tell that to any mother who's miscarried a child fuckdick. As a matter of fact. I dare you to, on tape, say that to a mother who has miscarried a child. Do it to one who has recently. C'mon, have some guts.

NJ,
Miscarried fetal tissue is not legally required to be treated the same as a human being who dies. You know it. Why are you so angry all of the time?

Molon Labe
01-17-2011, 12:52 PM
NJ,
Miscarried fetal tissue is not legally required to be treated the same as a human being who dies. You know it. Why are you so angry all of the time?

So you are arguing the "legal" aspects of this?

NJCardFan
01-17-2011, 12:53 PM
NJ,
Miscarried fetal tissue is not legally required to be treated the same as a human being who dies. You know it. Why do you turn every comment into an arguement?
Once again, have some guts, find a woman who has recently had a miscarriage, and tell that woman that all it was was a lump of insignificant tissue. Go on. Do it. And record it in it's entirely. Gutless.

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 12:53 PM
Heh!

Sorry, not a big fan of Ann's when she talks about Christianity.

Yukon
01-17-2011, 12:54 PM
So you are arguing the "legal" aspects of this?

Im not arguing anything, I simply made a statement.

wilbur
01-17-2011, 12:54 PM
That has to be the most ridiculous pretzel-twisting I've ever seen.

First of all, this "nature of the being" business is just bullshit deflection.

Secondly, go ahead and drop the ludicrous "punishment" argument. Only in the very sick and twisted world of the Left is a baby "punishment." This has nothing to do with punishing anyone. It has to do with actions having consequences. If a man and a woman have sex, there is the possibility that a baby will be conceived. It's that simple.

The being inside a woman who was raped, is exactly the same as the being inside a woman who had consensual sex.

Personal responsibility arguments are meant to hide this fact, and just lessen the sympathy one might have for the women in the latter situation. But they don't actually change the nature of the being in the womb. And its the nature of that being which is the determining factor in whether it can be murdered or permissibly killed.

So sorry, "personal responsibility" is the bullshit deflection here. The nature of the being is the essential element in the debate.... that is, unless its just preservation of the consequences of sex that your concerned about.

wilbur
01-17-2011, 12:55 PM
That's because atheists don't get it. If you understood Christianity even a single iota you'd know that we all know that we are imperfect human beings. All. There has only been one who was perfect. Just one. The rest of us are all fallible beings.

So then even a fetus cannot be called "innocent", correct?

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 12:56 PM
Sorry, not a big fan of Ann's when she talks about Christianity.Nor I. I don't think that she "gets it" at all when it comes to Christianity. She goes through the motions but she doesn't seem to have her heart into it.

The Night Owl
01-17-2011, 12:57 PM
That's because atheists don't get it. If you understood Christianity even a single iota you'd know that we all know that we are imperfect human beings. All. There has only been one who was perfect. Just one. The rest of us are all fallible beings.

Ann Coulter is a Christian, not an atheist.

Yukon
01-17-2011, 12:57 PM
Wilbur,
Dont ask difficult questions - their heads will explode.

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 12:59 PM
So then even a fetus cannot be called "innocent", correct?

Innocent... no, without sin yes.

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 01:01 PM
Ann Coulter is a Christian, not an atheist.

She professes to be Christian, that doesn't mean she is a Christian... there is a difference.

The Night Owl
01-17-2011, 01:01 PM
Wilbur,
Dont ask difficult questions - their heads will explode.

You're a Christian, aren't you? Perhaps you could take some time out of being rude to our conservative hosts and answer Wilbur's question. :p

NJCardFan
01-17-2011, 01:02 PM
MOLON,
It isnt at all complicated. Its rather simple. fetal tissue in the womb of a female person is not a human being. If that were the case would miscarried fetal tissue require the dignity of a formal funeral ? I think not.

May not require it but some parents do request funerals: http://www.americancatholic.org/messenger/Jan2005/feature3.asp
http://forum.baby-gaga.com/about140682.html
http://indianapolis.momslikeme.com/members/JournalActions.aspx?g=246860&m=4992479

But I guess these people are idiots, right? :rolleyes:

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 01:02 PM
The being inside a woman who was raped, is exactly the same as the being inside a woman who had consensual sex.

Personal responsibility arguments are meant to hide this fact, and just lessen the sympathy one might have for the women in the latter situation. But they don't actually change the nature of the being in the womb. And its the nature of that being which is the determining factor in whether it can be murdered or permissibly killed.

So sorry, "personal responsibility" is the bullshit deflection here. The nature of the being is the essential element in the debate.... that is, unless its just preservation of the consequences of sex that your concerned about.Absolute rubbish. I'll point you right back here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=360729#post360729). What's your answer? I'll give you federally-funded abortions for every woman who wants one in any case of rape, incest, or in a medically-necessary case to save the life of the mother, and in return you'll give up all other abortions of convenience.

Will you take it? Is that a compromise that you would accept?

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 01:03 PM
You're a Christian, aren't you? Perhaps you could take some time out of being rude to our conservative hosts and answer Wilbur's question. :p

I already did.

NJCardFan
01-17-2011, 01:03 PM
Ann Coulter is a Christian, not an atheist.

I'm just sayin', genius.

Yukon
01-17-2011, 01:04 PM
Innocent... no, without sin yes.

What about 'original sin' that the Roman Catholics believe we are all born with ?
If the fetus isnt Baptized it will not enter Heaven according to 'original sin' theory.

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 01:05 PM
Wilbur,
Dont ask difficult questions - their heads will explode.How about you answer some questions? I suspect that you're having a case of the 'splody head right now, given how many questions you keep avoiding.

The Night Owl
01-17-2011, 01:05 PM
I already did.

Yes, I read your un-Biblical answer. :D

NJCardFan
01-17-2011, 01:05 PM
What about 'original sin' that the Roman Catholics believe we are all born with ?
If the fetus isnt Baptized it will not enter Heaven according to 'original sin' theory.

It's a baby, not a fetus. I never heard anyone say, "hey, let's go see the new fetus". Moron.

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 01:06 PM
The being inside a woman who was raped, is exactly the same as the being inside a woman who had consensual sex.

Personal responsibility arguments are meant to hide this fact, and just lessen the sympathy one might have for the women in the latter situation. But they don't actually change the nature of the being in the womb. And its the nature of that being which is the determining factor in whether it can be murdered or permissibly killed.

So sorry, "personal responsibility" is the bullshit deflection here. The nature of the being is the essential element in the debate.... that is, unless its just preservation of the consequences of sex that your concerned about.


OK, lets say your right. We now take rape of the list of valid reasons for an abortion. Happy now?

NJCardFan
01-17-2011, 01:06 PM
How about you answer some questions? I suspect that you're having a case of the 'splody head right now, given how many questions you keep avoiding.
No. It's called being testicularly challenged.

Yukon
01-17-2011, 01:08 PM
"It's a baby, not a fetus..."



Who told you that spontaneously aborted (miscarried) fetal tissue is a baby NJ...where the heck did you get that from ?

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 01:08 PM
Yes, I read your un-Biblical answer. :D

Actually it is very biblical. The fetus is a sinner, it just hasn't sinned yet. Since it is a sinner then it is not innocent.

Are you a sinner because you sin or are do you sin because you're a sinner?

NJCardFan
01-17-2011, 01:09 PM
The being inside a woman who was raped, is exactly the same as the being inside a woman who had consensual sex.

Personal responsibility arguments are meant to hide this fact, and just lessen the sympathy one might have for the women in the latter situation. But they don't actually change the nature of the being in the womb. And its the nature of that being which is the determining factor in whether it can be murdered or permissibly killed.

So sorry, "personal responsibility" is the bullshit deflection here. The nature of the being is the essential element in the debate.... that is, unless its just preservation of the consequences of sex that your concerned about.
Wait, what? Did I hear you right? Being raped is the same as consensual sex? Tell you what, you go forcibly have sex with a woman, then tell the judge that there is no difference between rape and consensual sex and let me know what happens. You can wait until after you get out of prison to let us know, BTW.

Yukon
01-17-2011, 01:10 PM
Actually it is very biblical. The fetus is a sinner, it just hasn't sinned yet. Since it is a sinner then it is not innocent.

Are you a sinner because you sin or are do you sin because you're a sinner?

Maybe you would be so kind, oh wise, and wonderful high Priest, to specify the Biblical passage(s) you are refering to?

NJCardFan
01-17-2011, 01:10 PM
Who told you that spontaneously aborted (miscarried) fetal tissue is a baby NJ...where the heck did you get that from ?
From my sister-in-law who had a miscarriage. Care to tell her that it was nothing but fetal tissue?

NJCardFan
01-17-2011, 01:12 PM
Maybe you would be so kind, oh wise, and wonderful high Priest, to specify the Biblical passage(s) you are refering to?

Oh, this is an issue you are so going to lose.

Yukon
01-17-2011, 01:13 PM
From my sister-in-law who had a miscarriage. Care to tell her that it was nothing but fetal tissue?

I am saddend to hear of your sister-in-law's misfortune. I am a gentleman therefore would do or say nothing to hurt her feelings.

The Night Owl
01-17-2011, 01:17 PM
Actually it is very biblical.Are you a sinner because you sin or are do you sin because you're a sinner?

Romans 3:23 (King James Version)

23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

All includes babies, does it not?


The fetus is a sinner, it just hasn't sinned yet.

The statement makes zero sense. I think you're trying to have it both ways.

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 01:18 PM
Romans 3:23 (King James Version)

23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

All includes babies, does it not?
Yes, but not fetuses

Yukon
01-17-2011, 01:19 PM
Yes, but not fetuses

Dont you and your anti-abortion bretheren claim that a fetus is a baby ? If it's NOT a baby than it must be okay to abort it. Thanks for clarifying your stance on this matter.

The Night Owl
01-17-2011, 01:20 PM
Yes, but not fetuses

I thought the Christian position is that personhood begins at conception.

wilbur
01-17-2011, 01:23 PM
Wait, what? Did I hear you right?

No, you didnt. Try again.

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 01:24 PM
Maybe you would be so kind, oh wise, and wonderful high Priest, to specify the Biblical passage(s) you are refering to?

First of all, NightOwl provided the passage. All have sinned


Romans 3:23 (King James Version)

23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;


Fetuses have original sin (look in to the writings of Augustine for biblical explaination) but have not sinned.

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 01:25 PM
I thought the Christian position is that personhood begins at conception.

Fetuses can be persons, so can babies, so can adults, so can you.

wilbur
01-17-2011, 01:25 PM
OK, lets say your right. We now take rape of the list of valid reasons for an abortion. Happy now?

Nope, I'll be happy when a woman can self-determine for herself what an appropriate reason for an abortion is - oh wait, we're already there. Great!

Odysseus
01-17-2011, 01:26 PM
Why do Conservatives, the great defenders of freedom, refuse to accept that a woman should and does have the legal right to rid her body of unwanted fetal tissue?

Pray tell my children but why ?

p.s. If you really want to live in a theocracy you should move to Sauid Arabia, abortion is illegal, laws are based on the Holy Books, etc, etc - a real home for Conservatives.

We believe that the fundamental right is to life. The pursuit of happiness comes after that and liberty. If you believe that a fetus is a living being, which will become a human being, then its right to live trumps a woman's right to kill it for her own convenience.

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 01:26 PM
Dont you and your anti-abortion bretheren claim that a fetus is a baby ? If it's NOT a baby than it must be okay to abort it. Thanks for clarifying your stance on this matter.

A fetus is a person, a baby is a person, an adult is a person... the jury is still out on you.

I have a meeting to attend. I'll be back on in a bit.

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 01:27 PM
Absolute rubbish. I'll point you right back here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=360729#post360729). What's your answer? I'll give you federally-funded abortions for every woman who wants one in any case of rape, incest, or in a medically-necessary case to save the life of the mother, and in return you'll give up all other abortions of convenience.

Will you take it? Is that a compromise that you would accept?Hello, wilbur.

[/Mr. Ed]

Yukon
01-17-2011, 01:28 PM
A fetus is a person, a baby is a person, an adult is a person... the jury is still out on you.

I have a meeting to attend. I'll be back on in a bit.

( head exploded )

wilbur
01-17-2011, 01:31 PM
Absolute rubbish. I'll point you right back here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=360729#post360729). What's your answer? I'll give you federally-funded abortions for every woman who wants one in any case of rape, incest, or in a medically-necessary case to save the life of the mother, and in return you'll give up all other abortions of convenience.

Will you take it? Is that a compromise that you would accept?

Of course not, that would be ridiculous. I believe a woman has the right to determine for herself for what reasons she may have an abortion.

I'll grant you that many pro-life people are willing to soften their hard-line stance in cases of rape, because they see it as the only feasible way to get enough support to outlaw the vast majority of abortions, not because they think its magically OK to abort a pregnancy in those circumstances.

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 01:34 PM
Of course not, that would be ridiculous. I believe a woman has the right to determine for herself for what reasons she may have an abortion.

I'll grant you that many pro-life people are willing to soften their hard-line stance in cases of rape, because they see it as the only feasible way to get enough support to outlaw the vast majority of abortions, not because they think its magically OK to abort a pregnancy in those circumstances.OK, so like Yukon, you want women to be able to murder a baby at any time that it becomes inconvenient for them.

Well, that clears that up.

Yukon
01-17-2011, 01:37 PM
Adam agrees with abortion but only on his terms - he has said so. This is the position the overwelming majority of so-called anti-abortion crusaders take. It's like unemployment insurance. The right-wingers are against it until they lose their job then it's a good thing.

wilbur
01-17-2011, 01:38 PM
OK, so like Yukon, you want women to be able to murder a baby at any time that it becomes inconvenient for them.

Well, that clears that up.

Well, gee, so now it seems that you've gotten up to speed on the basic fact that some people are pro-choice... well done sir.

*And no, "murder" only applies to things with at least some capacity for consciousness.

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 01:39 PM
Adam agrees with abortion but only on his terms - he has said so.Yet another lie. Point out where I have stated my position on abortion. Go ahead. We'll be waiting.

What is it about Leftists that causes them to lie constantly? Some sort of pathology, I suppose.

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 01:40 PM
Well, gee, so now it seems that you've gotten up to speed on the basic fact that some people are pro-choice... well done sir.

*And no, "murder" only applies to things with at least some capacity for consciousness.Sounds to me like it's all right to kill Leftists, then.

Yukon
01-17-2011, 01:42 PM
Yet another lie. Point out where I have stated my position on abortion. Go ahead. We'll be waiting.

What is it about Leftists that causes them to lie constantly? Some sort of pathology, I suppose.

ADAM old boy here's what you posted:
"I'll give you federally-funded abortions for every woman who wants one in any case of rape, incest, or in a medically-necessary case to save the life of the mother, and in return you'll give up all other abortions of convenience."

Seems to me you agree with some abortions. Either you are for or against them Adam - you cant have it both ways my friend.

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 01:45 PM
ADAM old boy here's what you posted:
"I'll give you federally-funded abortions for every woman who wants one in any case of rape, incest, or in a medically-necessary case to save the life of the mother, and in return you'll give up all other abortions of convenience."

Seems to me you agree with some abortions. Either you are for or against them Adam - you cant have it both ways my friend.You are incapable of distinguishing between a proposed hypothetical any what my stance is on abortion. How not surprising. Another Leftist lie.

Hint: no, that is not my stance on abortion.

NJCardFan
01-17-2011, 01:46 PM
Well, gee, so now it seems that you've gotten up to speed on the basic fact that some people are pro-choice... well done sir.

*And no, "murder" only applies to things with at least some capacity for consciousness.

I see you skirted my question so I will re-ask. Is this your position as well as the 'being able to survive outside the womb' meme? Again, please say yes.

Yukon
01-17-2011, 01:51 PM
I see you skirted my question so I will re-ask. Is this your position as well as the 'being able to survive outside the womb' meme? Again, please say yes.

NJ,

There are many variables therefore I decline to answer your "loaded" question. What I will say is that I agree that every woman has and maintains the legal right to abort unwanted fetal tissue from her womb. Im not going to play silly, fundamentalist games with you.

NJCardFan
01-17-2011, 01:57 PM
No, you didnt. Try again.


The being inside a woman who was raped, is exactly the same as the being inside a woman who had consensual sex.


Wait, what? Did I hear you right? Being raped is the same as consensual sex? Tell you what, you go forcibly have sex with a woman, then tell the judge that there is no difference between rape and consensual sex and let me know what happens. You can wait until after you get out of prison to let us know, BTW.
Where am I going wrong. You said, and the above is a direct quote, that "being inside a woman who was raped is the same as being inside a woman who had consensual sex". I am not misinterpreting anything. These are your words. But since your childlike mind can't differentiate, allow me to help:

When a woman is raped, she is forced to have sex against her will. Meaning it's a spontaneous act. Consensual sex is a planned act. At some point, the woman decides that she is going to be sexually active. Meaning she has ample time to take proper precautions. But if she decides not to take these precautions and gets pregnant, it is not morally justified to abort the baby because it will cramp her style or whatever inconvenience she makes up. So, in the game of rape vs. consensual, it's like comparing apples to broccoli.

NJCardFan
01-17-2011, 01:58 PM
NJ,

There are many variables therefore I decline to answer your "loaded" question. What I will say is that I agree that every woman has and maintains the legal right to abort unwanted fetal tissue from her womb. Im not going to play silly, fundamentalist games with you.

No, no, no, you liberals can't have it both ways. Answer the above question, yes or no.

Molon Labe
01-17-2011, 02:04 PM
Where am I going wrong. You said, and the above is a direct quote, that "being inside a woman who was raped is the same as being inside a woman who had consensual sex". I am not misinterpreting anything. These are your words. But since your childlike mind can't differentiate, allow me to help:

When a woman is raped, she is forced to have sex against her will. Meaning it's a spontaneous act. Consensual sex is a planned act. At some point, the woman decides that she is going to be sexually active. Meaning she has ample time to take proper precautions. But if she decides not to take these precautions and gets pregnant, it is not morally justified to abort the baby because it will cramp her style or whatever inconvenience she makes up. So, in the game of rape vs. consensual, it's like comparing apples to broccoli.

It's more like calling an apple a "potential fruit".

Regardles whether the act was consensual, planned or non consensual, it is still a "life". Pro abortion people have to come to terms with defining the argument as something else in order to get past the cognitive dissonance.

They also jump on the rape incest bandwagon, when those cases are inconsequential and diversions in the real argument. They rarely happen, but be damned the facts.

wilbur
01-17-2011, 02:09 PM
Where am I going wrong. You said, and the above is a direct quote, that "being inside a woman who was raped is the same as being inside a woman who had consensual sex". I am not misinterpreting anything. These are your words. But since your childlike mind can't differentiate, allow me to help:


My words were:

"The being inside a woman who was raped, is exactly the same as the being inside a woman who had consensual sex."

Being was a noun, not a verb.

wilbur
01-17-2011, 02:27 PM
It's more like calling an apple a "potential fruit".

Regardles whether the act was consensual, planned or non consensual, it is still a "life".

This is what I was saying... regardless of whether it was the result of responsible choice, irresponsible or reckless choice, or no choice at all through rape, the being is the same.

My ongoing point here has been to disentangle yet another irrelevant distraction from the abortion debate - the arguments from personal responsibility, which usually go something like this:

"Well, she knew she'd get pregnant, so we're justified in refusing her the right to abortion", etc. And the answer, is no we're not.

linda22003
01-17-2011, 02:31 PM
Twenty three pages on something that isn't even an issue.
I'm glad I've spent the long weekend more constructively. :p

Wei Wu Wei
01-17-2011, 02:38 PM
There are beating-heart cadavars, human beings who have lost all brain function whose bodies continue to live on with the assitance of machines regulating their endocrine and other systems. They have beating hearts and living tissue, but they are considered brain dead.

Are these humans? They clearly have human tissue, they clearly have DNA, and they clearly have living beating hearts and other tissue. Are they people?


These bodies are kept 'alive' with tubes and whatnot, so that their organs can be harvested. When someone needs a kidney or lung, they go to these bodies and take what they need, like a junkyard for car parts to use a crude analogy.

Is this wrong? Do these human beings have rights? Is it appropriate for us to take their organs, to determine based on whatever arbitrary measure when they are clinically dead or alive, or to eventually kill them once their utility has been expended?

This is very common and accepted in both law and morality. How?

It's because although these are surely considered humans, they are not considered Persons, because of their lack of brain function.

Does this standard of measure of Personhood stand? Is it valid? If so, does that give us some direction when inquiring about the Personhood rights of unborn fetuses? Afterall, this example and many others establish pretty firmly that there is a distinction between a homo sapien organism and a Person (even though the two usually coincide).


The same question would of course arise if machines became self-aware or if we were to discover intelligent alien life. However, for now, more terrestrial examples are appropriate

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 02:49 PM
There are beating-heart cadavars, human beings who have lost all brain function whose bodies continue to live on with the assitance of machines regulating their endocrine and other systems. They have beating hearts and living tissue, but they are considered brain dead.

Are these humans? They clearly have human tissue, they clearly have DNA, and they clearly have living beating hearts and other tissue. Are they people?


These bodies are kept 'alive' with tubes and whatnot, so that their organs can be harvested. When someone needs a kidney or lung, they go to these bodies and take what they need, like a junkyard for car parts to use a crude analogy.

Is this wrong? Do these human beings have rights? Is it appropriate for us to take their organs, to determine based on whatever arbitrary measure when they are clinically dead or alive, or to eventually kill them once their utility has been expended?

This is very common and accepted in both law and morality. How?

It's because although these are surely considered humans, they are not considered Persons, because of their lack of brain function.

Does this standard of measure of Personhood stand? Is it valid? If so, does that give us some direction when inquiring about the Personhood rights of unborn fetuses? Afterall, this example and many others establish pretty firmly that there is a distinction between a homo sapien organism and a Person (even though the two usually coincide).


The same question would of course arise if machines became self-aware or if we were to discover intelligent alien life. However, for now, more terrestrial examples are appropriateYou guys sure do expend a whole lot of energy and mental gymnastics to justify murder.

Rockntractor
01-17-2011, 02:49 PM
Twenty three pages on something that isn't even an issue.
I'm glad I've spent the long weekend more constructively. :p

It's a shame you made this post and didn't continue to use your time more constructively.

Wei Wu Wei
01-17-2011, 02:54 PM
You guys sure do expend a whole lot of energy and mental gymnastics to justify murder.

light jogging is the same as gymnastics to a person who never leaves his sofa ;)

Im simply highlighting to point that needs to be addressed in this debate. the two sides are essentially arguing about a fetus - "it's a human with rights" vs "no it's just tissue without rights".

this is the debate over Personhood and what that entails. it's not really that complex it's just getting straight to the point rather than dancing around it all day.

wilbur
01-17-2011, 03:10 PM
You guys sure do expend a whole lot of energy and mental gymnastics to justify murder.

Actually its a whole lot of energy to determine the nature of life and ethics.... all very important stuff.

FlaGator
01-17-2011, 03:47 PM
You guys sure do expend a whole lot of energy and mental gymnastics to justify murder.

Here's what gets me. These people posting are secular humanists who believe that creation was some big accident, that our existence is some extreme case of random chance, that our lives have no meaning except for the meaning we give it and when we die we go back to the nothingness from which we came. You take all that into consideration and you would think that they'd be against abortion because it denies someone a chance to live a life that has been activated by chance. However their thoughts on this seem to be 'I got mine so tough titty, kitty.'

wilbur
01-17-2011, 04:03 PM
Here's what gets me. These people posting are secular humanists who believe that creation was some big accident, that our existence is some extreme case of random chance, that our lives have no meaning except for the meaning we give it and when we die we go back to the nothingness from which we came. You take all that into consideration and you would think that they'd be against abortion because it denies someone a chance to live a life that has been activated by chance. However their thoughts on this seem to be 'I got mine so tough titty, kitty.'

What, what, and what?!?!

I don't believe rights should be extended to pre-sentient fetuses or beings with no minds... but they obviously do extend to women. So in a rights contest between a mindless thing and woman, the woman wins. Its really that simple.

Maybe it would be nice if every concieved sperm and egg were gestated into a full human being (I don't know, but probably not)... but I don't think there is any moral imperative under humanism to make that happen.

wilbur
01-17-2011, 04:10 PM
There are beating-heart cadavars, human beings who have lost all brain function whose bodies continue to live on with the assitance of machines regulating their endocrine and other systems. They have beating hearts and living tissue, but they are considered brain dead.

Are these humans? They clearly have human tissue, they clearly have DNA, and they clearly have living beating hearts and other tissue. Are they people?


These bodies are kept 'alive' with tubes and whatnot, so that their organs can be harvested. When someone needs a kidney or lung, they go to these bodies and take what they need, like a junkyard for car parts to use a crude analogy.

Is this wrong? Do these human beings have rights? Is it appropriate for us to take their organs, to determine based on whatever arbitrary measure when they are clinically dead or alive, or to eventually kill them once their utility has been expended?

This is very common and accepted in both law and morality. How?

It's because although these are surely considered humans, they are not considered Persons, because of their lack of brain function.

Does this standard of measure of Personhood stand? Is it valid? If so, does that give us some direction when inquiring about the Personhood rights of unborn fetuses? Afterall, this example and many others establish pretty firmly that there is a distinction between a homo sapien organism and a Person (even though the two usually coincide).

The same question would of course arise if machines became self-aware or if we were to discover intelligent alien life. However, for now, more terrestrial examples are appropriate

Good post WWW.

Yukon
01-17-2011, 04:16 PM
CHOICE wins !

Rockntractor
01-17-2011, 04:27 PM
CHOICE wins a free ticket to the lake of fire !
:eek:

Yukon
01-17-2011, 04:31 PM
Answer his question and perhaps he will answer yours, we do that a lot here.

Modified my response to clarify my answer.

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 04:38 PM
CHOICE wins !Actually, no it doesn't.

That's the dirty little secret that the "choice" people don't want anyone else to know: they don't care about "choice" at all. They just latch onto a good-sounding buzzword and run around in circles like maniacs.


It's just like "change."

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/209729/celebrate-good-obama

"It's CHANGE!!! WOO HOO!!!"

Yukon
01-17-2011, 04:41 PM
Adam,
You are so wrong. What we want is FREE CHOICE - a woman's right to chose. You "people" want to control other people's bodies - we dont.

Constitutionally Speaking
01-17-2011, 04:58 PM
Adam,
You are so wrong. What we want is FREE CHOICE - a woman's right to chose. You "people" want to control other people's bodies - we dont.

Doesn't the baby you advocate killing have any say in the matter?

linda22003
01-17-2011, 05:01 PM
It's a shame you made this post and didn't continue to use your time more constructively.

That's ok, Rock, it didn't take very long. :)

Yukon
01-17-2011, 05:06 PM
Doesn't the baby you advocate killing have any say in the matter?

Thats the crux of the matter - and it is NOT a human being - therefore can not have a say in anything.

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 05:07 PM
Adam,
You are so wrong. What we want is FREE CHOICE - a woman's right to chose. You "people" want to control other people's bodies - we dont.I'm not interested in controlling anyone's body. That would be you: when you murder someone, you're sort of controlling their body.

And you still don't even know my stance on abortion. It's growing more and more amusing watching you spin your impotent little wheels trying to declare victory when you don't even know where the fight is.

Adam Wood
01-17-2011, 05:09 PM
Thats the crux of the matter - and it is NOT a human being - therefore can not have a say in anything.

Now perhaps you will answer my question:
If a woman has an abortion the anti-abortion people claim it is murder. If that is correct would you agree that the Doctor who performed this murder and the woman having the abortion should be executed?That's up to the laws of the state. Generally speaking, only the most heinous of murderers get the death penalty, so my guess would be that no, the abortionist probably doesn't get executed.

Constitutionally Speaking
01-17-2011, 05:35 PM
Thats the crux of the matter - and it is NOT a human being - therefore can not have a say in anything.

The DNA says it is human. It most certainly is alive - so why are you contradicting the science here. Do you simply have FAITH that it is not human - or do you think it is merely part of the mothers body?

Wei Wu Wei
01-17-2011, 05:53 PM
The DNA says it is human. It most certainly is alive - so why are you contradicting the science here. Do you simply have FAITH that it is not human - or do you think it is merely part of the mothers body?

The distinction between Human and Person was already discussed. This is an important distinction that has applications in other areas such as beating-heart cadavers who are certainly alive in terms of biological function but without the brain activity that characterizes the human subjective experience. It can be human tissue without having the quality of Personhoon, if by Person we mean someone who thinks or communicates or who has the basic levels of self awareness to experience pain as their own pain.

Even if a fetus has something valuable about it, even if it is not yet Personhood, it is still in a place of conflict with a full fledged Person. If we accept that a fetus is something that is not quite a Person in the sense that we are, as a member of the moral community, but is still something with rights, it's not apparent that the rights of the pre-Person are more important than, or even equal to the rights of a Person, when these rights happen to conflict.