# Rape does not justify abortion



## Quantum Windbag

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution. 



> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.



If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.


----------



## Vidi

Do you also support free health care for all?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Vidi said:


> Do you also support free health care for all?



This is the debate zone, not the random reply zone.


----------



## nitroz

Nothing does. It's the mother's choice. The rapist doesn't get a say.

Our priority should be to get the victim the proper contraception ASAP to prevent abortion and birth.
Contraception is to stop her from getting pregnant, not to terminate the pregnancy.


----------



## Avatar4321

I don't really understand how one evil justifies another.


----------



## syrenn

Quantum Windbag said:


> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
Click to expand...


Roe v. Wade. 

A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.


----------



## Greenbeard

An embryo or a fetus is not a person.


----------



## midcan5

If you support life at this level you must then follow the Catholic church and make sure that the ovum each month is given the opportunity for life. Each month of fertility the potential for life exists just as it does when the egg is finally fertilized (see link quote below). Since life is  important you must also provide medical care so life has the opportunity to thrive. After birth your responsibility does not end as life then requires other supports and life is the critical piece. All healthcare should be provided free if necessary and must be supplied regardless of age or sickness. Life must be taken care of for as long as the person lives. When you agree to all this, and support all life, we will take you seriously. If life matters so much to you put your money where your mouth is. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...luding-late-term-abortions-2.html#post5858288

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey


Boston Review &mdash; Judith Jarvis Thomson
Top 10 Anti-Abortion Myths - Top 10 Myths About Abortion
Why Francis Beckwith


----------



## Dot Com

An adult woman's rights trumps those of an embryo ESPECIALLY when its been implanted against her will.


----------



## JFK_USA

So a women should be forced to remember the worst thing that happen to her for the rest of her life? That is so barbaric and ridiculous and it tells women that only men know what they should do with their own body.


----------



## courseofhistory

Does one evil justify another?  I don't consider abortion evil but what if the child is born because abortions are illegal thanks to republicans?  Does the evil of not providing for the child with free health care and other welfare justify forcing a woman to carry to full term?  Republicans want to cut this type assistance and none that I know of take any responsibility for the child after birth.  Remember a woman who is raped did not choose to have a child and her circumstances may not allow it financially, emotionally, etc.  So the option or choice is *always* hers.  She is not an inhuman incubator!

*Swing State Polls as of 8/22/12*​ 
Florida              Obama  49         Romney    46
Ohio                            50                        44
Virginia                         50                        45
Colorado                       49                        46
Nevada                        49                        45
Wisconsin                      50                        45
MI                               44                        47
PA                               48                        42​


----------



## PixieStix

Quantum Windbag said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you also support free health care for all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the debate zone, not the random reply zone.
Click to expand...


----------



## Liability

Quantum Windbag said:


> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
Click to expand...


In the (GOD FORBID!) event that any woman I love or know is raped and gets impregnated because of it (yes Congressman Akin, that is biologically possible, you twit): if that woman does not wish to carry the child of the rapist, then my vote is to throw logical consistency and morality out the window and not get in her way.   And I would go so far as to say that the same rule would apply whether I knew the rape victim or not.

Life is sacred and abortion does take the life of a human being who is totally innocent regardless of how it came to exist.  And so my position *is* a contradiction in the case of rape (and incest and in the case of a risk to the life of the mother or significant risk to her health).  I admit the contradiction and do not alter my position one tiny bit because of it.


----------



## uscitizen

Quantum Windbag said:


> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
Click to expand...


A person does not exist till birth.

Age is measured from birth not conception.


----------



## Vidi

Quantum Windbag said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you also support free health care for all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the debate zone, not the random reply zone.
Click to expand...


Its not a random reply. The fact that you think the two are unrelated however speaks volumes.


----------



## jillian

Vidi said:


> Do you also support free health care for all?



nope...and he hates regulations and he can't stand police. he's totally laissez faire...

except when it comes to women's bodies.


----------



## PixieStix

JFK_USA said:


> So a women should be forced to remember the worst thing that happen to her for the rest of her life? That is so barbaric and ridiculous and it tells women that only men know what they should do with their own body.



Or she should feel compelled to kill it because everyone else in her life would like to forget that she was raped? Or she should abort and go through PAS on top of the rape trauma? She is going to remember the rape regardless


----------



## Liability

uscitizen said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person does not exist till birth.
Click to expand...


A statement of belief, not fact.



uscitizen said:


> Age is measured from birth not conception.



Here, that is true.  It is not necessarily true everywhere.  But, regardless, it is totally irrelevant.


----------



## Vidi

Liability said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person does not exist till birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A statement of belief, not fact.
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Age is measured from birth not conception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here, that is true.  It is not necessarily true everywhere.  But, regardless, it is totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Sperm, eggs and embryos can all be frozen, then thawed and still viable to continue on into life. Once birth has occurred, we cannot freeze a breathing person and bring them back.

Is it a lack of technology or could it be that we cannot freeze and then thaw "life"?


----------



## kiwiman127

So a woman is raped, gets pregnant and the woman's life in endanger medically, the woman can't abort it per the law via GOP. So the rape victim dies giving birth.  And the rape victim would have no choice in this matter.
That's the GOP way.  Reminds me of the Taliban


----------



## Liability

Vidi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> A person does not exist till birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A statement of belief, not fact.
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Age is measured from birth not conception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here, that is true.  It is not necessarily true everywhere.  But, regardless, it is totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sperm, eggs and embryos can all be frozen, then thawed and still viable to continue on into life. Once birth has occurred, we cannot freeze a breathing person and bring them back.
> 
> Is it a lack of technology or could it be that we cannot freeze and then thaw "life"?
Click to expand...


I'm gonna go with:  you've been drinking.


----------



## Vidi

Liability said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> A statement of belief, not fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Here, that is true.  It is not necessarily true everywhere.  But, regardless, it is totally irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sperm, eggs and embryos can all be frozen, then thawed and still viable to continue on into life. Once birth has occurred, we cannot freeze a breathing person and bring them back.
> 
> Is it a lack of technology or could it be that we cannot freeze and then thaw "life"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm gonna go with:  you've been drinking.
Click to expand...



LOL

I did have three drinks at my sisters wedding this past weekend. Thats three more than Ive had in the last ten years, so maybe.

But reread what I posted and come back with a non humor response ( though this response was quite funny and clever ) 

I asked a question at the end of that post that I think is an interesting one...what do you think? Lack of technology or proof of life?

There is no "right" answer. Its not a set up...Im just asking your opinion.


----------



## Liability

Vidi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sperm, eggs and embryos can all be frozen, then thawed and still viable to continue on into life. Once birth has occurred, we cannot freeze a breathing person and bring them back.
> 
> Is it a lack of technology or could it be that we cannot freeze and then thaw "life"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna go with:  you've been drinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> I did have three drinks at my sisters wedding this past weekend. Thats three more than Ive had in the last ten years, so maybe.
> 
> But reread what I posted and come back with a non humor response ( though this response was quite funny and clever )
> 
> I asked a question at the end of that post that I think is an interesting one...what do you think? Lack of technology or proof of life?
> 
> There is no "right" answer. Its not a set up...Im just asking your opinion.
Click to expand...


I still don't see the connection to the Topic.


----------



## courseofhistory

kiwiman127 said:


> So a woman is raped, gets pregnant and the woman's life in endanger medically, the woman can't abort it per the law via GOP. So the rape victim dies giving birth.  And the rape victim would have no choice in this matter.
> That's the GOP way.  Reminds me of the Taliban



That kind of brings it home, doesn't it?  But it falls on repubs' deaf ears!







*Swing State Polls as of 8/22/12*​ 
Florida              Obama  49         Romney    46
Ohio                            50                        44
Virginia                         50                        45
Colorado                       49                        46
Nevada                        49                        45
Wisconsin                      50                        45
MI                               44                        47
PA                               48                        42​


----------



## Vidi

Liability said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna go with:  you've been drinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> I did have three drinks at my sisters wedding this past weekend. Thats three more than Ive had in the last ten years, so maybe.
> 
> But reread what I posted and come back with a non humor response ( though this response was quite funny and clever )
> 
> I asked a question at the end of that post that I think is an interesting one...what do you think? Lack of technology or proof of life?
> 
> There is no "right" answer. Its not a set up...Im just asking your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still don't see the connection to the Topic.
Click to expand...



No one and I mean NO ONE, on either side of this particular issue, is saying we all dont have a right to life.

In fact, thats the wrong question...the question is: When does life begin?

If we can freeze embryos, sperm and eggs and thaw them out, implant and still make a baby, but we cant do that with a living breathing already birthed person, MAYBE that shows us where life is and where it is not

Its a thought...thats all nothing more...what do you think?


----------



## Liability

Vidi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> I did have three drinks at my sisters wedding this past weekend. Thats three more than Ive had in the last ten years, so maybe.
> 
> But reread what I posted and come back with a non humor response ( though this response was quite funny and clever )
> 
> I asked a question at the end of that post that I think is an interesting one...what do you think? Lack of technology or proof of life?
> 
> There is no "right" answer. Its not a set up...Im just asking your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still don't see the connection to the Topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one and I mean NO ONE, on either side of this particular issue, is saying we all dont have a right to life.
> 
> In fact, thats the wrong question...the question is: When does life begin?
> 
> If we can freeze embryos, sperm and eggs and thaw them out, implant and still make a baby, but we cant do that with a living breathing already birthed person, MAYBE that shows us where life is and where it is not
> 
> Its a thought...thats all nothing more...what do you think?
Click to expand...


IF life begins at some point which we cannot with certainty "know," that does not mean that it doesn't begin at or around conception or some time not that long afterwards.

And if it starts that early, then all those clamoring for "abortion rights" ARE indeed saying that the pre-born don't have a right to life.  To the extent we don't know, therefore, I say we are kind of obliged to err on the side of caution.

And cryogenics is an advancing scientific art.  So your yardstick may be broken.


----------



## Vidi

Liability said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still don't see the connection to the Topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one and I mean NO ONE, on either side of this particular issue, is saying we all dont have a right to life.
> 
> In fact, thats the wrong question...the question is: When does life begin?
> 
> If we can freeze embryos, sperm and eggs and thaw them out, implant and still make a baby, but we cant do that with a living breathing already birthed person, MAYBE that shows us where life is and where it is not
> 
> Its a thought...thats all nothing more...what do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF life begins at some point which we cannot with certainty "know," that does not mean that it doesn't begin at or around conception or some time not that long afterwards.
> 
> And if it starts that early, then all those clamoring for "abortion rights" ARE indeed saying that the pre-born don't have a right to life.  To the extent we don't know, therefore, I say we are kind of obliged to err on the side of caution.
> 
> And cryogenics is an advancing scientific art.  So your yardstick may be broken.
Click to expand...


I can accept that answer. 


Now let me take it a step further based on what youve said.

If we do not know, those who get abortions may indeed be violating the rights of a human being, but as we do not know for sure, they may not be.

Therefore, do we side with the actual right of the actual breathing person or the perceived right of the potential person?


----------



## Vidi

jillian said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you also support free health care for all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nope...and he hates regulations and he can't stand police. he's totally laissez faire...
> 
> except when it comes to women's bodies.
Click to expand...


That's kind of what I suspected.

It is my opinion that if we are not consistent in our political beliefs, then we are only partisan slaves.


----------



## jillian

syrenn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade.
> 
> A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.
Click to expand...


they hate that.


----------



## Liability

jillian said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade.
> 
> A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they hate that.
Click to expand...


Just imagine what the millions of slaughtered children might have to say about it had their lives and voices not been ripped apart.


----------



## syrenn

jillian said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade.
> 
> A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they hate that.
Click to expand...



I agree. The OP argues the constitution...and yet Roe v. Wade is protected by the constitution.


----------



## courseofhistory

Right to life is a given but the right to create a life knowingly and willingly is also important.  The woman's life supercedes the fetus' because she is a conscious, living, human being with awareness, needs and much more.  The fetus will not be aware it is being aborted.  I don't LIKE abortion but I also don't like denying a woman choice!

*Swing State Polls as of 8/22/12*​ 
Florida              Obama  49         Romney    46
Ohio                            50                        44
Virginia                         50                        45
Colorado                       49                        46
Nevada                        49                        45
Wisconsin                      50                        45
MI                               44                        47
PA                               48                        42​


----------



## Liability

Vidi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one and I mean NO ONE, on either side of this particular issue, is saying we all dont have a right to life.
> 
> In fact, thats the wrong question...the question is: When does life begin?
> 
> If we can freeze embryos, sperm and eggs and thaw them out, implant and still make a baby, but we cant do that with a living breathing already birthed person, MAYBE that shows us where life is and where it is not
> 
> Its a thought...thats all nothing more...what do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF life begins at some point which we cannot with certainty "know," that does not mean that it doesn't begin at or around conception or some time not that long afterwards.
> 
> And if it starts that early, then all those clamoring for "abortion rights" ARE indeed saying that the pre-born don't have a right to life.  To the extent we don't know, therefore, I say we are kind of obliged to err on the side of caution.
> 
> And cryogenics is an advancing scientific art.  So your yardstick may be broken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can accept that answer.
> 
> 
> Now let me take it a step further based on what youve said.
> 
> If we do not know, those who get abortions may indeed be violating the rights of a human being, but as we do not know for sure, they may not be.
> 
> Therefore, do we side with the actual right of the actual breathing person or the perceived right of the potential person?
Click to expand...


If the right of a living breathing confirmed person to the convenience of choice trumps the right of the (arguable) human being to live, then sure.

Otherwise, clearly not.  By default the right to life is the paramount right.  No other rights exist for a person, at all, when his or her life is taken.


----------



## syrenn

Liability said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade.
> 
> A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just imagine what the millions of slaughtered children might have to say about it had their lives and voices not been ripped apart.
Click to expand...



Alright.....  C section it out. No ripping involved..... That way the woman gets what she needs...and it gets to live and have a voice of its own.


----------



## PixieStix

Liability said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade.
> 
> A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just imagine what the millions of slaughtered children might have to say about it had their lives and voices not been ripped apart.
Click to expand...


Indeed. This is why many pro lifers speak up. 

I was once an embryo, so was my son, you, jillian and everyone here that is speaking out, their voices are being heard. 

While some may not have had great mothers, great lives, at least they were given a chance at life.


----------



## syrenn

PixieStix said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> they hate that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just imagine what the millions of slaughtered children might have to say about it had their lives and voices not been ripped apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. This is why many pro lifers speak up.
> 
> I was once an embryo, so was my son, you, jillian and everyone here that is speaking out, their voices are being heard.
> 
> While some may not have had great mothers, great lives, at least they were given a chance at life.
Click to expand...



By a _willing _woman to carry cells to term......


----------



## Wiseacre

The basic issue IMHO is when the right to life starts;  do we want to allow the termination of life prior to birth?   10 minutes prior?   10 days?   10 weeks?   At conception?   At what point should our society confer that most basic right:  to life.   

And then there's this - if you decide that the right to life begins at conception, then why should the circumstances of the conception influence the decision?   Should we deny the right to life for a fetus based on those curcumstances?   Where's the justice in that?   The fetus is terminated due to events beyond it's control?

I understand the injustice of rape or incest, no question the victim already has to deal with a great deal of pain without an unwanted pregnancy as a reminder.   But is that worse than terminating a life, even if an unborn one?   Not an easy decision.

I think it oughta be a local or state decision for now, rather than a federal law or using federal funds.   But thast's just me.


----------



## jillian

PixieStix said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> they hate that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just imagine what the millions of slaughtered children might have to say about it had their lives and voices not been ripped apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. This is why many pro lifers speak up.
> 
> I was once an embryo, so was my son, you, jillian and everyone here that is speaking out, their voices are being heard.
> 
> While some may not have had great mothers, great lives, at least they were given a chance at life.
Click to expand...


and some of us wouldn't be alive but for reproductive choice.

and some of us wouldn't have had very wanted children via in vitro or other means if the radical right's 'personhood' laws were in effect.

for the upteenth time... no one is wise enough to make moral choices for others. so those choices should be left between the woman and her doctor.

we are not idiots who can't make decisions but for the dictates of a bunch of religious extremists who think they're more moral than the rest of us.


----------



## syrenn

Wiseacre said:


> The basic issue IMHO is when the right to life starts;  do we want to allow the termination of life prior to birth?   10 minutes prior?   10 days?   10 weeks?   At conception?   At what point should our society confer that most basic right:  to life.
> 
> And then there's this - if you decide that the right to life begins at conception, then why should the circumstances of the conception influence the decision?   Should we deny the right to life for a fetus based on those curcumstances?   Where's the justice in that?   The fetus is terminated due to events beyond it's control?
> 
> I understand the injustice of rape or incest, no question the victim already has to deal with a great deal of pain without an unwanted pregnancy as a reminder.   But is that worse than terminating a life, even if an unborn one?   Not an easy decision.
> 
> I think it oughta be a local or state decision for now, rather than a federal law or using federal funds.   But thast's just me.





The whole OP is a none issue. 


There is no ....need.... for any justification.... to anyone at all for having an abortion.


----------



## Avatar4321

syrenn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade.
> 
> A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.
Click to expand...


She doesnt have rights over her child's body.

And no. She doesnt have an absolute right over her body. None of us do. There are alot of things we cant do to our body.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> No* person *shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.





Greenbeard said:


> An embryo or a fetus is not a person.



The correct answer. 



> A person does not exist till birth.





> A statement of belief, not fact.


Just as the position that one is a person prior to birth is a belief, not fact; the question is otherwise moot per _Casey_.  



> And if it starts that early, then all those clamoring for "abortion rights" ARE indeed saying that the pre-born don't have a right to life. To the extent we don't know, therefore, I say we are kind of obliged to err on the side of caution.


Who are we to make that decision, by what authority, and for whom  certainly not the state. If a women wishes to err on the side of caution, shes free to do so. But thats her decision alone.


----------



## syrenn

Avatar4321 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade.
> 
> A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She doesnt have rights over her child's body.
> 
> And no. She doesnt have an absolute right over her body. None of us do. There are alot of things we cant do to our body.
Click to expand...



Agreed a woman does not have rights to another persons body.  Remove the "body" from the woman and give it all the rights you want.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

syrenn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade.
> 
> A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.
Click to expand...


Good point, the law doesn't worry about right and wrong, it just worries about rationalization.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Greenbeard said:


> An embryo or a fetus is not a person.



You do know that the way the CDZ works is you back your arguments up with facts, not opinions, don't you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> If you support life at this level you must then follow the Catholic church and make sure that the ovum each month is given the opportunity for life. Each month of fertility the potential for life exists just as it does when the egg is finally fertilized (see link quote below). Since life is  important you must also provide medical care so life has the opportunity to thrive. After birth your responsibility does not end as life then requires other supports and life is the critical piece. All healthcare should be provided free if necessary and must be supplied regardless of age or sickness. Life must be taken care of for as long as the person lives. When you agree to all this, and support all life, we will take you seriously. If life matters so much to you put your money where your mouth is.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...luding-late-term-abortions-2.html#post5858288
> 
> "Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey
> 
> 
> Boston Review &mdash; Judith Jarvis Thomson
> Top 10 Anti-Abortion Myths - Top 10 Myths About Abortion
> Why Francis Beckwith




Why must I follow the Catholic Church, do they have a monopoly on morality I missed at some point in my education? My guess is that the Imams will be surprised to learn they have to be Catholics simply because you say so.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dot Com said:


> An adult woman's rights trumps those of an embryo ESPECIALLY when its been implanted against her will.



I guess that means you agree with Akin when he said women can control whether they get pregnant. Hate to tell you this, but science disagrees with you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JFK_USA said:


> So a women should be forced to remember the worst thing that happen to her for the rest of her life? That is so barbaric and ridiculous and it tells women that only men know what they should do with their own body.



Do you think women can forget? do they have a magic ability that lets them turn trauma off unless they get pregnant?


----------



## jillian

syrenn said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade.
> 
> A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. The OP argues the constitution...and yet Roe v. Wade is protected by the constitution.
Click to expand...


they pick and choose... 2nd amendment good; 1st, not so much... heller..good; roe v wade, not so much.

they're funny that way.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

courseofhistory said:


> Does one evil justify another?  I don't consider abortion evil but what if the child is born because abortions are illegal thanks to republicans?  Does the evil of not providing for the child with free health care and other welfare justify forcing a woman to carry to full term?  Republicans want to cut this type assistance and none that I know of take any responsibility for the child after birth.  Remember a woman who is raped did not choose to have a child and her circumstances may not allow it financially, emotionally, etc.  So the option or choice is *always* hers.  She is not an inhuman incubator!
> 
> *Swing State Polls as of 8/22/12*​
> Florida              Obama  49         Romney    46
> Ohio                            50                        44
> Virginia                         50                        45
> Colorado                       49                        46
> Nevada                        49                        45
> Wisconsin                      50                        45
> MI                               44                        47
> PA                               48                        42​



This is still not the random reply zone.


----------



## jasonnfree

Maybe the pro lifers can contribute to a fund that will support the babies of women who were raped but didn't want to have the baby.   Like from birth to age 18?  If you all or so worried about life, dig deep.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Liability said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the (GOD FORBID!) event that any woman I love or know is raped and gets impregnated because of it (yes Congressman Akin, that is biologically possible, you twit): if that woman does not wish to carry the child of the rapist, then my vote is to throw logical consistency and morality out the window and not get in her way.   And I would go so far as to say that the same rule would apply whether I knew the rape victim or not.
> 
> Life is sacred and abortion does take the life of a human being who is totally innocent regardless of how it came to exist.  And so my position *is* a contradiction in the case of rape (and incest and in the case of a risk to the life of the mother or significant risk to her health).  I admit the contradiction and do not alter my position one tiny bit because of it.
Click to expand...


Congratulations on giving the first actual reply to my post. It only took 11 tries before someone actually thought before they tried. I admire your honesty.


----------



## syrenn

Quantum Windbag said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade.
> 
> A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point, the law doesn't worry about right and wrong, it just worries about rationalization.
Click to expand...



You ask about the law and the constitution. I gave it to you. The rest of your argument is personal opinion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

uscitizen said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person does not exist till birth.
> 
> Age is measured from birth not conception.
Click to expand...


In China they measure age from conception, what actual facts do you have to back your position?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Vidi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you also support free health care for all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the debate zone, not the random reply zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not a random reply. The fact that you think the two are unrelated however speaks volumes.
Click to expand...


They are unrelated.

By the way, did you know that the entitlement system you support depends on population growth that has been decimated by abortion?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

jillian said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you also support free health care for all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nope...and he hates regulations and he can't stand police. he's totally laissez faire...
> 
> except when it comes to women's bodies.
Click to expand...


Yes, I am totally free market. Not sure what that has to do with the discussion since we are talking about morality and rights, but feel free to keep posting without actually making a defense of abortion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Vidi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> A person does not exist till birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A statement of belief, not fact.
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Age is measured from birth not conception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here, that is true.  It is not necessarily true everywhere.  But, regardless, it is totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sperm, eggs and embryos can all be frozen, then thawed and still viable to continue on into life. Once birth has occurred, we cannot freeze a breathing person and bring them back.
> 
> Is it a lack of technology or could it be that we cannot freeze and then thaw "life"?
Click to expand...


That is not true. The diving reflex allows people who freeze to death to be brought back to life.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

kiwiman127 said:


> So a woman is raped, gets pregnant and the woman's life in endanger medically, the woman can't abort it per the law via GOP. So the rape victim dies giving birth.  And the rape victim would have no choice in this matter.
> That's the GOP way.  Reminds me of the Taliban



The law does not say that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Vidi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> I did have three drinks at my sisters wedding this past weekend. Thats three more than Ive had in the last ten years, so maybe.
> 
> But reread what I posted and come back with a non humor response ( though this response was quite funny and clever )
> 
> I asked a question at the end of that post that I think is an interesting one...what do you think? Lack of technology or proof of life?
> 
> There is no "right" answer. Its not a set up...Im just asking your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still don't see the connection to the Topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one and I mean NO ONE, on either side of this particular issue, is saying we all dont have a right to life.
> 
> In fact, thats the wrong question...the question is: When does life begin?
> 
> If we can freeze embryos, sperm and eggs and thaw them out, implant and still make a baby, but we cant do that with a living breathing already birthed person, MAYBE that shows us where life is and where it is not
> 
> Its a thought...thats all nothing more...what do you think?
Click to expand...


We can freeze frogs and bring them back to life, does that mean frogs are not alive? I think the fault here is not the freezing process, it is your definition of life.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> The basic issue IMHO is when the right to life starts; do we want to allow the termination of life prior to birth? 10 minutes prior? 10 days? 10 weeks? At conception? At what point should our society confer that most basic right: to life.
> 
> And then there's this - if you decide that the right to life begins at conception, then why should the circumstances of the conception influence the decision? Should we deny the right to life for a fetus based on those curcumstances? Where's the justice in that? The fetus is terminated due to events beyond it's control?
> 
> I understand the injustice of rape or incest, no question the victim already has to deal with a great deal of pain without an unwanted pregnancy as a reminder. But is that worse than terminating a life, even if an unborn one? Not an easy decision.



Thats for the individual to determine, not society; its a question best left to theologians, ethicists, and philosophers  the individual then decides which answer best comports with his personal belief, free of interference from the state. 



> I think it oughta be a local or state decision for now, rather than a federal law or using federal funds. But thast's just me.



Its not appropriate for any jurisdiction  Federal, state, local  to decide; as any such measure would be un-Constitutional, such as the law struck down in Oklahoma earlier this year. 



> The whole OP is a none issue.
> 
> 
> There is no ....need.... for any justification.... to anyone at all for having an abortion.



True. One is not compelled to justify the exercising of a fundamental right, in this case the right to privacy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

jillian said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade.
> 
> A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they hate that.
Click to expand...


Actually, I don't. I see it as irrelevant because we are discussing what should be, not what is. I am sure there were plenty of people that used Dred Scott as justification for slavery, that did not make it right, did it?


----------



## syrenn

Quantum Windbag said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade.
> 
> A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I don't. I see it as irrelevant because we are discussing what should be, not what is. I am sure there were plenty of people that used Dred Scott as justification for slavery, that did not make it right, did it?
Click to expand...



What should be for you and what should be for others..... may be different. What is and is not allowed under the law is binding to all.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

syrenn said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade.
> 
> A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. The OP argues the constitution...and yet Roe v. Wade is protected by the constitution.
Click to expand...


I did not argue the constitution, I pointed out that the constitution actually proves we have a right to life. That right does not come from the constitution anymore than my ability to type does. The constitution does not protect Roe anymore than it protects slavery. The court used the constitution, and some seriously dubious logic, to justify abortion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

courseofhistory said:


> Right to life is a given but the right to create a life knowingly and willingly is also important.  The woman's life supercedes the fetus' because she is a conscious, living, human being with awareness, needs and much more.  The fetus will not be aware it is being aborted.  I don't LIKE abortion but I also don't like denying a woman choice!



You don't like giving a woman a choice? What if her choice is to kill anyone who thinks an avatar of a falling cat is cute, do you still support her choice?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

jillian said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just imagine what the millions of slaughtered children might have to say about it had their lives and voices not been ripped apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. This is why many pro lifers speak up.
> 
> I was once an embryo, so was my son, you, jillian and everyone here that is speaking out, their voices are being heard.
> 
> While some may not have had great mothers, great lives, at least they were given a chance at life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and some of us wouldn't be alive but for reproductive choice.
> 
> and some of us wouldn't have had very wanted children via in vitro or other means if the radical right's 'personhood' laws were in effect.
> 
> for the upteenth time... no one is wise enough to make moral choices for others. so those choices should be left between the woman and her doctor.
> 
> we are not idiots who can't make decisions but for the dictates of a bunch of religious extremists who think they're more moral than the rest of us.
Click to expand...


Abortion helps people get born? How?

By the way, I am not making moral choice for others, I am attempting to prevent people from making immoral choices to kill others.


----------



## syrenn

Quantum Windbag said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> they hate that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. The OP argues the constitution...and yet Roe v. Wade is protected by the constitution.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not argue the constitution, I pointed out that the constitution actually proves we have a right to life. That right does not come from the constitution anymore than my ability to type does. The constitution does not protect Roe anymore than it protects slavery, the court used the constitution, and some seriously dubious logic, to justify abortion.
Click to expand...



You quoted the Constitution to support your opinion. I used the Constitution to support mine. 


Stalemate. The rest is only opinion.


----------



## jillian

Quantum Windbag said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. This is why many pro lifers speak up.
> 
> I was once an embryo, so was my son, you, jillian and everyone here that is speaking out, their voices are being heard.
> 
> While some may not have had great mothers, great lives, at least they were given a chance at life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and some of us wouldn't be alive but for reproductive choice.
> 
> and some of us wouldn't have had very wanted children via in vitro or other means if the radical right's 'personhood' laws were in effect.
> 
> for the upteenth time... no one is wise enough to make moral choices for others. so those choices should be left between the woman and her doctor.
> 
> we are not idiots who can't make decisions but for the dictates of a bunch of religious extremists who think they're more moral than the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion helps people get born? How?
Click to expand...


the people who are anti-choice are opposed to in vitro.... they call the frozen embryos 'snowflake babies'... as such, in vitro would be illegal under your personhood laws.


----------



## syrenn

Quantum Windbag said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. This is why many pro lifers speak up.
> 
> I was once an embryo, so was my son, you, jillian and everyone here that is speaking out, their voices are being heard.
> 
> While some may not have had great mothers, great lives, at least they were given a chance at life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and some of us wouldn't be alive but for reproductive choice.
> 
> and some of us wouldn't have had very wanted children via in vitro or other means if the radical right's 'personhood' laws were in effect.
> 
> for the upteenth time... no one is wise enough to make moral choices for others. so those choices should be left between the woman and her doctor.
> 
> we are not idiots who can't make decisions but for the dictates of a bunch of religious extremists who think they're more moral than the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion helps people get born? How?
Click to expand...




C section is a from of birth...... 

which is how my son was born... after in vitro...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Avatar4321 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade.
> 
> A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She doesnt have rights over her child's body.
> 
> And no. She doesnt have an absolute right over her body. None of us do. There are alot of things we cant do to our body.
Click to expand...


That is also wrong.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
Click to expand...


Since Constitutional law has established that the fetus is not a person, any references to a person in the Constitution do not apply to fetuses.


----------



## syrenn

Quantum Windbag said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. This is why many pro lifers speak up.
> 
> I was once an embryo, so was my son, you, jillian and everyone here that is speaking out, their voices are being heard.
> 
> While some may not have had great mothers, great lives, at least they were given a chance at life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and some of us wouldn't be alive but for reproductive choice.
> 
> and some of us wouldn't have had very wanted children via in vitro or other means if the radical right's 'personhood' laws were in effect.
> 
> for the upteenth time... no one is wise enough to make moral choices for others. so those choices should be left between the woman and her doctor.
> 
> we are not idiots who can't make decisions but for the dictates of a bunch of religious extremists who think they're more moral than the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion helps people get born? How?
> 
> By the way, I am not making moral choice for others, I am attempting to prevent people from making immoral choices to kill others.
Click to expand...



How is removing cell..... by c section.... killing something that you claim is a life?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No* person *shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embryo or a fetus is not a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The correct answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A statement of belief, not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as the position that one is a person prior to birth is a belief, not fact; the question is otherwise moot per _Casey_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if it starts that early, then all those clamoring for "abortion rights" ARE indeed saying that the pre-born don't have a right to life. To the extent we don't know, therefore, I say we are kind of obliged to err on the side of caution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are we to make that decision, by what authority, and for whom  certainly not the state. If a women wishes to err on the side of caution, shes free to do so. But thats her decision alone.
Click to expand...


What, exactly, makes a unsupported declaration the correct answer? How come the state has the power to tell me I cannot kill Christopher Reeve, who cannot breathe without assistance, but it doesn't power to tell me I cannot kill baby before it is born?


----------



## HUGGY

Quantum Windbag said:


> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
Click to expand...


*Edit: Good Call.*

Sorry..I didn't notice that this thread was in the clean zone.  My comment is not intended as an insult,  Just an observation.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

syrenn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade.
> 
> A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, the law doesn't worry about right and wrong, it just worries about rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You ask about the law and the constitution. I gave it to you. The rest of your argument is personal opinion.
Click to expand...


I did not ask about anything, I used the premise that the purpose of government is to protect rights to argue that it should not be allowing abortions.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The basic issue IMHO is when the right to life starts; do we want to allow the termination of life prior to birth? 10 minutes prior? 10 days? 10 weeks? At conception? At what point should our society confer that most basic right: to life.
> 
> And then there's this - if you decide that the right to life begins at conception, then why should the circumstances of the conception influence the decision? Should we deny the right to life for a fetus based on those curcumstances? Where's the justice in that? The fetus is terminated due to events beyond it's control?
> 
> I understand the injustice of rape or incest, no question the victim already has to deal with a great deal of pain without an unwanted pregnancy as a reminder. But is that worse than terminating a life, even if an unborn one? Not an easy decision.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats for the individual to determine, not society; its a question best left to theologians, ethicists, and philosophers  the individual then decides which answer best comports with his personal belief, free of interference from the state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it oughta be a local or state decision for now, rather than a federal law or using federal funds. But thast's just me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its not appropriate for any jurisdiction  Federal, state, local  to decide; as any such measure would be un-Constitutional, such as the law struck down in Oklahoma earlier this year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole OP is a none issue.
> 
> 
> There is no ....need.... for any justification.... to anyone at all for having an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. One is not compelled to justify the exercising of a fundamental right, in this case the right to privacy.
Click to expand...


Does the right to life trump the right to privacy?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

syrenn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> they hate that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I don't. I see it as irrelevant because we are discussing what should be, not what is. I am sure there were plenty of people that used Dred Scott as justification for slavery, that did not make it right, did it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What should be for you and what should be for others..... may be different. What is and is not allowed under the law is binding to all.
Click to expand...


We both know that is not true.


----------



## NYcarbineer

At the very minimum, even if for sake of argument you set aside the issue of the right of a woman to have an abortion,

she certainly has the right NOT TO BE FORCIBLY IMPREGNATED.  

When such a violation of that right occurs, it is the duty of the law in the interests of justice to provide the best  remedy that it can,

and the most appropriate and just remedy in that case is to allow the woman the option to have an abortion.

There is no course of action - in that circumstance - more just than that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

syrenn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. The OP argues the constitution...and yet Roe v. Wade is protected by the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not argue the constitution, I pointed out that the constitution actually proves we have a right to life. That right does not come from the constitution anymore than my ability to type does. The constitution does not protect Roe anymore than it protects slavery, the court used the constitution, and some seriously dubious logic, to justify abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You quoted the Constitution to support your opinion. I used the Constitution to support mine.
> 
> 
> Stalemate. The rest is only opinion.
Click to expand...


You did not quote the constitution, you cited a Supreme Court decision.


----------



## syrenn

Quantum Windbag said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, the law doesn't worry about right and wrong, it just worries about rationalization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ask about the law and the constitution. I gave it to you. The rest of your argument is personal opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not ask about anything, I used the premise that the purpose of government is to protect rights to argue that it should not be allowing abortions.
Click to expand...


Agreed. 

C section out all the cells and give them as many rights as you want.


----------



## NYcarbineer

HUGGY said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Edited*
Click to expand...

*Hey there!  This is the Clean Debate Zone.  If you can't say something in a civil manner, go let off a little steam in the Flame Zone.*


----------



## syrenn

Quantum Windbag said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not argue the constitution, I pointed out that the constitution actually proves we have a right to life. That right does not come from the constitution anymore than my ability to type does. The constitution does not protect Roe anymore than it protects slavery, the court used the constitution, and some seriously dubious logic, to justify abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You quoted the Constitution to support your opinion. I used the Constitution to support mine.
> 
> 
> Stalemate. The rest is only opinion.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did not quote the constitution, you cited a Supreme Court decision.
Click to expand...



True..... but you still cant get around the law of the land.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not argue the constitution, I pointed out that the constitution actually proves we have a right to life. That right does not come from the constitution anymore than my ability to type does. The constitution does not protect Roe anymore than it protects slavery, the court used the constitution, and some seriously dubious logic, to justify abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You quoted the Constitution to support your opinion. I used the Constitution to support mine.
> 
> 
> Stalemate. The rest is only opinion.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did not quote the constitution, you cited a Supreme Court decision.
Click to expand...


A Supreme Court decision is Constitutional law, and as such is part of the Constitution.


----------



## syrenn

Quantum Windbag said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I don't. I see it as irrelevant because we are discussing what should be, not what is. I am sure there were plenty of people that used Dred Scott as justification for slavery, that did not make it right, did it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What should be for you and what should be for others..... may be different. What is and is not allowed under the law is binding to all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We both know that is not true.
Click to expand...



Alright... say i was raped and wanted an abortion....  are you going to stop me?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

jillian said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> and some of us wouldn't be alive but for reproductive choice.
> 
> and some of us wouldn't have had very wanted children via in vitro or other means if the radical right's 'personhood' laws were in effect.
> 
> for the upteenth time... no one is wise enough to make moral choices for others. so those choices should be left between the woman and her doctor.
> 
> we are not idiots who can't make decisions but for the dictates of a bunch of religious extremists who think they're more moral than the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion helps people get born? How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the people who are anti-choice are opposed to in vitro.... they call the frozen embryos 'snowflake babies'... as such, in vitro would be illegal under your personhood laws.
Click to expand...


That's funny.

I oppose abortion, I don't oppose in vitro fertilization. Want to try that one again?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not argue the constitution, I pointed out that the constitution actually proves we have a right to life. That right does not come from the constitution anymore than my ability to type does. The constitution does not protect Roe anymore than it protects slavery, the court used the constitution, and some seriously dubious logic, to justify abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You quoted the Constitution to support your opinion. I used the Constitution to support mine.
> 
> 
> Stalemate. The rest is only opinion.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did not quote the constitution, you cited a Supreme Court decision.
Click to expand...


The Constitution is nothing more or less than what the Supreme Court decides it is, in the event a constitutional issue is put before the Court.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Constitutional law has established that the fetus is not a person, any references to a person in the Constitution do not apply to fetuses.
Click to expand...


Constitutional law once established that a man was not free simply because he lived in a place where slavery is illegal. You are going to have to do better in your defense of abortion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> At the very minimum, even if for sake of argument you set aside the issue of the right of a woman to have an abortion,
> 
> she certainly has the right NOT TO BE FORCIBLY IMPREGNATED.
> 
> When such a violation of that right occurs, it is the duty of the law in the interests of justice to provide the best  remedy that it can,
> 
> and the most appropriate and just remedy in that case is to allow the woman the option to have an abortion.
> 
> There is no course of action - in that circumstance - more just than that.



Does a woman have a right not to be raped?

Yes.

Does a woman have a right to kill her rapist?

No.

Is killing ever a remedy for anything?

No.

I suggest you try again.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Edit*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Edit*
Click to expand...


Nope, that is not me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You quoted the Constitution to support your opinion. I used the Constitution to support mine.
> 
> 
> Stalemate. The rest is only opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did not quote the constitution, you cited a Supreme Court decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Supreme Court decision is Constitutional law, and as such is part of the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Why do people keep spouting such ignorance? Constitutional law is not part of the constitution.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

syrenn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What should be for you and what should be for others..... may be different. What is and is not allowed under the law is binding to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We both know that is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Alright... say i was raped and wanted an abortion....  are you going to stop me?
Click to expand...


Nope.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You quoted the Constitution to support your opinion. I used the Constitution to support mine.
> 
> 
> Stalemate. The rest is only opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did not quote the constitution, you cited a Supreme Court decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is nothing more or less than what the Supreme Court decides it is, in the event a constitutional issue is put before the Court.
Click to expand...


Wrong again.


----------



## Vidi

Quantum Windbag said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the debate zone, not the random reply zone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not a random reply. The fact that you think the two are unrelated however speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are unrelated.
> 
> By the way, did you know that the entitlement system you support depends on population growth that has been decimated by abortion?
Click to expand...


They are very related. 

You stated:



Quantum Windbag said:


> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.



A right to life extends to everyone, as you said, that MUST logically include the born as well as the unborn, or you cant use the phrase "We ALL".

So if WE ALL have a right to life as you stated, then as a lack of access to health care equals death, then you must logically support universal health care for all. And if you believe, as you stated, that its written into the Constitution, it is therefore a right provided for by government, its a civil right and one that must be protected by the government.

If you do not, then you do not believe that we all have a right to life and your entire argument is false.


----------



## courseofhistory

Vidi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not a random reply. The fact that you think the two are unrelated however speaks volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are unrelated.
> 
> By the way, did you know that the entitlement system you support depends on population growth that has been decimated by abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are very related.
> 
> You stated:
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A right to life extends to everyone, as you said, that MUST logically include the born as well as the unborn, or you cant use the phrase "We ALL".
> 
> So if WE ALL have a right to life as you stated, then as a lack of access to health care equals death, then you must logically support universal health care for all. And if you believe, as you stated, that its written into the Constitution, it is therefore a right provided for by government, its a civil right and one that must be protected by the government.
> 
> If you do not, then you do not believe that we all have a right to life and your entire argument is false.
Click to expand...


Oh, don't be so logical and sensible!  Everyone has a right to life but to hell with you after you're born! /sarcasm off.

*Swing State Polls as of 8/22/12*​ 
Florida              Obama  49         Romney    46
Ohio                            50                        44
Virginia                         50                        45
Colorado                       49                        46
Nevada                        49                        45
Wisconsin                      50                        45
MI                               44                        47
PA                               48                        42​


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Vidi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not a random reply. The fact that you think the two are unrelated however speaks volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are unrelated.
> 
> By the way, did you know that the entitlement system you support depends on population growth that has been decimated by abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are very related.
> 
> You stated:
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A right to life extends to everyone, as you said, that MUST logically include the born as well as the unborn, or you cant use the phrase "We ALL".
> 
> So if WE ALL have a right to life as you stated, then as a lack of access to health care equals death, then you must logically support universal health care for all. And if you believe, as you stated, that its written into the Constitution, it is therefore a right provided for by government, its a civil right and one that must be protected by the government.
> 
> If you do not, then you do not believe that we all have a right to life and your entire argument is false.
Click to expand...


A right to life does not imply a right to health care because health care is a service.


----------



## Amelia

Vidi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> A person does not exist till birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A statement of belief, not fact.
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Age is measured from birth not conception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here, that is true.  It is not necessarily true everywhere.  But, regardless, it is totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sperm, eggs and embryos can all be frozen, then thawed and still viable to continue on into life. Once birth has occurred, we cannot freeze a breathing person and bring them back.
> 
> Is it a lack of technology or could it be that we cannot freeze and then thaw "life"?
Click to expand...





Yikes.  Picture that.  A little soul frozen for hundreds or thousands or millions of years.  Trapped.  Not really living but unable to die.  Unable to pass to the next life.  

... if the embryo is a actually already a person and already has a soul


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Amelia said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> A statement of belief, not fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Here, that is true.  It is not necessarily true everywhere.  But, regardless, it is totally irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sperm, eggs and embryos can all be frozen, then thawed and still viable to continue on into life. Once birth has occurred, we cannot freeze a breathing person and bring them back.
> 
> Is it a lack of technology or could it be that we cannot freeze and then thaw "life"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes.  Picture that.  A little soul frozen for hundreds or thousands or millions of years.  Trapped.  Not really living but unable to die.  Unable to pass to the next life.
> 
> ... if the embryo is a actually already a person and already has a soul
Click to expand...


People do not have souls, people are souls.


----------



## Dr Grump

Quantum Windbag said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sperm, eggs and embryos can all be frozen, then thawed and still viable to continue on into life. Once birth has occurred, we cannot freeze a breathing person and bring them back.
> 
> Is it a lack of technology or could it be that we cannot freeze and then thaw "life"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes.  Picture that.  A little soul frozen for hundreds or thousands or millions of years.  Trapped.  Not really living but unable to die.  Unable to pass to the next life.
> 
> ... if the embryo is a actually already a person and already has a soul
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People do not have souls, people are souls.
Click to expand...


Prove it...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes.  Picture that.  A little soul frozen for hundreds or thousands or millions of years.  Trapped.  Not really living but unable to die.  Unable to pass to the next life.
> 
> ... if the embryo is a actually already a person and already has a soul
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People do not have souls, people are souls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it...
Click to expand...


Do you honestly think I can't?



			
				Gensis 2:7 KJV said:
			
		

> And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.



The word translated as soul in this verse is nephesh, which means breathing creature. I am sure you are willing to admit that people are living, and breathing, creatures. That makes people souls. 

If you are honest you will rep me for this one since I just used the Bible to prove something science agrees with.


----------



## oldernwiser

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> People do not have souls, people are souls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you honestly think I can't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gensis 2:7 KJV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word translated as soul in this verse is nephesh, which means breathing creature. I am sure you are willing to admit that people are living, and breathing, creatures. That makes people souls.
> 
> If you are honest you will rep me for this one since I just used the Bible to prove something science agrees with.
Click to expand...


Almost... science contends that we evolved from primordial ooze, but science is a little less than convinced about who did the first breathing and a LOT less convinced about the existence of a soul.

edit:
I need to cut the late night sessions here. 
Since I can't remove the comment, let me say that I saw your point just as I pressed the send button.


----------



## Dr Grump

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> People do not have souls, people are souls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you honestly think I can't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gensis 2:7 KJV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word translated as soul in this verse is nephesh, which means breathing creature. I am sure you are willing to admit that people are living, and breathing, creatures. That makes people souls.
> 
> If you are honest you will rep me for this one since I just used the Bible to prove something science agrees with.
Click to expand...


Your opinion doesn't translate into facts. Nor does your faith...


----------



## The Rabbi

JFK_USA said:


> So a women should be forced to remember the worst thing that happen to her for the rest of her life? That is so barbaric and ridiculous and it tells women that only men know what they should do with their own body.



If that were the case maybe she could kill her ex-husband too.


----------



## The Rabbi

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> People do not have souls, people are souls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you honestly think I can't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gensis 2:7 KJV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word translated as soul in this verse is nephesh, which means breathing creature. I am sure you are willing to admit that people are living, and breathing, creatures. That makes people souls.
> 
> If you are honest you will rep me for this one since I just used the Bible to prove something science agrees with.
Click to expand...


Hebrew has several words for soul.  The Torah often uses the word "nefesh" to designate person, by metonymy.


----------



## Noomi

Quantum Windbag said:


> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
Click to expand...


Your argument fails in the first two words - a person. A fetus is not a person.


----------



## The Rabbi

Noomi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument fails in the first two words - a person. A fetus is not a person.
Click to expand...


Of course it is.  If it isnt a person, what is it?


----------



## Noomi

The Rabbi said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument fails in the first two words - a person. A fetus is not a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is.  If it isnt a person, what is it?
Click to expand...


A human fetus. I don't make the law, I am telling you what the law says. If a fetus is a person under your laws, then why is abortion legal?


----------



## Ravi

Quantum Windbag said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are unrelated.
> 
> By the way, did you know that the entitlement system you support depends on population growth that has been decimated by abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are very related.
> 
> You stated:
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A right to life extends to everyone, as you said, that MUST logically include the born as well as the unborn, or you cant use the phrase "We ALL".
> 
> So if WE ALL have a right to life as you stated, then as a lack of access to health care equals death, then you must logically support universal health care for all. And if you believe, as you stated, that its written into the Constitution, it is therefore a right provided for by government, its a civil right and one that must be protected by the government.
> 
> If you do not, then you do not believe that we all have a right to life and your entire argument is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A right to life does not imply a right to health care because health care is a service.
Click to expand...

So is incubation.


----------



## The Rabbi

Noomi said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument fails in the first two words - a person. A fetus is not a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.  If it isnt a person, what is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A human fetus. I don't make the law, I am telling you what the law says. If a fetus is a person under your laws, then why is abortion legal?
Click to expand...


If a fetus is not a human then why is someone who causes the fetus to abort considered a murderer?  The only exception is someone performing an abortion with the mother's consent.
Again if it isnt a person, what is it?


----------



## Noomi

The Rabbi said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.  If it isnt a person, what is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A human fetus. I don't make the law, I am telling you what the law says. If a fetus is a person under your laws, then why is abortion legal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a fetus is not a human then why is someone who causes the fetus to abort considered a murderer?  The only exception is someone performing an abortion with the mother's consent.
> Again if it isnt a person, what is it?
Click to expand...


Someone who causes a fetus to abort is not a murderer. Abortion is legal.

Again, it is a human fetus. Not a person, according to the law. Because if it was, you would have to drag every woman who suffered a miscarriage through the ordeal of an exam to ensure she didn't abort...although I am sure the cons would practically get an erection at the thought of that.


----------



## Greenbeard

Quantum Windbag said:


> I did not argue the constitution, I pointed out that the constitution actually proves we have a right to life.



The Constitution protects a _person_ (which a fetus is not) from being executed by the state without due process. It says nothing about personal medical decisions made by a private citizen seeking services from a private medical provider.


----------



## jillian

Quantum Windbag said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not argue the constitution, I pointed out that the constitution actually proves we have a right to life. That right does not come from the constitution anymore than my ability to type does. The constitution does not protect Roe anymore than it protects slavery, the court used the constitution, and some seriously dubious logic, to justify abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You quoted the Constitution to support your opinion. I used the Constitution to support mine.
> 
> 
> Stalemate. The rest is only opinion.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did not quote the constitution, you cited a Supreme Court decision.
Click to expand...


and that decision is binding law as much as the document is....


----------



## jillian

Quantum Windbag said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. This is why many pro lifers speak up.
> 
> I was once an embryo, so was my son, you, jillian and everyone here that is speaking out, their voices are being heard.
> 
> While some may not have had great mothers, great lives, at least they were given a chance at life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and some of us wouldn't be alive but for reproductive choice.
> 
> and some of us wouldn't have had very wanted children via in vitro or other means if the radical right's 'personhood' laws were in effect.
> 
> for the upteenth time... no one is wise enough to make moral choices for others. so those choices should be left between the woman and her doctor.
> 
> we are not idiots who can't make decisions but for the dictates of a bunch of religious extremists who think they're more moral than the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion helps people get born? How?
> 
> By the way, I am not making moral choice for others, I am attempting to prevent people from making immoral choices to kill others.
Click to expand...


i don't think it's immoral. i think it's immoral to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want. i think it's immoral to then say that she's on her own and you don't support any type of daycare, education assistance and job training for her. i think it's immoral to make a woman have a child who might look like the person who raped her. i think it's immoral to let a woman die because you won't terminate a pregnancy that is killing her.


----------



## jillian

Liability said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade.
> 
> A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just imagine what the millions of slaughtered children might have to say about it had their lives and voices not been ripped apart.
Click to expand...


there are no slaughtered children.

when you eat an omelette, are you eating a chicken?

we terminate life all the time. when we eat...when we kill a bug... when we wear leather.... that is all 'life'. the only question is when that life is deserving of protection. i have a picture of my son at 8 cells.... and at 8 weeks... and at 8 months.... when i knew he looked like a boy and i knew he had my jaw.

valuing a potential life over a woman's life is immoral. and my religious beliefs don't dictate such draconian point of view. and i certainly don't want your religion or anyone else's religion dictating my life view.

at some point between 8 cells and 8 months, the government's interest in protecting him outweighed my own. but it wasn't at 8 cells.

when that governmental interest kicks in is the ONLY consideration that should be part of this debate... which is really a religious debate and not a political one. in fact, it has no business being a political debate. and that question was answered by roe v wade.

80% of anti-choice activists are men.

why do you think that is?


----------



## FA_Q2

I have to say that the point in the OP has been somewhat lost.

Rape, in no way shape or form, can justify an abortion.  The idea is silly.  You have a right to life UNLESS you were conceived in such and such manner.  The idea that there are people that want to ban abortion but leave an exemption for rape is asinine on its face.  This, however, has nothing to do with the legality of abortion in any sense of the matter either.

The idea that a woman has an inherent right to abort at any time is asinine as well and it is illegal in many places right now.  There is no one challenging most of those laws because they are fair and reasonable.  The concept that life should get rights at conception (because weather or not you want to admit it, it is SCIENTIFIC FACT that life does begin at conception) is no more crazy than the idea that life does not get any rights till it is born.  There is nothing that is inherently different from a baby at +1 second than there is with a baby at -10 seconds.  There is a line to be drawn and despite all the naysaying that the state does not have a say in this matter, it clearly does.  Not only does it have a say, it exercises that say right now in current law.  

Abortion should not be illegal.  Abortion should not be legal under any and all circumstances either.  There should be fairly clear &#8216;time&#8217; requirements.  The interesting thing is that it certainly seems the VAST majority of people understand this and agree.  I have not really met anyone that actually backs legal, late term abortions as I have not really met anyone that really wants to make abortion illegal.  The unborn should, and do, have some rights.


----------



## The Rabbi

Noomi said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> A human fetus. I don't make the law, I am telling you what the law says. If a fetus is a person under your laws, then why is abortion legal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a fetus is not a human then why is someone who causes the fetus to abort considered a murderer?  The only exception is someone performing an abortion with the mother's consent.
> Again if it isnt a person, what is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone who causes a fetus to abort is not a murderer. Abortion is legal.
> 
> Again, it is a human fetus. Not a person, according to the law. Because if it was, you would have to drag every woman who suffered a miscarriage through the ordeal of an exam to ensure she didn't abort...although I am sure the cons would practically get an erection at the thought of that.
Click to expand...


That is wrong.  If a pregnant woman is crossing the street and I negligently hit her with my car and she loses the baby, I will be charged with manslaughter.


----------



## The Rabbi

jillian said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> and some of us wouldn't be alive but for reproductive choice.
> 
> and some of us wouldn't have had very wanted children via in vitro or other means if the radical right's 'personhood' laws were in effect.
> 
> for the upteenth time... no one is wise enough to make moral choices for others. so those choices should be left between the woman and her doctor.
> 
> we are not idiots who can't make decisions but for the dictates of a bunch of religious extremists who think they're more moral than the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion helps people get born? How?
> 
> By the way, I am not making moral choice for others, I am attempting to prevent people from making immoral choices to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't think it's immoral. i think it's immoral to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want. i think it's immoral to then say that she's on her own and you don't support any type of daycare, education assistance and job training for her. i think it's immoral to make a woman have a child who might look like the person who raped her. i think it's immoral to let a woman die because you won't terminate a pregnancy that is killing her.
Click to expand...


Me Me Me. It's all the Left ever thinks about.


----------



## Liability

syrenn said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basic issue IMHO is when the right to life starts;  do we want to allow the termination of life prior to birth?   10 minutes prior?   10 days?   10 weeks?   At conception?   At what point should our society confer that most basic right:  to life.
> 
> And then there's this - if you decide that the right to life begins at conception, then why should the circumstances of the conception influence the decision?   Should we deny the right to life for a fetus based on those curcumstances?   Where's the justice in that?   The fetus is terminated due to events beyond it's control?
> 
> I understand the injustice of rape or incest, no question the victim already has to deal with a great deal of pain without an unwanted pregnancy as a reminder.   But is that worse than terminating a life, even if an unborn one?   Not an easy decision.
> 
> I think it oughta be a local or state decision for now, rather than a federal law or using federal funds.   But thast's just me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole OP is a none issue.
> 
> 
> There is no ....need.... for any justification.... to anyone at all for having an abortion.
Click to expand...


Wrong.

The requirement for a justification to take a human life ALWAYS exists.


----------



## HUGGY

FA_Q2 said:


> I have to say that the point in the OP has been somewhat lost.
> 
> Rape, in no way shape or form, can justify an abortion.  The idea is silly.  You have a right to life UNLESS you were conceived in such and such manner.  The idea that there are people that want to ban abortion but leave an exemption for rape is asinine on its face.  This, however, has nothing to do with the legality of abortion in any sense of the matter either.
> 
> The idea that a woman has an inherent right to abort at any time is asinine as well and it is illegal in many places right now.  There is no one challenging most of those laws because they are fair and reasonable.  The concept that life should get rights at conception (because weather or not you want to admit it, it is SCIENTIFIC FACT that life does begin at conception) is no more crazy than the idea that life does not get any rights till it is born.  There is nothing that is inherently different from a baby at +1 second than there is with a baby at -10 seconds.  There is a line to be drawn and despite all the naysaying that the state does not have a say in this matter, it clearly does.  Not only does it have a say, it exercises that say right now in current law.
> 
> Abortion should not be illegal.  Abortion should not be legal under any and all circumstances either.  There should be fairly clear time requirements.  The interesting thing is that it certainly seems the VAST majority of people understand this and agree.  I have not really met anyone that actually backs legal, late term abortions as I have not really met anyone that really wants to make abortion illegal.  The unborn should, and do, have some rights.



*I have to say that the point in the OP has been somewhat lost.
*

The only thing "losing" is yours and religions tired old mantra that people like you should have a say in the personal choices women make with their bodies.  You do not have a say thanks to the peoples right to elect representatives that appointed and confirmed a supreme court which upheld a womans right to privacy.  Rape just puts a finer point on it.  We are not going backward to a time when zealots like yourself could stone a woman to death for even THINKING she had the right to choose.  Babies are not dying because of abortion.  Your religion is.  Thank GAAAWWWDDDD!!


----------



## Borillar

The Rabbi said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion helps people get born? How?
> 
> By the way, I am not making moral choice for others, I am attempting to prevent people from making immoral choices to kill others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think it's immoral. i think it's immoral to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want. i think it's immoral to then say that she's on her own and you don't support any type of daycare, education assistance and job training for her. i think it's immoral to make a woman have a child who might look like the person who raped her. i think it's immoral to let a woman die because you won't terminate a pregnancy that is killing her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me Me Me. It's all the Left ever thinks about.
Click to expand...


It is true that the left cares more about individual liberties than the right does. On the other hand, me me me seems to be the only thing the right cares about when it comes to gun control, health care, taxes, and other issues.

Women have privacy rights. It is backed up by the 9th 10th and 14th amendments. You don't like it? Don't get an abortion then.


----------



## The Rabbi

Borillar said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think it's immoral. i think it's immoral to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want. i think it's immoral to then say that she's on her own and you don't support any type of daycare, education assistance and job training for her. i think it's immoral to make a woman have a child who might look like the person who raped her. i think it's immoral to let a woman die because you won't terminate a pregnancy that is killing her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me Me Me. It's all the Left ever thinks about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is true that the left cares more about individual liberties than the right does. On the other hand, me me me seems to be the only thing the right cares about when it comes to gun control, health care, taxes, and other issues.
> 
> Women have privacy rights. It is backed up by the 9th 10th and 14th amendments. You don't like it? Don't get an abortion then.
Click to expand...


Women do not have more rights than men.
If a woman wanted a hysterectomy I would say it's no one's business.  But an abortion ends a human life.  So it isn't just her business anymore.


----------



## Katzndogz

Abortion in the case of rape occupies the same position as a woman who shoots her attacker but misses and hits an innocent bystander.  It's awful, terrible, shouldn't happen, but we understand the motivations.  Legally if a woman did shoot an attacker and hit a bystander, the attacker would be tried for murder.  There is no reason why the same sense of proportion should not be applied to abortion.  Charge the rapist for the murder of the unborn child.  

Very few, rarely is an abortion the result of rape.   Normally abortion is the result of carelessness, thoughtlessness and the same lack of regard for life as drunk driving.  Women get pregnant because they simply don't want to be bothered either taking care of themselves or using protection.   Even using contraception is an imposition on the freedom of women to do what they wish with their bodies.  And they should.  Except they want someone else, anyone else, to experience the consequences of their behavior besides them.


----------



## Ravi

Katzndogz said:


> Abortion in the case of rape occupies the same position as a woman who shoots her attacker but misses and hits an innocent bystander.  It's awful, terrible, shouldn't happen, but we understand the motivations.  Legally if a woman did shoot an attacker and hit a bystander, the attacker would be tried for murder.  There is no reason why the same sense of proportion should not be applied to abortion.  Charge the rapist for the murder of the unborn child.
> 
> Very few, rarely is an abortion the result of rape.   Normally abortion is the result of carelessness, thoughtlessness and the same lack of regard for life as drunk driving.  Women get pregnant because they simply don't want to be bothered either taking care of themselves or using protection.   Even using contraception is an imposition on the freedom of women to do what they wish with their bodies.  And they should.  Except they want someone else, anyone else, to experience the consequences of their behavior besides them.


Right....pregnancy is never the fault of the man.


----------



## Merchant_of_Meh

The Rabbi said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me Me Me. It's all the Left ever thinks about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the left cares more about individual liberties than the right does. On the other hand, me me me seems to be the only thing the right cares about when it comes to gun control, health care, taxes, and other issues.
> 
> Women have privacy rights. It is backed up by the 9th 10th and 14th amendments. You don't like it? Don't get an abortion then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Women do not have more rights than men.
> If a woman wanted a hysterectomy I would say it's no one's business.  But an abortion ends a human life.  So it isn't just her business anymore.
Click to expand...


Disagree. If abortion is not only the raped woman's business and thus solely her choice, then pray tell, who else should be involved in this choice? The rapist? C'mon now. 

Is a single-mother's decision to discipline her child not ust her business anymore either? Lemme guess, the absentee deadbeat dad that has worked himself through half the country should have a say in that too, eh?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> People do not have souls, people are souls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you honestly think I can't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gensis 2:7 KJV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word translated as soul in this verse is nephesh, which means breathing creature. I am sure you are willing to admit that people are living, and breathing, creatures. That makes people souls.
> 
> If you are honest you will rep me for this one since I just used the Bible to prove something science agrees with.
Click to expand...


That is a different usage of the word soul.  You wasted a lot of people's time with that irrelevancy.


----------



## The Rabbi

Ravi said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion in the case of rape occupies the same position as a woman who shoots her attacker but misses and hits an innocent bystander.  It's awful, terrible, shouldn't happen, but we understand the motivations.  Legally if a woman did shoot an attacker and hit a bystander, the attacker would be tried for murder.  There is no reason why the same sense of proportion should not be applied to abortion.  Charge the rapist for the murder of the unborn child.
> 
> Very few, rarely is an abortion the result of rape.   Normally abortion is the result of carelessness, thoughtlessness and the same lack of regard for life as drunk driving.  Women get pregnant because they simply don't want to be bothered either taking care of themselves or using protection.   Even using contraception is an imposition on the freedom of women to do what they wish with their bodies.  And they should.  Except they want someone else, anyone else, to experience the consequences of their behavior besides them.
> 
> 
> 
> Right....pregnancy is never the fault of the man.
Click to expand...


Men generally don't get pregnant.  Usually when someone is an adult this has all been explained.


----------



## The Rabbi

Merchant_of_Meh said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the left cares more about individual liberties than the right does. On the other hand, me me me seems to be the only thing the right cares about when it comes to gun control, health care, taxes, and other issues.
> 
> Women have privacy rights. It is backed up by the 9th 10th and 14th amendments. You don't like it? Don't get an abortion then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Women do not have more rights than men.
> If a woman wanted a hysterectomy I would say it's no one's business.  But an abortion ends a human life.  So it isn't just her business anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagree. If abortion is not only the raped woman's business and thus solely her choice, then pray tell, who else should be involved in this choice? The rapist? C'mon now.
> 
> Is a single-mother's decision to discipline her child not ust her business anymore either? Lemme guess, the absentee deadbeat dad that has worked himself through half the country should have a say in that too, eh?
Click to expand...


If a woman kills someone is it solely a private matter between her and the person she killed?  No.  It is an offense against the state.  Ditto with abortion.  The fetus cannot sue her, cannot ask for a stay from a court.  That's what the state is for.
Disciplining a child seldom results in death or severe bodily harm. When it does the states becomes involved.  Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## JakeStarkey

That is not LDS belief.  Rape, incest, and life of the mother are generally the exceptions that LDS overwhelmingly accept.



Avatar4321 said:


> I don't really understand how one evil justifies another.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are not the woman's conscience and have no say about it.



PixieStix said:


> JFK_USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a women should be forced to remember the worst thing that happen to her for the rest of her life? That is so barbaric and ridiculous and it tells women that only men know what they should do with their own body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or she should feel compelled to kill it because everyone else in her life would like to forget that she was raped? Or she should abort and go through PAS on top of the rape trauma? She is going to remember the rape regardless
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

A fetus is not a child.  You guys don't decide for the woman who has been raped, or forced to have sex with a family member, of is in mortal danger.

You can your opinion but you don't decide anything for anyone.



Avatar4321 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade.
> 
> A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She doesnt have rights over her child's body.
> 
> And no. She doesnt have an absolute right over her body. None of us do. There are alot of things we cant do to our body.
Click to expand...


----------



## The Rabbi

JakeStarkey said:


> A fetus is not a child.  You guys don't decide for the woman who has been raped, or forced to have sex with a family member, of is in mortal danger.
> 
> You can your opinion but you don't decide anything for anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade.
> 
> A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She doesnt have rights over her child's body.
> 
> And no. She doesnt have an absolute right over her body. None of us do. There are alot of things we cant do to our body.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Why not?  We are members of this society.  We have a right to say how we want that society to function.  Murder is repugnant to many people, no matter how young the victim.


----------



## NYcarbineer

If the fetus's right to life is already established and protected by the Constitution,

why the support for a constitutional human life amendment to the Constitution, to do the same?

If you believe the first part of the above, then no amendment is needed.  If you believe the amendment is needed, 

then you're acknowledging that there is no such fetal right to life in the Constitution.

Which is it?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Constitutional law has established that the fetus is not a person, any references to a person in the Constitution do not apply to fetuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Constitutional law once established that a man was not free simply because he lived in a place where slavery is illegal. You are going to have to do better in your defense of abortion.
Click to expand...


Yes, and the Constitution was amended to change that.  You're claiming the fetus is already protected as a person in the Constitution;

you are dead wrong.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the very minimum, even if for sake of argument you set aside the issue of the right of a woman to have an abortion,
> 
> she certainly has the right NOT TO BE FORCIBLY IMPREGNATED.
> 
> When such a violation of that right occurs, it is the duty of the law in the interests of justice to provide the best  remedy that it can,
> 
> and the most appropriate and just remedy in that case is to allow the woman the option to have an abortion.
> 
> There is no course of action - in that circumstance - more just than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does a woman have a right not to be raped?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Does a woman have a right to kill her rapist?
> 
> No.
> 
> Is killing ever a remedy for anything?
> 
> No.
> 
> I suggest you try again.
Click to expand...


Why should I try again, you didnt refute anything I said.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You can have your opinion, but we will beat you senseless in the political arena for your lies.  Rape, incest, danger of health and life.  You and the minority will not change that.  Nor is abortion murder.

Now invading Iraq was murder.  Why do you think the senior Bushies don't travel in western Europe?



The Rabbi said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fetus is not a child.  You guys don't decide for the woman who has been raped, or forced to have sex with a family member, of is in mortal danger.
> 
> You can your opinion but you don't decide anything for anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She doesnt have rights over her child's body.
> 
> And no. She doesnt have an absolute right over her body. None of us do. There are alot of things we cant do to our body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?  We are members of this society.  We have a right to say how we want that society to function.  Murder is repugnant to many people, no matter how young the victim.
Click to expand...


----------



## beagle9

syrenn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade.
> 
> A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.
Click to expand...

And this has been exploited to the inth degree sadly by the devil himself, who has since taken these words, and has since destroyed countless lives with them on a whim, wherefore by way of these women who saw this as a legal president set for them to go forth and destroy life at their free will, and (shockingly late term abortions), then they sadly begun doing so, and worse they began being influenced by the government or by bad doctors who then lined themselves up for this evil and the profits involved to begin taking place afterwards. It has caused the precious lives that had been placed within their wombs, and all because they simply didnot want the life that they had willingly laid down for, and did concieve to ever be born (knowing that one would get pregnant in the process), and so it was that it would be destroyed without intervention of, and this has been a traggic situation that had come to pass in America.

My opinion stands, that I don't agree with a rape victim having to bare the child of her rape perpetrator, but rather that she upon the very night or day of the rape, and within no more than a few hours afterwards, recieve a DNC immediately, as so a child wouldnot develope within her womb at all, especially out of an horrific situation as rape is or could be, and this goes for unwanted incest/rape as well. However if the woman wants to give an unwanted pregnancy a chance to create a baby out of a (highly unlikely she would), horrific situation, then that would be her choice as well.


----------



## Liability

Slightly off topic:

I just have to give some big props to Quantum.  My position is (as I admitted) logically inconsistent.  Quantum's is perfectly consistent.  He and I disagree for that reason, but so what?

He isn't a bitch about it.  He makes a damn fine logical argument and fields what shows up.

Good stuff, Quant.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

oldernwiser said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly think I can't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gensis 2:7 KJV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word translated as soul in this verse is nephesh, which means breathing creature. I am sure you are willing to admit that people are living, and breathing, creatures. That makes people souls.
> 
> If you are honest you will rep me for this one since I just used the Bible to prove something science agrees with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Almost... science contends that we evolved from primordial ooze, but science is a little less than convinced about who did the first breathing and a LOT less convinced about the existence of a soul.
> 
> edit:
> I need to cut the late night sessions here.
> Since I can't remove the comment, let me say that I saw your point just as I pressed the send button.
Click to expand...



Hey, we all make mistakes.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly think I can't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gensis 2:7 KJV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word translated as soul in this verse is nephesh, which means breathing creature. I am sure you are willing to admit that people are living, and breathing, creatures. That makes people souls.
> 
> If you are honest you will rep me for this one since I just used the Bible to prove something science agrees with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't translate into facts. Nor does your faith...
Click to expand...


Are you saying I am wrong that we all breathe? Do you have any evidence to prove we don't?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Noomi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument fails in the first two words - a person. A fetus is not a person.
Click to expand...


You keep saying it, yet we are over 100 posts into this thread and not a single person has provided one bit of evidence to support that position. What does that say about your argument?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Noomi said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument fails in the first two words - a person. A fetus is not a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.  If it isnt a person, what is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A human fetus. I don't make the law, I am telling you what the law says. If a fetus is a person under your laws, then why is abortion legal?
Click to expand...


The law says a corporation is a person, what's your point?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Greenbeard said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not argue the constitution, I pointed out that the constitution actually proves we have a right to life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution protects a _person_ (which a fetus is not) from being executed by the state without due process. It says nothing about personal medical decisions made by a private citizen seeking services from a private medical provider.
Click to expand...


What evidence do you have to support your argument?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

jillian said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You quoted the Constitution to support your opinion. I used the Constitution to support mine.
> 
> 
> Stalemate. The rest is only opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did not quote the constitution, you cited a Supreme Court decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and that decision is binding law as much as the document is....
Click to expand...


Feel free to point out where I said it is not binding. Until you can, please actually stick to the points I am making in rebutting my arguments, that is what the CDZ, which you wanted, is supposed to be about.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

jillian said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> and some of us wouldn't be alive but for reproductive choice.
> 
> and some of us wouldn't have had very wanted children via in vitro or other means if the radical right's 'personhood' laws were in effect.
> 
> for the upteenth time... no one is wise enough to make moral choices for others. so those choices should be left between the woman and her doctor.
> 
> we are not idiots who can't make decisions but for the dictates of a bunch of religious extremists who think they're more moral than the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion helps people get born? How?
> 
> By the way, I am not making moral choice for others, I am attempting to prevent people from making immoral choices to kill others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't think it's immoral. i think it's immoral to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want. i think it's immoral to then say that she's on her own and you don't support any type of daycare, education assistance and job training for her. i think it's immoral to make a woman have a child who might look like the person who raped her. i think it's immoral to let a woman die because you won't terminate a pregnancy that is killing her.
Click to expand...


You think killing is moral, and giving birth is immoral. Gotta say, I haven't hear that argument before.

Not. 

If abortion is a moral issue the arguments are all on the side of people who against it unless you are arguing that it is immoral to have to large a population on this planet. Since you also reject the premise that government can tell women not to have children, you don't have a consistent enough position to attempt to argue morality and abortion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> A fetus is not a child.  You guys don't decide for the woman who has been raped, or forced to have sex with a family member, of is in mortal danger.
> 
> You can your opinion but you don't decide anything for anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade.
> 
> A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She doesnt have rights over her child's body.
> 
> And no. She doesnt have an absolute right over her body. None of us do. There are alot of things we cant do to our body.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You don't mind the government deciding what the women does with her body when we are discussing illegal drugs, what's the difference?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> If the fetus's right to life is already established and protected by the Constitution,
> 
> why the support for a constitutional human life amendment to the Constitution, to do the same?
> 
> If you believe the first part of the above, then no amendment is needed.  If you believe the amendment is needed,
> 
> then you're acknowledging that there is no such fetal right to life in the Constitution.
> 
> Which is it?



If the right to liberty is already established by the constitution why did we need an amendment making the point that it couldn't be denied?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Constitutional law has established that the fetus is not a person, any references to a person in the Constitution do not apply to fetuses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutional law once established that a man was not free simply because he lived in a place where slavery is illegal. You are going to have to do better in your defense of abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and the Constitution was amended to change that.  You're claiming the fetus is already protected as a person in the Constitution;
> 
> you are dead wrong.
Click to expand...


The very same amendment I cited to prove that the constitution protects life already says that freedom is protected. Maybe the real problem here is that judges can't read.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Liability said:


> Slightly off topic:
> 
> I just have to give some big props to Quantum.  My position is (as I admitted) logically inconsistent.  Quantum's is perfectly consistent.  He and I disagree for that reason, but so what?
> 
> He isn't a bitch about it.  He makes a damn fine logical argument and fields what shows up.
> 
> Good stuff, Quant.



Thanks.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Doesn't have to because it is the truth.

Why do you think Ryan and Akin co-sponsored the evil person hood legislation.

Having read almost twelve of your posts, all you offer is your opinion, which is fine, but not evidence and not probative.

The law is the law, and you have to provide a case.

You haven't.



Quantum Windbag said:


> You keep saying [a fetus is not a person], yet we are over 100 posts into this thread and not a single person has provided one bit of evidence to support that position.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> Doesn't have to because it is the truth.
> 
> Why do you think Ryan and Akin co-sponsored the evil person hood legislation.
> 
> Having read almost twelve of your posts, all you offer is your opinion, which is fine, but not evidence and not probative.
> 
> The law is the law, and you have to provide a case.
> 
> You haven't.
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying [a fetus is not a person], yet we are over 100 posts into this thread and not a single person has provided one bit of evidence to support that position.
Click to expand...


The same reason we fought a war over slavery, some judges prefer making stuff up to actually reading what the Constitution of the United States says.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are merely sputtering and muttering.  Stop the stuttering.  Give us a solid case of evidence for your point of view, because your opinion means nothing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> You are merely sputtering and muttering.  Stop the stuttering.  Give us a solid case of evidence for your point of view, because your opinion means nothing.



Unlike every single person who entered this thread to contradict me, I actually made a case.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You have made no case.

You disagree with abortion over all, understood.

Who cares?


----------



## Noomi

Quantum Windbag said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument fails in the first two words - a person. A fetus is not a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying it, yet we are over 100 posts into this thread and not a single person has provided one bit of evidence to support that position. What does that say about your argument?
Click to expand...


Have you provided evidence to suggest that a fetus is a person? Or have you just said that since it is human, it then must be a person?

If so, then a corpse in the ground for 100 years must also be a person.


----------



## oldernwiser

Quantum Windbag said:


> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
Click to expand...


With respect, I know from firsthand experience that you can be a bit obtuse. So let me see if I'm tracking you here.

By your citation, I'm going to assume that you're referring to the CHARGE of rape which, if left unindicted, would render the subsequent abortion based on the act an unprotected right. And since a charged rapist is innocent until proven guilty, any attempt by a pregnant woman to abort her fetus would not be something protected by the constitution and further, assumes the guilt of the rapist prior to his trial. 

Did I interpret your meaning correctly?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Noomi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument fails in the first two words - a person. A fetus is not a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying it, yet we are over 100 posts into this thread and not a single person has provided one bit of evidence to support that position. What does that say about your argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you provided evidence to suggest that a fetus is a person? Or have you just said that since it is human, it then must be a person?
> 
> If so, then a corpse in the ground for 100 years must also be a person.
Click to expand...


Funny thing, my argument is that a fetus is alive, not that it is a person. You are the one hung up on the person thing, and even brought up the argument that fetuses are not legally defined as persons. I pointed out that corporations are legal persons and asked you what your point is. I am still waiting for the answer to that.

What makes a pile of bones a person, or even human?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

oldernwiser said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With respect, I know from firsthand experience that you can be a bit obtuse. So let me see if I'm tracking you here.
> 
> By your citation, I'm going to assume that you're referring to the CHARGE of rape which, if left unindicted, would render the subsequent abortion based on the act an unprotected right. And since a charged rapist is innocent until proven guilty, any attempt by a pregnant woman to abort her fetus would not be something protected by the constitution and further, assumes the guilt of the rapist prior to his trial.
> 
> Did I interpret your meaning correctly?
Click to expand...


Nope.


----------



## Noomi

Quantum Windbag said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying it, yet we are over 100 posts into this thread and not a single person has provided one bit of evidence to support that position. What does that say about your argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you provided evidence to suggest that a fetus is a person? Or have you just said that since it is human, it then must be a person?
> 
> If so, then a corpse in the ground for 100 years must also be a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny thing, my argument is that a fetus is alive, not that it is a person. You are the one hung up on the person thing, and even brought up the argument that fetuses are not legally defined as persons. I pointed out that corporations are legal persons and asked you what your point is. I am still waiting for the answer to that.
> 
> What makes a pile of bones a person, or even human?
Click to expand...


So you believe that because it is alive, it deserves more rights than the woman?


----------



## rdean

Quantum Windbag said:


> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
Click to expand...


Ever notice how Republicans want to protect the fetus.  But lose interest shortly after birth.  And never care about the mother.  It's so strange.


----------



## Indofred

Quantum Windbag said:


> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.



You also have to consider the rights of the mother.
She's been violated by some bastard but some would ask her to continue that violation for a minimum of the following 9 months and probably a lot longer.

The woman had no say in her fate and that's easily reason enough for her to have total say in the aftermath.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.



The 5th Amendment mandates due process in the context of a potentially punitive action taken by a jurisdiction pursuant to loss of liberty or life; the 5th Amendment does not apply the due process requirement to private entities, including private citizens. As a private citizen, therefore, a woman is free to seek an abortion for whatever purpose, free from government interference, free from a requirement to justify her actions as a private citizen protected by the right to privacy.


----------



## FA_Q2

HUGGY said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say that the point in the OP has been somewhat lost.
> 
> Rape, in no way shape or form, can justify an abortion.  The idea is silly.  You have a right to life UNLESS you were conceived in such and such manner.  The idea that there are people that want to ban abortion but leave an exemption for rape is asinine on its face.  This, however, has nothing to do with the legality of abortion in any sense of the matter either.
> 
> The idea that a woman has an inherent right to abort at any time is asinine as well and it is illegal in many places right now.  There is no one challenging most of those laws because they are fair and reasonable.  The concept that life should get rights at conception (because weather or not you want to admit it, it is SCIENTIFIC FACT that life does begin at conception) is no more crazy than the idea that life does not get any rights till it is born.  There is nothing that is inherently different from a baby at +1 second than there is with a baby at -10 seconds.  There is a line to be drawn and despite all the naysaying that the state does not have a say in this matter, it clearly does.  Not only does it have a say, it exercises that say right now in current law.
> 
> Abortion should not be illegal.  Abortion should not be legal under any and all circumstances either.  There should be fairly clear time requirements.  The interesting thing is that it certainly seems the VAST majority of people understand this and agree.  I have not really met anyone that actually backs legal, late term abortions as I have not really met anyone that really wants to make abortion illegal.  The unborn should, and do, have some rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I have to say that the point in the OP has been somewhat lost.
> *
> 
> The only thing "losing" is yours and religions tired old mantra that people like you should have a say in the personal choices women make with their bodies.  You do not have a say thanks to the peoples right to elect representatives that appointed and confirmed a supreme court which upheld a womans right to privacy.  Rape just puts a finer point on it.  We are not going backward to a time when zealots like yourself could stone a woman to death for even THINKING she had the right to choose.  Babies are not dying because of abortion.  Your religion is.  Thank GAAAWWWDDDD!!
Click to expand...

Did you even bother to read what I typed?  Did you get to the first sentence and totally go berserk?  I made ZERO reference to any religious position, mostly because I am an atheist.  Nor did I say that I was against a womans right to choose.  I SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT I SUPPORT A WOMANS RIGHT TO CHOOSE.  Further, your position that the state has no say in a womans right to choose is CURRENTLY FALSE or did you miss that part too?  We are in the CDZ, kindly follow the rules and actually respond to the post you are quoting or go somewhere else.  

I am not a zealot as you called me but it seems that you are acting like one.  Stop projecting and address the points I brought up if you actually support overturning laws that currently exist in regulation abortion.


----------



## FA_Q2

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 5th Amendment mandates due process in the context of a potentially punitive action taken by a jurisdiction pursuant to loss of liberty or life; the 5th Amendment does not apply the due process requirement to private entities, including private citizens. As a private citizen, therefore, a woman is free to seek an abortion for whatever purpose, free from government interference, free from a requirement to justify her actions as a private citizen protected by the right to privacy.
Click to expand...


Except that this is false.  There are currently laws on the books that limit abortions after a specific gestation period and they are constitutional.  Roe vs. Wade did NOT say all bans on abortion were illegal.  It did say that there might be lines where such a ban can be imposed and it is up to the sates to create those lines.  Sure, total bans ARE unconstitutional; however bans on late term abortions, so far, are not.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Noomi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you provided evidence to suggest that a fetus is a person? Or have you just said that since it is human, it then must be a person?
> 
> If so, then a corpse in the ground for 100 years must also be a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing, my argument is that a fetus is alive, not that it is a person. You are the one hung up on the person thing, and even brought up the argument that fetuses are not legally defined as persons. I pointed out that corporations are legal persons and asked you what your point is. I am still waiting for the answer to that.
> 
> What makes a pile of bones a person, or even human?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe that because it is alive, it deserves more rights than the woman?
Click to expand...


No, I believe that a child has the exact same right to live as I, or anyone else, does. I do not think my right to privacy trumps your right to life. 

I know, that makes me weird, but I can live with it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever notice how Republicans want to protect the fetus.  But lose interest shortly after birth.  And never care about the mother.  It's so strange.
Click to expand...


Ever notice how I am not a Republican?

Didn't think so.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Indofred said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also have to consider the rights of the mother.
> She's been violated by some bastard but some would ask her to continue that violation for a minimum of the following 9 months and probably a lot longer.
> 
> The woman had no say in her fate and that's easily reason enough for her to have total say in the aftermath.
Click to expand...


OK, lets consider the rights of the mother. Which right does a mother have that trumps the right of anyone else to live?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> The 5th Amendment mandates due process in the context of a potentially punitive action taken by a jurisdiction pursuant to loss of liberty or life; the 5th Amendment does not apply the due process requirement to private entities, including private citizens. As a private citizen, therefore, a woman is free to seek an abortion for whatever purpose, free from government interference, free from a requirement to justify her actions as a private citizen protected by the right to privacy.
Click to expand...


I did not quote the 5th Amendment because it applies to abortions, I quoted it to cut off the idiots who think rights come from a piece of paper. The constitution specifically recognizes the right to life.


----------



## Cowman

Greenbeard said:


> An embryo or a fetus is not a person.



Just what I was going to say. That's all that needs to be said.


----------



## OODA_Loop

beagle9 said:


> My opinion stands, that I don't agree with a rape victim having to bare the child of her rape perpetrator, but rather that she upon the very night or day of the rape, and within no more than a few hours afterwards, recieve a DNC immediately, as so a child wouldnot develope within her womb at all, especially out of an horrific situation as rape is or could be, and this goes for unwanted incest/rape as well. However if the woman wants to give an unwanted pregnancy a chance to create a baby out of a (highly unlikely she would), horrific situation, then that would be her choice as well.



Wait wut ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Constitution does not recognize the right to life of a fetus.


----------



## Katzndogz

Likely because children were considered such a benefit that only the insane would murder them.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Fetuses are not children.

Abortion is not sanity.

Your opinion certainly does not make abortion murder.

katz, words have meaning.  Please use them correctly.


----------



## Katzndogz

When the Constitution was written children were so necessary that convenience abortions were few, very far between and the women considered insane and confined.  Confined, as in confinement.  Or are you unfamiliar with the term confinement and how it was used in the 18th century?

Fetuses are not children, but that is a modern concept.   In the 18th century a man that deliberately caused a miscarriage was hanged just as if he killed a four year old.   No doctor would perform an abortion, that took a woman who lived in the forest and gathered up roots, berries, plants and animals to use to make poisons.  You know, a witch.  If caught, the poisoner was executed, just as we execute poisoners today.  

If you believe that the reason protection of the fetus isn't in the Constitution is because the people of the time intended to preserve the right to murder one's offspring you can't help but be wrong.   Likely it was because they couldn't imagine someone who wanted to murder their offspring.  

If a man rapes a pregnant woman who wanted to have the baby and causes her to lose that baby has he not committed a crime?  What's the crime?  The crime is murder.  How could this man be charged with the attempted murder of an unborn child?

Man Beats Pregnant Ex-Girlfriend Trying To Kill The Baby | Women's Self Defense Federation

How was this man charged in the murder of an unborn child?

Alleged impaired driver charged in crash that killed woman's unborn baby | abc13.com

Should we have one set of laws for one and another for someone else?    If the drunk driver who killed the fetus proved that the woman was on her way to have an abortion is he still guilty of murder?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where is the proof that abortions "were few" before and after 1800.

Give us the law in England and the USA that those who caused miscarriages were hanged.

"Murder" as you use it is only your opinion, not a term in law for the events that we are discussing.

"Murder" for causing an abortion has to be created by statute and requires criminal action, such as beating a pregnant woman.  Having a legal abortion is thus not murder.

I suggest very firmly that you study much more before commenting again.


----------



## HUGGY

Katzndogz said:


> *When the Constitution was written children were so necessary that convenience abortions were few*, very far between and the women considered insane and confined.  Confined, as in confinement.  Or are you unfamiliar with the term confinement and how it was used in the 18th century?
> 
> Fetuses are not children, but that is a modern concept.   In the 18th century a man that deliberately caused a miscarriage was hanged just as if he killed a four year old.   No doctor would perform an abortion, that took a woman who lived in the forest and gathered up roots, berries, plants and animals to use to make poisons.  You know, a witch.  If caught, the poisoner was executed, just as we execute poisoners today.
> 
> If you believe that the reason protection of the fetus isn't in the Constitution is because the people of the time intended to preserve the right to murder one's offspring you can't help but be wrong.   Likely it was because they couldn't imagine someone who wanted to murder their offspring.
> 
> If a man rapes a pregnant woman who wanted to have the baby and causes her to lose that baby has he not committed a crime?  What's the crime?  The crime is murder.  How could this man be charged with the attempted murder of an unborn child?
> 
> Man Beats Pregnant Ex-Girlfriend Trying To Kill The Baby | Women's Self Defense Federation
> 
> How was this man charged in the murder of an unborn child?
> 
> Alleged impaired driver charged in crash that killed woman's unborn baby | abc13.com
> 
> Should we have one set of laws for one and another for someone else?    If the drunk driver who killed the fetus proved that the woman was on her way to have an abortion is he still guilty of murder?



*When the Constitution was written children were so necessary that convenience abortions were few*

When the constitution was written women couldn't vote.  They were essentially the property of men.  Unfortunately some men have never gotten the memo.


----------



## squeeze berry

courseofhistory said:


> Does one evil justify another?  I don't consider abortion evil but what if the child is born because abortions are illegal thanks to republicans?  Does the evil of not providing for the child with free health care and other welfare justify forcing a woman to carry to full term?  Republicans want to cut this type assistance and none that I know of take any responsibility for the child after birth.  Remember a woman who is raped did not choose to have a child and her circumstances may not allow it financially, emotionally, etc.  So the option or choice is *always* hers.  She is not an inhuman incubator!
> 
> *Swing State Polls as of 8/22/12*​
> Florida              Obama  49         Romney    46
> Ohio                            50                        44
> Virginia                         50                        45
> Colorado                       49                        46
> Nevada                        49                        45
> Wisconsin                      50                        45
> MI                               44                        47
> PA                               48                        42​



when do I get my free healthcare?


----------



## Katzndogz

JakeStarkey said:


> Where is the proof that abortions "were few" before and after 1800.
> 
> Give us the law in England and the USA that those who caused miscarriages were hanged.
> 
> "Murder" as you use it is only your opinion, not a term in law for the events that we are discussing.
> 
> "Murder" for causing an abortion has to be created by statute and requires criminal action, such as beating a pregnant woman.  Having a legal abortion is thus not murder.
> 
> I suggest very firmly that you study much more before commenting again.



Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion History

Prior to the 1800's, most states practiced some variation of English Common Law which generally lacked explicit codification. Add to this the fact that solid statistics about abortion and/or unwed pregnancy simply do not exist for the time period, and you begin to see why it is so difficult to compile an accurate history of abortion in early America. Individual accounts, from journals, periodicals or court records, are all we can rely on for acquiring the anecdotal evidence necessary to make some conclusions.

The first known conviction for the "intention to abort" was handed down in Maryland in the year 1652.1 Four years later, also in Maryland, a woman was arrested for murder after procuring an abortion, but the case was thrown out when she married the only witness, who then refused to testify.2 A 1710 Virginia law made it a capital crime to conceal a pregnancy and then be found with a dead baby.3 Likewise, a 1719 Delaware law made anyone who counseled abortion or infanticide an accessory to murder.4 Olasky notes that at this point in history, "infanticide was probably the most frequent way of killing unwanted, illegitimate children."5 "Abortifacients were known and used in early America," but since using them "was like playing Russian roulette with three bullets in the chambers."6

While individual state laws were varied and didn't always have specific legislation for abortion and/or infanticide, those that did all shared a common problem. It was almost impossible to produce the evidence necessary to convict. Pregnancy was hard to confirm, there was almost never a corpse or witness, and there was always a great deal of jury sympathy for desperate and abandoned women. Nevertheless, there were plenty of non-legislative factors working against the widespread use of abortion and infanticide. One of the chief of these factors was the existing social pressure that expected a man to "act honorably" and propose marriage if he impregnated a woman out of wedlock. "In one Massachusetts county during the 1760's, over 80 percent of non-maritally conceived births were legitimated by the marriage of their parents, and counties in other colonies had similar records... Where fathers resolutely refused marriage, courts in Virginia and other colonies ordered payment. Thus economic desperation was unlikely to drive most unmarried, pregnant women to infanticide or abortion.

The scientific community, from the 1600's all the way through to the 1800's, believed that babies actually existed before conception, in either the sperm or the egg. Such thinking, faulty though it was, was another anti-abortion influence. Finally, the very difficulty of confirming pregnancy before quickening, made early abortions almost impossible, and late term abortions ruined marriage prospects and were extremely dangerous. "With physical, social, theological and 'scientific' reasons all making abortion unacceptable, only those in extreme duress or with contempt for existing standards would resort to it."


----------



## Katzndogz

squeeze berry said:


> courseofhistory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does one evil justify another?  I don't consider abortion evil but what if the child is born because abortions are illegal thanks to republicans?  Does the evil of not providing for the child with free health care and other welfare justify forcing a woman to carry to full term?  Republicans want to cut this type assistance and none that I know of take any responsibility for the child after birth.  Remember a woman who is raped did not choose to have a child and her circumstances may not allow it financially, emotionally, etc.  So the option or choice is *always* hers.  She is not an inhuman incubator!
> 
> *Swing State Polls as of 8/22/12*​
> Florida              Obama  49         Romney    46
> Ohio                            50                        44
> Virginia                         50                        45
> Colorado                       49                        46
> Nevada                        49                        45
> Wisconsin                      50                        45
> MI                               44                        47
> PA                               48                        42​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when do I get my free healthcare?
Click to expand...


What responsibility does anyone have to the children of someone else?   None that I can think of.  If the mothers do not want that responsibilty it's easy to do.  Just give the child up for adoption.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Katzndogz gives us some sources and evidence, some of it which seems good.  

However, opinionated statements from an anti-aborition homer like "On the one hand, abortion has been used with alarming frequency for much of the nation's history. On the other hand, though abortion has long been popular on the fringes of society, it was not until recently that it began to enjoy anything like "mainstream" support" are indeed problematic.  In fact, abortion has always been practiced in American society from bottom to top, so the "mainstream" comment seems unbalanced.

I encourage all to read Katz's source, but to read it carefully with recognition that the site is not objective but rather with an opinionated anti-abortion perspective.


----------



## Katzndogz

Historically abortion has never been a popular choice, until now.   Even when practiced, it was considered repugnant, until now.  

Have times changed people so much that abortion is honored, respected, desired?   We will see because it is all democrats have left.


----------



## Foxfyre

To the 'a fetus is not a person' argument, I would ask those holding that conviction to show me a single soul who was not first a zygote, then an embryo, then a fetus, etc.  Show me how that is not an essential stage of a human life.  And then explain how killing it is not ending a human life.

And don't give me the 'when the fetus is viable' argument.  A human life is not 'viable' and continues to require assistane from more mature human for quite a long time following full term and birth.

Having said that, I am not about to judge a woman who has a terrible decision to make if she becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest.  I will leave that to her, and her moral center to decide and won't second guess her decision.  But that decision can be made early on.

My personal conviction is that the best solution is to go with the eloquent language and intent of Roe v Wade:

First trimester:  the matter is between the woman, her conscience, and her doctor.

Second trimester:  the state now has some interest in the developing baby and reasonable cause must be shown before abortion is legal.

Third trimester:  Except when the life of the mother is in imminent danger, a court order should be necessary for a legal abortion of a live fetus and that should be based on overwhelming evidence that the mother's welfare is in jeopardy or the baby has no chance for quality of life.

Will this continue the practice of aborting tens of thousands of babies out of selfishness or convenience?   Yes.   The only remedy for that is to reteach the principles of sanctity of life and appreciation for that unborn child as a person who deserves a chance to live so that abortion is no longer so socially acceptable as a birth control device.


----------



## Katzndogz

When Roe was passed, I had a conversation about it with a woman whose opinion I respected.  A wise and respected Judge.  While I was for Roe as a reasonable compromise for competing rights she saw it differently  As she said, once it becomes legal to abort a baby before it's born, it will be legal to abort it while it's being born.  Then it will be legal after it's born.  If it is legal to abort their baby, it will be legal to abort yours.  I laughed at her.  That was the silliest thing I ever heard.  But that was before partial birth abortion and post birth abortion.  Before abortion started being a defense to murder.

Her point was we should not be passing laws without looking at where those laws will eventually end up.   It took me years, but I now agree with her.


----------



## Greenbeard

Foxfyre said:


> To the 'a fetus is not a person' argument, I would ask those holding that conviction to show me a single soul who was not first a zygote, then an embryo, then a fetus, etc.  Show me how that is not an essential stage of a human life.  And then explain how killing it is not ending a human life.



It's not an argument, it's a fact. "Personhood" is not a theological question, nor is it a biological question. It's a legal question, a socially-determined point at which legal protections, rights, and privileges are afforded. And legally a fertilized egg is not a person; attempts to change that have failed.



> A constitutional amendment that would have defined a fertilized egg as a person failed on the ballot in Mississippi on Tuesday, dealing the so-called personhood movement another blow.
> 
> The state votes on the "personhood" amendment, which would designate a fertilized egg as a person.
> 
> Mississippi would have become the first state to define a fertilized egg as a person, a measure which was aimed at outlawing abortion in the state but, opponents contended, would have led to all kinds of unintended consequences.
> 
> In the end, those concerns won out in a strongly anti-abortion state. The amendment trailed 59 percent to 41 percent with more than half of precincts reporting. The Associated Press has said it will fail.





> Personhood supporters had tried to pass a similar measure in Colorado in 2008 and 2010, but voters in that state rejected it more than two-to-one both times.


----------



## Luissa

Quantum Windbag said:


> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
Click to expand...


In your opinion it doesn't, let's leave that choice up to the woman who was raped.


----------



## HUGGY

Katzndogz said:


> When Roe was passed, I had a conversation about it with a woman whose opinion I respected.  A wise and respected Judge.  While I was for Roe as a reasonable compromise for competing rights she saw it differently  As she said, once it becomes legal to abort a baby before it's born, it will be legal to abort it while it's being born.  Then it will be legal after it's born.  If it is legal to abort their baby, it will be legal to abort yours.  I laughed at her.  That was the silliest thing I ever heard.  But that was before partial birth abortion and post birth abortion.  Before abortion started being a defense to murder.
> 
> Her point was we should not be passing laws without looking at where those laws will eventually end up.   It took me years, but I now agree with her.



It took me about ten seconds to read your reply and have an instant urge to take two ice picks and jam them in my eyes.  Seriously.  Is that the purpose of this clean zone?  People can come within this bubble and say the most willfully ignorant crap and THAT is supposed to be EQUAL to a responsible debate?

I'm not trying to be difficult or rude but honestly, this forum does not promote reasonable debate.  It is a refuge for insanity with no rebuttle.  I hope in pointing this out that I have in no way offended the tender sensibilities of some of you.


----------



## Luissa

Katzndogz said:


> When Roe was passed, I had a conversation about it with a woman whose opinion I respected.  A wise and respected Judge.  While I was for Roe as a reasonable compromise for competing rights she saw it differently  As she said, once it becomes legal to abort a baby before it's born, it will be legal to abort it while it's being born.  Then it will be legal after it's born.  If it is legal to abort their baby, it will be legal to abort yours.  I laughed at her.  That was the silliest thing I ever heard.  But that was before partial birth abortion and post birth abortion.  Before abortion started being a defense to murder.
> 
> Her point was we should not be passing laws without looking at where those laws will eventually end up.   It took me years, but I now agree with her.



I challenge you to talk to women who live in countries where abortion is illegal. 

No matter what the argument is, it is easy to prove more women die from illegal abortions than legal. And bringing up post birth abortions, is straying from the subject of the debate. But I would like numbers on how much this actually happens.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Opinionated comments without support.

Also note than "fetal homicide" requires an attack on a host mother.  The fetus does not exist independently, either in law or in nature.



Katzndogz said:


> Historically abortion has never been a popular choice, until now.   Even when practiced, it was considered repugnant, until now.
> 
> Have times changed people so much that abortion is honored, respected, desired?   We will see because it is all democrats have left.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Man Beats Pregnant Ex-Girlfriend Trying To Kill The Baby | Women's Self Defense Federation
> 
> How was this man charged in the murder of an unborn child?
> 
> Alleged impaired driver charged in crash that killed woman's unborn baby | abc13.com
> 
> Should we have one set of laws for one and another for someone else? If the drunk driver who killed the fetus proved that the woman was on her way to have an abortion is he still guilty of murder?



Fetal murder laws are not personhood legislation per se. Although such laws are predicated on an alleged crime meant to harm an unborn, this is in reality an attack on actual natural person, the mother. Even where these laws might specify the unborn alone, such an attack will always involve the mother.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Katzndogz said:


> When the Constitution was written children were so necessary that convenience abortions were few, very far between and the women considered insane and confined.  Confined, as in confinement.  Or are you unfamiliar with the term confinement and how it was used in the 18th century?



That is absolutely false.  Just made-up garbage.

In the American colonies in the 18th century, the general Protestant view of abortion was that it was considered allowable up until the time of quickening,


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also have to consider the rights of the mother.
> She's been violated by some bastard but some would ask her to continue that violation for a minimum of the following 9 months and probably a lot longer.
> 
> The woman had no say in her fate and that's easily reason enough for her to have total say in the aftermath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, lets consider the rights of the mother. Which right does a mother have that trumps the right of anyone else to live?
Click to expand...


Until you establish with an argument that actually involves facts and evidence that the fetus is a person with constitutional rights equal to the mother's, which you haven't,

there is no 'anyone else' in the above statement.


----------



## Liability

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also have to consider the rights of the mother.
> She's been violated by some bastard but some would ask her to continue that violation for a minimum of the following 9 months and probably a lot longer.
> 
> The woman had no say in her fate and that's easily reason enough for her to have total say in the aftermath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, lets consider the rights of the mother. Which right does a mother have that trumps the right of anyone else to live?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until you establish with an argument that actually involves facts and evidence that the fetus is a person with constitutional rights equal to the mother's, which you haven't,
> 
> there is no 'anyone else' in the above statement.
Click to expand...


Carbuncle, as always, conveniently ignores the fact that IF we cannot precisely and scientifically (yet) define when human life begins, that also entails (logically) that *we cannot say that it doesn't* begin shortly after conception.   And since we cannot do that (at least not validly) then the argument in favor of protecting the zygote errs on the side (if it errs at all) of caution and life.


----------



## dnsmith35

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your opinion it doesn't, let's leave that choice up to the woman who was raped.
Click to expand...

I doubt anyone wants to limit what a woman does with her body, SO LONG AS THEY DON'T KILL THE INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE WITHIN HER. That said, the USSC reached way out in left field to remove from the states one of the rights granted by the 10th Amendment. State legislatures are closer to their constituents and know better what is good for them than fed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

SCOTUS ended the states from trumping a woman's right to control her life.


----------



## Luissa

dnsmith35 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your opinion it doesn't, let's leave that choice up to the woman who was raped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt anyone wants to limit what a woman does with her body, SO LONG AS THEY DON'T KILL THE INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE WITHIN HER. That said, the USSC reached way out in left field to remove from the states one of the rights granted by the 10th Amendment. State legislatures are closer to their constituents and know better what is good for them than fed.
Click to expand...


And a woman knows what is better for them more than the state.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> The Constitution does not recognize the right to life of a fetus.



The constitution is not meant to recognize the right to life of a specific class of people, it is meant to protect everyone from the government.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Greenbeard said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the 'a fetus is not a person' argument, I would ask those holding that conviction to show me a single soul who was not first a zygote, then an embryo, then a fetus, etc.  Show me how that is not an essential stage of a human life.  And then explain how killing it is not ending a human life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an argument, it's a fact. "Personhood" is not a theological question, nor is it a biological question. It's a legal question, a socially-determined point at which legal protections, rights, and privileges are afforded. And legally a fertilized egg is not a person; attempts to change that have failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A constitutional amendment that would have defined a fertilized egg as a person failed on the ballot in Mississippi on Tuesday, dealing the so-called personhood movement another blow.
> 
> The state votes on the "personhood" amendment, which would designate a fertilized egg as a person.
> 
> Mississippi would have become the first state to define a fertilized egg as a person, a measure which was aimed at outlawing abortion in the state but, opponents contended, would have led to all kinds of unintended consequences.
> 
> In the end, those concerns won out in a strongly anti-abortion state. The amendment trailed 59 percent to 41 percent with more than half of precincts reporting. The Associated Press has said it will fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personhood supporters had tried to pass a similar measure in Colorado in 2008 and 2010, but voters in that state rejected it more than two-to-one both times.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Whether or not you are a person is not a legal question. The legal aspect of person comes from the necessity of applying rights that are inherent in individuals to organizations of people, not from a need to define people as persons. That makes your argument that personhood is not a theological or biological question specious.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your opinion it doesn't, let's leave that choice up to the woman who was raped.
Click to expand...


Do we leave the choice of whether or not to kill the rapist up to the woman? Why not?


----------



## Luissa

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution does not recognize the right to life of a fetus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution is not meant to recognize the right to life of a specific class of people, it is meant to protect everyone from the government.
Click to expand...


Hence Roe V Wade, and the right to privacy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution does not recognize the right to life of a fetus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution is not meant to recognize the right to life of a specific class of people, it is meant to protect everyone from the government.
Click to expand...


Thus SCOTUS recognized the need to protect women from the state.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also have to consider the rights of the mother.
> She's been violated by some bastard but some would ask her to continue that violation for a minimum of the following 9 months and probably a lot longer.
> 
> The woman had no say in her fate and that's easily reason enough for her to have total say in the aftermath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, lets consider the rights of the mother. Which right does a mother have that trumps the right of anyone else to live?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until you establish with an argument that actually involves facts and evidence that the fetus is a person with constitutional rights equal to the mother's, which you haven't,
> 
> there is no 'anyone else' in the above statement.
Click to expand...


There is always someone else involved in an abortion. if there wasn't there would be no argument that hospitals provide abortion services.


----------



## JakeStarkey

We are talking about your silly statement, QWB, not hospitals or hospital services.

SCOTUS has decided this for you.



Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, lets consider the rights of the mother. Which right does a mother have that trumps the right of anyone else to live?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until you establish with an argument that actually involves facts and evidence that the fetus is a person with constitutional rights equal to the mother's, which you haven't,
> 
> there is no 'anyone else' in the above statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is always someone else involved in an abortion. if there wasn't there would be no argument that hospitals provide abortion services.
Click to expand...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> SCOTUS ended the states from trumping a woman's right to control her life.



The strange thing is that they didn't. They never tried to stop the government from telling women, or men, that recreational use of drugs is a criminal act. They don't even prevent the government from interfering between a woman, or a man, and her doctor when it comes to prescribing drugs that they don't like.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution does not recognize the right to life of a fetus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution is not meant to recognize the right to life of a specific class of people, it is meant to protect everyone from the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hence Roe V Wade, and the right to privacy.
Click to expand...


The right to privacy does not trump the right to life. If it did I could kill someone in my house and the government could not come in and find evidence.


----------



## westwall

Quantum Windbag said:


> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
Click to expand...






Here's where I break with conservatives.  The government that states you may not have an abortion has also stated that it can tell you you must have an abortion.  Witness China.

Maximum individual rights requires that abortion be a legal option for the mother.  I find abortion used as birth control to be extremely disgusting, however I would rather have that issue than having government dictate who can and who can't have children.


----------



## Katzndogz

There's no right to privacy in the Constitution.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> We are talking about your silly statement, QWB, not hospitals or hospital services.
> 
> SCOTUS has decided this for you.



Appeals to authority are not a valid argument.

That said, feel free to go back and point out where I said that they didn't. What I have consistently argued is that SCOTUS is fallible, and have provided examples of things they got wrong that we now know were clearly unconstitutional despite the rationalization of the court. 

My original argument is that rape does not justify an abortion and that the government has a positive duty to protect all lives, even the inconvenient ones. Can you tell me what makes that silly?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's where I break with conservatives.  The government that states you may not have an abortion has also stated that it can tell you you must have an abortion.  Witness China.
> 
> Maximum individual rights requires that abortion be a legal option for the mother.  I find abortion used as birth control to be extremely disgusting, however I would rather have that issue than having government dictate who can and who can't have children.
Click to expand...


Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?


----------



## jillian

Quantum Windbag said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's where I break with conservatives.  The government that states you may not have an abortion has also stated that it can tell you you must have an abortion.  Witness China.
> 
> Maximum individual rights requires that abortion be a legal option for the mother.  I find abortion used as birth control to be extremely disgusting, however I would rather have that issue than having government dictate who can and who can't have children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?
Click to expand...


When the governmental interest exceeds my own in exercising dominion over my own body.

And Roe set the timeline for that...... No matter how much you think you should impose your religious beliefs on others


----------



## Foxfyre

Quantum Windbag said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's where I break with conservatives.  The government that states you may not have an abortion has also stated that it can tell you you must have an abortion.  Witness China.
> 
> Maximum individual rights requires that abortion be a legal option for the mother.  I find abortion used as birth control to be extremely disgusting, however I would rather have that issue than having government dictate who can and who can't have children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?
Click to expand...


I don't think anybody has argued that government  should ever have the power to dictate who can and can't have children.  At the state and local levels, it should have the power to ensure that any children produced are properly cared for and that can include removing a child from a home in cases of abuse, neglect, or inability to care for the child and placing the child in a safe environment.   If we go with strict interpretation of original intent, the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to get involved in such matters.

So ultimately it all comes down to whether the unborn chld is consideredto be a life subject to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Or whether it is a throwaway at the whim or decision of the mother.  It is an even stickier wicket in states in which a murder of a pregnant woman counts as a double murder.  

The pro abortion group desperately wants the unborn child to be nothing more than a mass of cells and to be entirely considered a throwaway if that is what the woman wants to do.  Many think that if any part of the child is yet inside the birth canal, the child should be killed with impunity or an aborted baby that continues to live after the procedure should be killed or allowed to die.   These are serious ethical issues for a whole lot of us.

And until those ethics are fully resolved, this will continue to be a volatiile and emotional issue.


----------



## westwall

Quantum Windbag said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's where I break with conservatives.  The government that states you may not have an abortion has also stated that it can tell you you must have an abortion.  Witness China.
> 
> Maximum individual rights requires that abortion be a legal option for the mother.  I find abortion used as birth control to be extremely disgusting, however I would rather have that issue than having government dictate who can and who can't have children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?
Click to expand...





No.  Government has a duty to provide safety for the State.  Individual life is the responsibility of the individual.  The courts have repeatedly found this to be true.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I understand that is your opinion, and I and more than t0% of Americans think it is silly.



Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about your silly statement, QWB, not hospitals or hospital services.
> 
> SCOTUS has decided this for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appeals to authority are not a valid argument.
> 
> That said, feel free to go back and point out where I said that they didn't. What I have consistently argued is that SCOTUS is fallible, and have provided examples of things they got wrong that we now know were clearly unconstitutional despite the rationalization of the court.
> 
> My original argument is that rape does not justify an abortion and that the government has a positive duty to protect all lives, even the inconvenient ones. Can you tell me what makes that silly?
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Government has a positive duty to follow the Constitution.



Quantum Windbag said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's where I break with conservatives.  The government that states you may not have an abortion has also stated that it can tell you you must have an abortion.  Witness China.
> 
> Maximum individual rights requires that abortion be a legal option for the mother.  I find abortion used as birth control to be extremely disgusting, however I would rather have that issue than having government dictate who can and who can't have children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?
Click to expand...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

jillian said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's where I break with conservatives.  The government that states you may not have an abortion has also stated that it can tell you you must have an abortion.  Witness China.
> 
> Maximum individual rights requires that abortion be a legal option for the mother.  I find abortion used as birth control to be extremely disgusting, however I would rather have that issue than having government dictate who can and who can't have children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the governmental interest exceeds my own in exercising dominion over my own body.
> 
> And Roe set the timeline for that...... No matter how much you think you should impose your religious beliefs on others
Click to expand...


That was a yes or no question about the government having a positive duty to protect life, not an invitation to rationalize your dislike of that duty.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's where I break with conservatives.  The government that states you may not have an abortion has also stated that it can tell you you must have an abortion.  Witness China.
> 
> Maximum individual rights requires that abortion be a legal option for the mother.  I find abortion used as birth control to be extremely disgusting, however I would rather have that issue than having government dictate who can and who can't have children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think anybody has argued that government  should ever have the power to dictate who can and can't have children.  At the state and local levels, it should have the power to ensure that any children produced are properly cared for and that can include removing a child from a home in cases of abuse, neglect, or inability to care for the child and placing the child in a safe environment.   If we go with strict interpretation of original intent, the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to get involved in such matters.
> 
> So ultimately it all comes down to whether the unborn chld is consideredto be a life subject to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Or whether it is a throwaway at the whim or decision of the mother.  It is an even stickier wicket in states in which a murder of a pregnant woman counts as a double murder.
> 
> The pro abortion group desperately wants the unborn child to be nothing more than a mass of cells and to be entirely considered a throwaway if that is what the woman wants to do.  Many think that if any part of the child is yet inside the birth canal, the child should be killed with impunity or an aborted baby that continues to live after the procedure should be killed or allowed to die.   These are serious ethical issues for a whole lot of us.
> 
> And until those ethics are fully resolved, this will continue to be a volatiile and emotional issue.
Click to expand...


I know I didn't ask about that.


----------



## Luissa

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution is not meant to recognize the right to life of a specific class of people, it is meant to protect everyone from the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hence Roe V Wade, and the right to privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to privacy does not trump the right to life. If it did I could kill someone in my house and the government could not come in and find evidence.
Click to expand...


In your opinion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's where I break with conservatives.  The government that states you may not have an abortion has also stated that it can tell you you must have an abortion.  Witness China.
> 
> Maximum individual rights requires that abortion be a legal option for the mother.  I find abortion used as birth control to be extremely disgusting, however I would rather have that issue than having government dictate who can and who can't have children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Government has a duty to provide safety for the State.  Individual life is the responsibility of the individual.  The courts have repeatedly found this to be true.
Click to expand...


Finally, someone answered the question. I asked the question specifically to find out where you stand on the libertarian scale, thanks.


----------



## Luissa

And the right to life is where? If that was true, we wouldn't have the death penalty. 
Do you support the death penalty?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence Roe V Wade, and the right to privacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to privacy does not trump the right to life. If it did I could kill someone in my house and the government could not come in and find evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your opinion.
Click to expand...


That was not an opinion, it was a statement of fact.


----------



## Foxfyre

Quantum Windbag said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anybody has argued that government  should ever have the power to dictate who can and can't have children.  At the state and local levels, it should have the power to ensure that any children produced are properly cared for and that can include removing a child from a home in cases of abuse, neglect, or inability to care for the child and placing the child in a safe environment.   If we go with strict interpretation of original intent, the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to get involved in such matters.
> 
> So ultimately it all comes down to whether the unborn chld is consideredto be a life subject to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Or whether it is a throwaway at the whim or decision of the mother.  It is an even stickier wicket in states in which a murder of a pregnant woman counts as a double murder.
> 
> The pro abortion group desperately wants the unborn child to be nothing more than a mass of cells and to be entirely considered a throwaway if that is what the woman wants to do.  Many think that if any part of the child is yet inside the birth canal, the child should be killed with impunity or an aborted baby that continues to live after the procedure should be killed or allowed to die.   These are serious ethical issues for a whole lot of us.
> 
> And until those ethics are fully resolved, this will continue to be a volatiile and emotional issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know I didn't ask about that.
Click to expand...


Yeah, in a way you did.    Your question is:  "Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?"

Westwall is one of my favorite all time posters at U.S.M.B., but I disagree to a point that protecting life is the sole responsibility of the individual which would suggest that government has no role in that.   How does one 'make safe the state' if that does not focus on the safety or well being of the people that government is supposed to serve?  Almost all laws related to public safety have in mind the physical well being or threat to human life for the individual.

And then bringing that forward to the thesis of this thread, we still have to resolve whether the unborn child is a human life or it isn't.


----------



## JakeStarkey

An opinionated belief is not a statement of fact.


Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to privacy does not trump the right to life. If it did I could kill someone in my house and the government could not come in and find evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was not an opinion, it was a statement of fact.
Click to expand...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anybody has argued that government  should ever have the power to dictate who can and can't have children.  At the state and local levels, it should have the power to ensure that any children produced are properly cared for and that can include removing a child from a home in cases of abuse, neglect, or inability to care for the child and placing the child in a safe environment.   If we go with strict interpretation of original intent, the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to get involved in such matters.
> 
> So ultimately it all comes down to whether the unborn chld is consideredto be a life subject to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Or whether it is a throwaway at the whim or decision of the mother.  It is an even stickier wicket in states in which a murder of a pregnant woman counts as a double murder.
> 
> The pro abortion group desperately wants the unborn child to be nothing more than a mass of cells and to be entirely considered a throwaway if that is what the woman wants to do.  Many think that if any part of the child is yet inside the birth canal, the child should be killed with impunity or an aborted baby that continues to live after the procedure should be killed or allowed to die.   These are serious ethical issues for a whole lot of us.
> 
> And until those ethics are fully resolved, this will continue to be a volatiile and emotional issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know I didn't ask about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, in a way you did.    Your question is:  "Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?"
> 
> Westwall is one of my favorite all time posters at U.S.M.B., but I disagree to a point that protecting life is the sole responsibility of the individual which would suggest that government has no role in that.   How does one 'make safe the state' if that does not focus on the safety or well being of the people that government is supposed to serve?  Almost all laws related to public safety have in mind the physical well being or threat to human life for the individual.
> 
> And then bringing that forward to the thesis of this thread, we still have to resolve whether the unborn child is a human life or it isn't.
Click to expand...


I asked the question because I agree with him, and he is right.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> An opinionated belief is not a statement of fact.
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was not an opinion, it was a statement of fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The right to privacy does not trump the right to life is not a statement of opinion, it is a fact.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, lets consider the rights of the mother. Which right does a mother have that trumps the right of anyone else to live?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until you establish with an argument that actually involves facts and evidence that the fetus is a person with constitutional rights equal to the mother's, which you haven't,
> 
> there is no 'anyone else' in the above statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is always someone else involved in an abortion. if there wasn't there would be no argument that hospitals provide abortion services.
Click to expand...


It's clear you've lost the argument when all you have are immature smartass replies to respond with.

The fetus is not a person according to constitutional law.   A woman has a clear indisputable right of privacy that the Supreme Court has determined conveys to her the right to an abortion in the first trimester.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution is not meant to recognize the right to life of a specific class of people, it is meant to protect everyone from the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hence Roe V Wade, and the right to privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to privacy does not trump the right to life.
Click to expand...


Since the fetus has no right to life, your observation does not apply.


----------



## Foxfyre

Quantum Windbag said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know I didn't ask about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, in a way you did.    Your question is:  "Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?"
> 
> Westwall is one of my favorite all time posters at U.S.M.B., but I disagree to a point that protecting life is the sole responsibility of the individual which would suggest that government has no role in that.   How does one 'make safe the state' if that does not focus on the safety or well being of the people that government is supposed to serve?  Almost all laws related to public safety have in mind the physical well being or threat to human life for the individual.
> 
> And then bringing that forward to the thesis of this thread, we still have to resolve whether the unborn child is a human life or it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked the question because I agree with him, and he is right.
Click to expand...


I know.  But I am respectfully disagreeing with both of you when it comes to children or others who have no reasonable means of self defense, and that would include the unborn.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution does not recognize the right to life of a fetus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution is not meant to recognize the right to life of a specific class of people, it is meant to protect everyone from the government.
Click to expand...


That is nonsensical.  The fetus is not recognized in the Constitution as a person, therefore whatever protecting everyone from the government is supposed to mean wouldn't even apply to fetuses.


----------



## westwall

Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anybody has argued that government  should ever have the power to dictate who can and can't have children.  At the state and local levels, it should have the power to ensure that any children produced are properly cared for and that can include removing a child from a home in cases of abuse, neglect, or inability to care for the child and placing the child in a safe environment.   If we go with strict interpretation of original intent, the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to get involved in such matters.
> 
> So ultimately it all comes down to whether the unborn chld is consideredto be a life subject to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Or whether it is a throwaway at the whim or decision of the mother.  It is an even stickier wicket in states in which a murder of a pregnant woman counts as a double murder.
> 
> The pro abortion group desperately wants the unborn child to be nothing more than a mass of cells and to be entirely considered a throwaway if that is what the woman wants to do.  Many think that if any part of the child is yet inside the birth canal, the child should be killed with impunity or an aborted baby that continues to live after the procedure should be killed or allowed to die.   These are serious ethical issues for a whole lot of us.
> 
> And until those ethics are fully resolved, this will continue to be a volatiile and emotional issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know I didn't ask about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, in a way you did.    Your question is:  "Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?"
> 
> Westwall is one of my favorite all time posters at U.S.M.B., but I disagree to a point that protecting life is the sole responsibility of the individual which would suggest that government has no role in that.   How does one 'make safe the state' if that does not focus on the safety or well being of the people that government is supposed to serve?  Almost all laws related to public safety have in mind the physical well being or threat to human life for the individual.
> 
> And then bringing that forward to the thesis of this thread, we still have to resolve whether the unborn child is a human life or it isn't.
Click to expand...





By protecting the State, I am specifically referring to border protection and other things of that nature that affect the people as a whole.   The people within the State are responsible for themselves.  Now, we get into the nitty gritty because I also believe that as a social contract "society" as a whole has a responsibility to protect and help those who are not capable of doing that for themselves.

This is where I have a hard time with abortion because logically the unborn are not able to help themselves yet.  However, the governments ultimate hammer of mandating abortion is why I err on the side of the individual distasteful as I find that practice to be.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, in a way you did.    Your question is:  "Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?"
> 
> Westwall is one of my favorite all time posters at U.S.M.B., but I disagree to a point that protecting life is the sole responsibility of the individual which would suggest that government has no role in that.   How does one 'make safe the state' if that does not focus on the safety or well being of the people that government is supposed to serve?  Almost all laws related to public safety have in mind the physical well being or threat to human life for the individual.
> 
> And then bringing that forward to the thesis of this thread, we still have to resolve whether the unborn child is a human life or it isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked the question because I agree with him, and he is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.  But I am respectfully disagreeing with both of you when it comes to children or others who have no reasonable means of self defense, and that would include the unborn.
Click to expand...


Since the unborn are not specifically referred to in the original Constitution itself,  how the unborn are treated has to be interpreted by the Supreme Court, unless/until amendment to the Constitution occurs.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Since SCOTUS disagrees with you, your opinion is not fact.



Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> An opinionated belief is not a statement of fact.
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was not an opinion, it was a statement of fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to privacy does not trump the right to life is not a statement of opinion, it is a fact.
Click to expand...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until you establish with an argument that actually involves facts and evidence that the fetus is a person with constitutional rights equal to the mother's, which you haven't,
> 
> there is no 'anyone else' in the above statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is always someone else involved in an abortion. if there wasn't there would be no argument that hospitals provide abortion services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's clear you've lost the argument when all you have are immature smartass replies to respond with.
> 
> The fetus is not a person according to constitutional law.   A woman has a clear indisputable right of privacy that the Supreme Court has determined conveys to her the right to an abortion in the first trimester.
Click to expand...


I am not the one that broke the rules here in the CDZ, am I?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, in a way you did.    Your question is:  "Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?"
> 
> Westwall is one of my favorite all time posters at U.S.M.B., but I disagree to a point that protecting life is the sole responsibility of the individual which would suggest that government has no role in that.   How does one 'make safe the state' if that does not focus on the safety or well being of the people that government is supposed to serve?  Almost all laws related to public safety have in mind the physical well being or threat to human life for the individual.
> 
> And then bringing that forward to the thesis of this thread, we still have to resolve whether the unborn child is a human life or it isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked the question because I agree with him, and he is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.  But I am respectfully disagreeing with both of you when it comes to children or others who have no reasonable means of self defense, and that would include the unborn.
Click to expand...


The government does not have a positive duty to protect anyone, but prosecuting the crime of murder is still a legitimate function of government.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution does not recognize the right to life of a fetus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution is not meant to recognize the right to life of a specific class of people, it is meant to protect everyone from the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is nonsensical.  The fetus is not recognized in the Constitution as a person, therefore whatever protecting everyone from the government is supposed to mean wouldn't even apply to fetuses.
Click to expand...


The constitution does not recognize you, or anyone else, as a person. does that mean you have no rights?


----------



## jillian

Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's where I break with conservatives.  The government that states you may not have an abortion has also stated that it can tell you you must have an abortion.  Witness China.
> 
> Maximum individual rights requires that abortion be a legal option for the mother.  I find abortion used as birth control to be extremely disgusting, however I would rather have that issue than having government dictate who can and who can't have children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think anybody has argued that government  should ever have the power to dictate who can and can't have children.  At the state and local levels, it should have the power to ensure that any children produced are properly cared for and that can include removing a child from a home in cases of abuse, neglect, or inability to care for the child and placing the child in a safe environment.   If we go with strict interpretation of original intent, the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to get involved in such matters.
> 
> So ultimately it all comes down to whether the unborn chld is consideredto be a life subject to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Or whether it is a throwaway at the whim or decision of the mother.  It is an even stickier wicket in states in which a murder of a pregnant woman counts as a double murder.
> 
> The pro abortion group desperately wants the unborn child to be nothing more than a mass of cells and to be entirely considered a throwaway if that is what the woman wants to do.  Many think that if any part of the child is yet inside the birth canal, the child should be killed with impunity or an aborted baby that continues to live after the procedure should be killed or allowed to die.   These are serious ethical issues for a whole lot of us.
> 
> And until those ethics are fully resolved, this will continue to be a volatiile and emotional issue.
Click to expand...


the ethics are resolved... the supreme court ruled and people should stay out of others' business.

and for the record... no one is pro abortion. we are pro government staying out of our bodies and pro religious zealots keeping to their own concerns.


----------



## Foxfyre

jillian said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anybody has argued that government  should ever have the power to dictate who can and can't have children.  At the state and local levels, it should have the power to ensure that any children produced are properly cared for and that can include removing a child from a home in cases of abuse, neglect, or inability to care for the child and placing the child in a safe environment.   If we go with strict interpretation of original intent, the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to get involved in such matters.
> 
> So ultimately it all comes down to whether the unborn chld is consideredto be a life subject to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Or whether it is a throwaway at the whim or decision of the mother.  It is an even stickier wicket in states in which a murder of a pregnant woman counts as a double murder.
> 
> The pro abortion group desperately wants the unborn child to be nothing more than a mass of cells and to be entirely considered a throwaway if that is what the woman wants to do.  Many think that if any part of the child is yet inside the birth canal, the child should be killed with impunity or an aborted baby that continues to live after the procedure should be killed or allowed to die.   These are serious ethical issues for a whole lot of us.
> 
> And until those ethics are fully resolved, this will continue to be a volatiile and emotional issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the ethics are resolved... the supreme court ruled and people should stay out of others' business.
> 
> and for the record... no one is pro abortion. we are pro government staying out of our bodies and pro religious zealots keeping to their own concerns.
Click to expand...


Neither the government nor the courts dictate what my moral center or sense of ethics will be.  And yes, those who want no restrictions of any kind in any form on abortion are pro abortion.  Otherwise they would at least be willing to have a conversation about the ethics which involve not just the woman and her right to do with her body what she wishes, but also involves a second life who has no choice in the matter.  And that is where the ethics come in.


----------



## syrenn

Foxfyre said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anybody has argued that government  should ever have the power to dictate who can and can't have children.  At the state and local levels, it should have the power to ensure that any children produced are properly cared for and that can include removing a child from a home in cases of abuse, neglect, or inability to care for the child and placing the child in a safe environment.   If we go with strict interpretation of original intent, the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to get involved in such matters.
> 
> So ultimately it all comes down to whether the unborn chld is consideredto be a life subject to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Or whether it is a throwaway at the whim or decision of the mother.  It is an even stickier wicket in states in which a murder of a pregnant woman counts as a double murder.
> 
> The pro abortion group desperately wants the unborn child to be nothing more than a mass of cells and to be entirely considered a throwaway if that is what the woman wants to do.  Many think that if any part of the child is yet inside the birth canal, the child should be killed with impunity or an aborted baby that continues to live after the procedure should be killed or allowed to die.   These are serious ethical issues for a whole lot of us.
> 
> And until those ethics are fully resolved, this will continue to be a volatiile and emotional issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the ethics are resolved... the supreme court ruled and people should stay out of others' business.
> 
> and for the record... no one is pro abortion. we are pro government staying out of our bodies and pro religious zealots keeping to their own concerns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither the government nor the courts dictate what my moral center or sense of ethics will be.  And yes, those who want no restrictions of any kind in any form on abortion are pro abortion.  Otherwise they would at least be willing to have a conversation about the ethics which involve not just the woman and her right to do with her body what she wishes, but also involves a second life who has no choice in the matter.  And that is where the ethics come in.
Click to expand...



Its pretty simple FF

Everyone should keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves. 



As for the conversation about ethics on a second life..... if you cannot remove the cells before the first trimester.... a nice gentle c section removal... a nice gentle birth....and have it live on its own... giving it ALL the life support you want..... its not viable a life of its own.


----------



## Plasmaball

jillian said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you also support free health care for all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nope...and he hates regulations and he can't stand police. he's totally laissez faire...
> 
> *except when it comes to women's bodies*.
Click to expand...


well so am i, but i demand them be naked.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

jillian said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anybody has argued that government  should ever have the power to dictate who can and can't have children.  At the state and local levels, it should have the power to ensure that any children produced are properly cared for and that can include removing a child from a home in cases of abuse, neglect, or inability to care for the child and placing the child in a safe environment.   If we go with strict interpretation of original intent, the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to get involved in such matters.
> 
> So ultimately it all comes down to whether the unborn chld is consideredto be a life subject to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Or whether it is a throwaway at the whim or decision of the mother.  It is an even stickier wicket in states in which a murder of a pregnant woman counts as a double murder.
> 
> The pro abortion group desperately wants the unborn child to be nothing more than a mass of cells and to be entirely considered a throwaway if that is what the woman wants to do.  Many think that if any part of the child is yet inside the birth canal, the child should be killed with impunity or an aborted baby that continues to live after the procedure should be killed or allowed to die.   These are serious ethical issues for a whole lot of us.
> 
> And until those ethics are fully resolved, this will continue to be a volatiile and emotional issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the ethics are resolved... the supreme court ruled and people should stay out of others' business.
> 
> *and for the record... no one is pro abortion. *we are pro government staying out of our bodies and pro religious zealots keeping to their own concerns.
Click to expand...


Correct, the disagreement concerns the solution, how to end the practice.


----------



## Noomi

How to end abortion? Its not possible. Banning abortion will still mean people will have abortions, they will just go underground - which I think is what the lifers would prefer. We can lower the abortion rate by starting sex education in schools early on, and do what the Netherlands does. They have an extremely low rate of teen births because they have been educated on safe sex, yet conservatives think that the way to prevent teen pregnancy is to tell them not to have sex.

I think we should ask Bristol Palin how well that works.


----------



## Foxfyre

syrenn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the ethics are resolved... the supreme court ruled and people should stay out of others' business.
> 
> and for the record... no one is pro abortion. we are pro government staying out of our bodies and pro religious zealots keeping to their own concerns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither the government nor the courts dictate what my moral center or sense of ethics will be.  And yes, those who want no restrictions of any kind in any form on abortion are pro abortion.  Otherwise they would at least be willing to have a conversation about the ethics which involve not just the woman and her right to do with her body what she wishes, but also involves a second life who has no choice in the matter.  And that is where the ethics come in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple FF
> 
> Everyone should keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the conversation about ethics on a second life..... if you cannot remove the cells before the first trimester.... a nice gentle c section removal... a nice gentle birth....and have it live on its own... giving it ALL the life support you want..... its not viable a life of its own.
Click to expand...


Should everyone keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves re the mistreatment of children who are born?   Of even the mistreatment of animals?

The pro-abortion group does have to make the 'unviable' fetus nothing but meaningless cells and therefore it is okay to discard it without conscience or violation of personal ethics.  The pro-life group sees no stage of life as less critical than any other stage of life for any person.  We all have to go through the 'unviable fetus' stage if we are allowed to live.  So is the mistreatment of that 'unviable fetus' somehow more okay than the mistreatment of the newborn baby who is no less viable without somebody taking care of all its needs?

The pro-abortion group can also love children and can also approve the woman who chooses life for her baby.  One can be pro-abortion and still hate the thought of it.
And the pro-life group can understand why abortion is sometimes necessary and chooses not to judge the woman struggling with the trauma of incest or rape.  A prolifer can be every bit as pro choice in that regard as is the pro-abortion group.

To the prolifer, the unborn is a human life no matter what stage it happens to be in during any given week or month.   None of us become functioning human beings without going through every stage of human life.  To the prolifer, a pregnancy represents two lives:  the mother and the child she carries.  And if  one believes it is appropriate to step in to defend a mistreated child or animal, perhaps it is more easy to understand the prolifer who sees the unborn child as also a helpless life worthy of love and concern.


----------



## westwall

Foxfyre said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither the government nor the courts dictate what my moral center or sense of ethics will be.  And yes, those who want no restrictions of any kind in any form on abortion are pro abortion.  Otherwise they would at least be willing to have a conversation about the ethics which involve not just the woman and her right to do with her body what she wishes, but also involves a second life who has no choice in the matter.  And that is where the ethics come in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple FF
> 
> Everyone should keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the conversation about ethics on a second life..... if you cannot remove the cells before the first trimester.... a nice gentle c section removal... a nice gentle birth....and have it live on its own... giving it ALL the life support you want..... its not viable a life of its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should everyone keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves re the mistreatment of children who are born?   Of even the mistreatment of animals?
> 
> The pro-abortion group does have to make the 'unviable' fetus nothing but meaningless cells and therefore it is okay to discard it without conscience or violation of personal ethics.  The pro-life group sees no stage of life as less critical than any other stage of life for any person.  We all have to go through the 'unviable fetus' stage if we are allowed to live.  So is the mistreatment of that 'unviable fetus' somehow more okay than the mistreatment of the newborn baby who is no less viable without somebody taking care of all its needs?
> 
> The pro-abortion group can also love children and can also approve the woman who chooses life for her baby.  One can be pro-abortion and still hate the thought of it.
> And the pro-life group can understand why abortion is sometimes necessary and chooses not to judge the woman struggling with the trauma of incest or rape.  A prolifer can be every bit as pro choice in that regard as is the pro-abortion group.
> 
> To the prolifer, the unborn is a human life no matter what stage it happens to be in during any given week or month.   None of us become functioning human beings without going through every stage of human life.  To the prolifer, a pregnancy represents two lives:  the mother and the child she carries.  And if  one believes it is appropriate to step in to defend a mistreated child or animal, perhaps it is more easy to understand the prolifer who sees the unborn child as also a helpless life worthy of love and concern.
Click to expand...







I understand your position completely.  And for the most part I support it.  My concern is governmental power.  Giving the government the power to regulate the abortions will lead inexorably to some ultra lefty knucklehead like Paul Erlich getting into power and mandating abortions for everyone he doesn't approve of.  That is simply too powerful an argument against government control.


----------



## Foxfyre

westwall said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple FF
> 
> Everyone should keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the conversation about ethics on a second life..... if you cannot remove the cells before the first trimester.... a nice gentle c section removal... a nice gentle birth....and have it live on its own... giving it ALL the life support you want..... its not viable a life of its own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should everyone keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves re the mistreatment of children who are born?   Of even the mistreatment of animals?
> 
> The pro-abortion group does have to make the 'unviable' fetus nothing but meaningless cells and therefore it is okay to discard it without conscience or violation of personal ethics.  The pro-life group sees no stage of life as less critical than any other stage of life for any person.  We all have to go through the 'unviable fetus' stage if we are allowed to live.  So is the mistreatment of that 'unviable fetus' somehow more okay than the mistreatment of the newborn baby who is no less viable without somebody taking care of all its needs?
> 
> The pro-abortion group can also love children and can also approve the woman who chooses life for her baby.  One can be pro-abortion and still hate the thought of it.
> And the pro-life group can understand why abortion is sometimes necessary and chooses not to judge the woman struggling with the trauma of incest or rape.  A prolifer can be every bit as pro choice in that regard as is the pro-abortion group.
> 
> To the prolifer, the unborn is a human life no matter what stage it happens to be in during any given week or month.   None of us become functioning human beings without going through every stage of human life.  To the prolifer, a pregnancy represents two lives:  the mother and the child she carries.  And if  one believes it is appropriate to step in to defend a mistreated child or animal, perhaps it is more easy to understand the prolifer who sees the unborn child as also a helpless life worthy of love and concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your position completely.  And for the most part I support it.  My concern is governmental power.  Giving the government the power to regulate the abortions will lead inexorably to some ultra lefty knucklehead like Paul Erlich getting into power and mandating abortions for everyone he doesn't approve of.  That is simply too powerful an argument against government control.
Click to expand...


Yes, the role of government can be problematic and of course that has to be part of the conversation.  There was a time not all that long ago in America in which abortion on demand, most especially for reasons of birth control, was unthinkable as a legal procedure while ending a medically necessary pregnancy was legal everywhere.  Roe v Wade made abortion on demand legal but did leave the state some power to regulate it in the second and third trimesters.  And that has been pushed to the limit even to the point of the partial birth abortion in which a perfectly healthy baby can be legally killed if any part of that baby is still in the birth canal.   And yes, I know that this is a rare procedure, but it is neverthless legal in some places.  In Illinois, a baby that survives an abortion can be legally killed.   Such things would be unthinkable 60 years ago.  How much longer will it be before the less than perfect baby that is completely born can be legally killed? 

And we all know that it will require a change in people's hearts to again appreciate and revere the sanctity of human life before abortion again becomes something that is necessary and rare and no longer socially acceptable as a convenience. 

I cannot imagine any interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that would make it possible to require abortions however.  When it comes to that we will have no freedoms left and it won't be America any more.


----------



## Indofred

syrenn said:


> Its pretty simple FF
> 
> Everyone should keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves.




Spot on.
For those that don't agree with abortion in the case of rape.
I hope your daughter or wife (or yourself. in the case of a lady) never get raped and have to carry the baby.

For those that think it's up to the woman to decide by herself - I really don't see a problem with that.

The lady concerned has to make all the hard choices in what must be a very difficult time for her.
That in mind, it's up to her, not some daft politician without a clue.


----------



## westwall

Foxfyre said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should everyone keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves re the mistreatment of children who are born?   Of even the mistreatment of animals?
> 
> The pro-abortion group does have to make the 'unviable' fetus nothing but meaningless cells and therefore it is okay to discard it without conscience or violation of personal ethics.  The pro-life group sees no stage of life as less critical than any other stage of life for any person.  We all have to go through the 'unviable fetus' stage if we are allowed to live.  So is the mistreatment of that 'unviable fetus' somehow more okay than the mistreatment of the newborn baby who is no less viable without somebody taking care of all its needs?
> 
> The pro-abortion group can also love children and can also approve the woman who chooses life for her baby.  One can be pro-abortion and still hate the thought of it.
> And the pro-life group can understand why abortion is sometimes necessary and chooses not to judge the woman struggling with the trauma of incest or rape.  A prolifer can be every bit as pro choice in that regard as is the pro-abortion group.
> 
> To the prolifer, the unborn is a human life no matter what stage it happens to be in during any given week or month.   None of us become functioning human beings without going through every stage of human life.  To the prolifer, a pregnancy represents two lives:  the mother and the child she carries.  And if  one believes it is appropriate to step in to defend a mistreated child or animal, perhaps it is more easy to understand the prolifer who sees the unborn child as also a helpless life worthy of love and concern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your position completely.  And for the most part I support it.  My concern is governmental power.  Giving the government the power to regulate the abortions will lead inexorably to some ultra lefty knucklehead like Paul Erlich getting into power and mandating abortions for everyone he doesn't approve of.  That is simply too powerful an argument against government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the role of government can be problematic and of course that has to be part of the conversation.  There was a time not all that long ago in America in which abortion on demand, most especially for reasons of birth control, was unthinkable as a legal procedure while ending a medically necessary pregnancy was legal everywhere.  Roe v Wade made abortion on demand legal but did leave the state some power to regulate it in the second and third trimesters.  And that has been pushed to the limit even to the point of the partial birth abortion in which a perfectly healthy baby can be legally killed if any part of that baby is still in the birth canal.   And yes, I know that this is a rare procedure, but it is neverthless legal in some places.  In Illinois, a baby that survives an abortion can be legally killed.   Such things would be unthinkable 60 years ago.  How much longer will it be before the less than perfect baby that is completely born can be legally killed?
> 
> And we all know that it will require a change in people's hearts to again appreciate and revere the sanctity of human life before abortion again becomes something that is necessary and rare and no longer socially acceptable as a convenience.
> 
> I cannot imagine any interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that would make it possible to require abortions however.  When it comes to that we will have no freedoms left and it won't be America any more.
Click to expand...





The Constitution has allready been circumvented.  Our 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 8th have all been abrogated.  The fact that a baby can survive an abortion and be left to die in a dark room in IL lets you know just how far down that despicable path we have travelled.  IMO, any child that survives an abortion is now fully protected by the laws of the land, unfortunately scumbags like the big O can interpret them any way they wish.  Which is why I don't ever want them to have that power.


----------



## Ravi

westwall said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your position completely.  And for the most part I support it.  My concern is governmental power.  Giving the government the power to regulate the abortions will lead inexorably to some ultra lefty knucklehead like Paul Erlich getting into power and mandating abortions for everyone he doesn't approve of.  That is simply too powerful an argument against government control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the role of government can be problematic and of course that has to be part of the conversation.  There was a time not all that long ago in America in which abortion on demand, most especially for reasons of birth control, was unthinkable as a legal procedure while ending a medically necessary pregnancy was legal everywhere.  Roe v Wade made abortion on demand legal but did leave the state some power to regulate it in the second and third trimesters.  And that has been pushed to the limit even to the point of the partial birth abortion in which a perfectly healthy baby can be legally killed if any part of that baby is still in the birth canal.   And yes, I know that this is a rare procedure, but it is neverthless legal in some places.  In Illinois, a baby that survives an abortion can be legally killed.   Such things would be unthinkable 60 years ago.  How much longer will it be before the less than perfect baby that is completely born can be legally killed?
> 
> And we all know that it will require a change in people's hearts to again appreciate and revere the sanctity of human life before abortion again becomes something that is necessary and rare and no longer socially acceptable as a convenience.
> 
> I cannot imagine any interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that would make it possible to require abortions however.  When it comes to that we will have no freedoms left and it won't be America any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution has allready been circumvented.  Our 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 8th have all been abrogated.  *The fact that a baby can survive an abortion and be left to die in a dark room in IL l*ets you know just how far down that despicable path we have travelled.  IMO, any child that survives an abortion is now fully protected by the laws of the land, unfortunately scumbags like the big O can interpret them any way they wish.  Which is why I don't ever want them to have that power.
Click to expand...

That is not true and it has never been true.


----------



## westwall

Ravi said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the role of government can be problematic and of course that has to be part of the conversation.  There was a time not all that long ago in America in which abortion on demand, most especially for reasons of birth control, was unthinkable as a legal procedure while ending a medically necessary pregnancy was legal everywhere.  Roe v Wade made abortion on demand legal but did leave the state some power to regulate it in the second and third trimesters.  And that has been pushed to the limit even to the point of the partial birth abortion in which a perfectly healthy baby can be legally killed if any part of that baby is still in the birth canal.   And yes, I know that this is a rare procedure, but it is neverthless legal in some places.  In Illinois, a baby that survives an abortion can be legally killed.   Such things would be unthinkable 60 years ago.  How much longer will it be before the less than perfect baby that is completely born can be legally killed?
> 
> And we all know that it will require a change in people's hearts to again appreciate and revere the sanctity of human life before abortion again becomes something that is necessary and rare and no longer socially acceptable as a convenience.
> 
> I cannot imagine any interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that would make it possible to require abortions however.  When it comes to that we will have no freedoms left and it won't be America any more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution has allready been circumvented.  Our 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 8th have all been abrogated.  *The fact that a baby can survive an abortion and be left to die in a dark room in IL l*ets you know just how far down that despicable path we have travelled.  IMO, any child that survives an abortion is now fully protected by the laws of the land, unfortunately scumbags like the big O can interpret them any way they wish.  Which is why I don't ever want them to have that power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not true and it has never been true.
Click to expand...






Government hearings seem to indicate otherwise.



"The legal and moral confusion that flows from these pernicious ideas is well illustrated by disturbing events that are reported to have occurred at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois. Two nurses from the hospital's delivery ward, Jill Stanek and Allison Baker (who is no longer employed by the hospital), testified before the Subcommittee on the Constitution that physicians at Christ Hospital have performed numerous `induced labor' or `live-birth' abortions, a procedure in which physicians use drugs to induce premature labor and deliver unborn children, many of whom are still alive, and then simply allow those who are born alive to die. 27 

[Footnote] 

[Footnote 27: See Born-Alive Infants Protection Act: Hearings on H.R. 4292 Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong., July 20, 2000 (statement of Jill L. Stanek, R.N.); Born-Alive Infants Protection Act: Hearings on H.R. 4292 Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong., July 20, 2000 (statement of Allison Baker, R.N., B.S.N.).] 

According to medical experts, this procedure is appropriately used only in situations in which an unborn child has a fatal deformity, such as anencephaly or lack of a brain, and infants with such conditions who are born alive are given comfort care (including warmth and nutrition) until they die, which, because of the fatal deformity, is typically within a day or two of birth. According to the testimony of Mrs. Stanek and Mrs. Baker, however, physicians at Christ Hospital have used the procedure to abort healthy infants and infants with non-fatal deformities such as spina bifida and Down Syndrome. 28 

[Footnote] Many of these babies have lived for hours after birth, with no efforts made to determine if any of them could have survived with appropriate medical assistance. 29" 




Committee Reports - 106th Congress (1999-2000) - House Report 106-835


----------



## geauxtohell

Quantum Windbag said:


> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
Click to expand...


Rape also doesn't justify a woman to be forced to relive the event every day for 9 months until she can put the baby up for adoption and try to begin to heal psychologically.

I love how you guys wrap yourself in the garments of compassion while conveniently omitting that fact.

The current system is fine.  If a woman abhors abortion more than the act of rape, it is her choice to carry the baby.  

If not, then she can't be forced to undergo mental torture simply because zealots like yourself think you have a say in this matter.


----------



## geauxtohell

Avatar4321 said:


> I don't really understand how one evil justifies another.



Forcing a mother to birth the product of rape is also evil.

Lest you try to say differently.


----------



## Katzndogz

geauxtohell said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really understand how one evil justifies another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing a mother to birth the product of rape is also evil.
> 
> Lest you try to say differently.
Click to expand...


Yes it is.  

There is still a death.  The death of the baby, a death for which the responsible party is never brought to justice.


----------



## Paulie

Avatar4321 said:


> I don't really understand how one evil justifies another.



Want to know what's evil?  Forcing a woman to carry to term and go through the hell of labor for, a baby conceived only because a disgusting piece of human filth put her through one of the most traumatic experiences a person can go through.  

It's sick.  How you can not at the very least compromise on your abortion position to let a woman begin recovering, healing, and hopefully forgetting as soon as possible is beyond me.


----------



## Katzndogz

Paulie said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really understand how one evil justifies another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to know what's evil?  Forcing a woman to carry to term and go through the hell of labor for, a baby conceived only because a disgusting piece of human filth put her through one of the most traumatic experiences a person can go through.
> 
> It's sick.  How you can not at the very least compromise on your abortion position to let a woman begin recovering, healing, and hopefully forgetting as soon as possible is beyond me.
Click to expand...


Why shouldn't the rapist be made to answer for the crime?  It's murder.  The rapist is responsible.   Why should he get to escape punishment?  Is it part of his healing too?


----------



## Paulie

Katzndogz said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really understand how one evil justifies another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing a mother to birth the product of rape is also evil.
> 
> Lest you try to say differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> There is still a death.  The death of the baby, a death for which the responsible party is never brought to justice.
Click to expand...


If done as early as I'm sure any rape victim would prefer, it's the death of a cluster of cells the size of a pin head.


----------



## Paulie

Katzndogz said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really understand how one evil justifies another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to know what's evil?  Forcing a woman to carry to term and go through the hell of labor for, a baby conceived only because a disgusting piece of human filth put her through one of the most traumatic experiences a person can go through.
> 
> It's sick.  How you can not at the very least compromise on your abortion position to let a woman begin recovering, healing, and hopefully forgetting as soon as possible is beyond me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't the rapist be made to answer for the crime?  It's murder.  The rapist is responsible.   Why should he get to escape punishment?  Is it part of his healing too?
Click to expand...


This is why I haven't come into this forum and participated...I have a really hard time not cussing and being an asshole 

But anyway, here goes...What in the fuck are you talking about?  Who said anything about a rapist escaping punishment?  I don't even have the first fucking clue how this particular debate is even about the rapist anyway.  It's about the raped, and her situation afterwards.


----------



## PixieStix

I cannot imagine what it would be like to be raped and then have to spread my legs so that some stranger can suck the product of rape from my body, especially so close to the time of the rape, and then expect me to be better because of it. I have tried to imagine it.....I imagine it would only complicate the issues. 

By the way, I have a sister that was raped and became pregnant


----------



## Paulie

PixieStix said:


> I cannot imagine what it would be like to be raped and then have to spread my legs so that some stranger can suck the product of rape from my body, especially so close to the time of the rape, and then expect me to be better because of it. I have tried to imagine it.....I imagine it would only complicate the issues.
> 
> By the way, I have a sister that was raped and became pregnant



That's harder to imagine than carrying that love child around for 9 months while it kicks you and reminds you every single day that you were raped?


----------



## Paulie

Anyone here who knows me well enough knows I'm not a fan of abortion.  But come on, this is just ridiculous.


----------



## PixieStix

Paulie said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot imagine what it would be like to be raped and then have to spread my legs so that some stranger can suck the product of rape from my body, especially so close to the time of the rape, and then expect me to be better because of it. I have tried to imagine it.....I imagine it would only complicate the issues.
> 
> By the way, I have a sister that was raped and became pregnant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's harder to imagine than carrying that love child around for 9 months while it kicks you and reminds you every single day that you were raped?
Click to expand...


That is not what Cheryl said. She was free to be this child's mother and help her become the beautiful girl that she is. My Sister always said she is glad she had the baby. It helped her to focus on what mattered

Oh and I am glad too.


----------



## Katzndogz

Paulie said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want to know what's evil?  Forcing a woman to carry to term and go through the hell of labor for, a baby conceived only because a disgusting piece of human filth put her through one of the most traumatic experiences a person can go through.
> 
> It's sick.  How you can not at the very least compromise on your abortion position to let a woman begin recovering, healing, and hopefully forgetting as soon as possible is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't the rapist be made to answer for the crime?  It's murder.  The rapist is responsible.   Why should he get to escape punishment?  Is it part of his healing too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why I haven't come into this forum and participated...I have a really hard time not cussing and being an asshole
> 
> But anyway, here goes...What in the fuck are you talking about?  Who said anything about a rapist escaping punishment?  I don't even have the first fucking clue how this particular debate is even about the rapist anyway.  It's about the raped, and her situation afterwards.
Click to expand...


Is it possible to have a rape victim without a perpetrator?  Don't think so.  Justify that please.   

The abortion of a baby is murder.  Everyone agrees that the woman who is raped is a victim of a horrible crime.  She should be afforded an opportunity to escape the worst consequences of the crime committed against her.   This doesn't change the nature of the murder of the baby.   It just puts responsibility for that death where it belongs.   It is not unlike the situation of a woman who is being beaten.  She pulls out a gun and shoots at her attacker but misses and hits a bystander, an innocent party.   She is not guilty of the death, her attacker is.


----------



## Katzndogz

PixieStix said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot imagine what it would be like to be raped and then have to spread my legs so that some stranger can suck the product of rape from my body, especially so close to the time of the rape, and then expect me to be better because of it. I have tried to imagine it.....I imagine it would only complicate the issues.
> 
> By the way, I have a sister that was raped and became pregnant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's harder to imagine than carrying that love child around for 9 months while it kicks you and reminds you every single day that you were raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what Cheryl said. She was free to be this child's mother and help her become the beautiful girl that she is. My Sister always said she is glad she had the baby. It helped her to focus on what mattered
> 
> Oh and I am glad too.
Click to expand...


That's when it goes well.   When it doesn't go well, it's a worse disaster.  I know a woman that was raped and had the baby thinking it would help her heal.  Instead she took out her anger on the baby, the girl and the young woman that baby became.   The daughter could not live being the subject of a lifetime of total resentment and no love.  She committed suicide at 17.   Mother died two years later of acute alcoholism.    A woman on another board was the product of a rape but given up for adoption.  She made the mistake of tracking down her biological mother and got told if mother knew she would be tracked down and her privacy invaded, she would have had an abortion.  

I knew the woman and her daughter.  It was a total tragedy.   Years and years of tragedy.


----------



## PixieStix

Katzndogz said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's harder to imagine than carrying that love child around for 9 months while it kicks you and reminds you every single day that you were raped?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what Cheryl said. She was free to be this child's mother and help her become the beautiful girl that she is. My Sister always said she is glad she had the baby. It helped her to focus on what mattered
> 
> Oh and I am glad too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's when it goes well.   When it doesn't go well, it's a worse disaster.  I know a woman that was raped and had the baby thinking it would help her heal.  Instead she took out her anger on the baby, the girl and the young woman that baby became.   The daughter could not live being the subject of a lifetime of total resentment and no love.  She committed suicide at 17.   Mother died two years later of acute alcoholism.    A woman on another board was the product of a rape but given up for adoption.  She made the mistake of tracking down her biological mother and got told if mother knew she would be tracked down and her privacy invaded, she would have had an abortion.
> 
> I knew the woman and her daughter.  It was a total tragedy.   Years and years of tragedy.
Click to expand...


Rape is a tragedy any way you look at it 
My niece still does not know that she was the product of a rape. Hope she never does. Because she really is a well balance girl, and I love her very much.


----------



## Katzndogz

PixieStix said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what Cheryl said. She was free to be this child's mother and help her become the beautiful girl that she is. My Sister always said she is glad she had the baby. It helped her to focus on what mattered
> 
> Oh and I am glad too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's when it goes well.   When it doesn't go well, it's a worse disaster.  I know a woman that was raped and had the baby thinking it would help her heal.  Instead she took out her anger on the baby, the girl and the young woman that baby became.   The daughter could not live being the subject of a lifetime of total resentment and no love.  She committed suicide at 17.   Mother died two years later of acute alcoholism.    A woman on another board was the product of a rape but given up for adoption.  She made the mistake of tracking down her biological mother and got told if mother knew she would be tracked down and her privacy invaded, she would have had an abortion.
> 
> I knew the woman and her daughter.  It was a total tragedy.   Years and years of tragedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rape is a tragedy any way you look at it
> My niece still does not know that she was the product of a rape. Hope she never does. Because she really is a well balance girl, and I love her very much.
Click to expand...


She is a very lucky girl in more ways than one!

The daughter of the woman I knew was not lucky.  She had 17 years of pain, then ended it with a couple of bottles of pills.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Man Beats Pregnant Ex-Girlfriend Trying To Kill The Baby | Women's Self Defense Federation
> 
> How was this man charged in the murder of an unborn child?
> 
> Alleged impaired driver charged in crash that killed woman's unborn baby | abc13.com
> 
> Should we have one set of laws for one and another for someone else? If the drunk driver who killed the fetus proved that the woman was on her way to have an abortion is he still guilty of murder?
> 
> 
> 
> &#8216;Fetal murder&#8217; laws are not &#8216;personhood&#8217; legislation per se. Although such laws are predicated on an alleged crime meant to harm an &#8216;unborn,&#8217; this is in reality an attack on actual natural person, the mother. Even where these laws might specify the &#8220;&#8217;unborn&#8217; alone,&#8221; such an attack will always involve the mother.
Click to expand...


But that is not what the law charged the individual for was it ? So this charge was regardless of it involving the mother, because what resulted in the murder charge, was that the person was trying to kill and/or did kill the unborn child in which was the intent by the perp when committed the act when it was committed (or) was being committed for that specific reason in the attack right ?  Now if the person would have murdered the mother and the unborn child in the attack, then it would have resulted in a double homicide.

The other answer to what is highlighted in red above also - Yes he is still guilty of killing the unborn child, because if the woman would have gotten to the clinic to abort the child, but would have had second thoughts about doing so, and would have wanted to save the unborn childs life because she realized that what she was doing was wrong, it in no way releases one way or the other the drunk driver from his or her own responsibility to have taken the life of anyone be it unborn or born for that matter, when the event took place that took the life of the unborn child at that specific point and time in which that event had taken place.

The question is now, if a mother has no good reason for aborting her baby in which she is carrying in her womb, and therefore she goes ahead with the act of ending the pregnancy for no good reason, and even having help in doing so, then should the government or ((someone/independent council)) that would be against both ((if the government is involved also)), be moved to start up a criminal investigation into why these people ended the life of a healthy unborn child, and especially one that wasn't conceieved out of rape, and/or within a forced incest case (or) if in later term maybe, where as the baby might be a danger to the mothers health as deemed by the medical profession or that the baby is so badly deformed that it would be impossible for it to live once taken to term somehow, in which should be amongst only a few of the only acceptional cases that an abortion should be performed at all IMHO by law. 

Now does a mother not realize that she is taking her babies life, and this because everything involved in the pregnancy was right on track to developing a healthy human being after the egg is fertilized, and that the process had been fully started, in which to form a child that to live outside of the womb by this mother just 7 to 9 months later ((which ever would have come next)), and would have been the direct result of such a pregnancy taken to term as it should be ? 

Now because of her willfulness to discard what is deemed a life that is being carefully crafted and created within her body after becoming pregnant, and then shockingly or sadly she does so on a whim or even by influence of by an outside party (the government), wherefore I feel at this point she is commiting sin and/or an act of agression also to end a perfectly healthy pregnancy in which is harboring a life within her body, and for no good reason. It is an act in which does involve the life of another human being in such a case (IMHO), where as once the egg is fertilized and the process completed to start the forming of a child within the womb, (where as by medical terms a life has been started or is being formed within the womb), and yet to next end this life or process in which is creating this life without any medical reason being involved or even a rape or incest being involved (IMHO), is the taking of a defenseless innocent life, and that is just plain and simple the truth in the matter when we all get down to it. 

Now there has been many who have been fooled and influenced wrongfully by the government in this united states, wherefore by this governments participation of, it has foolishly protected or held up these acts as legal or as normal in which they have not been in many cases or even possibly as found in the lions share of the cases to speak of now, so they who were led astray will have to answer for their sin as they best can deal with it now, but the government needs to rethink what it is supporting or even holding up by law these days, because it has been duped by devilish thinking found in individuals who had become weakened in character but strengthened somehow in intelect, and had gained a high position in government in which has led this government into these areas of supporting sinfulness and acts that make our government afiliates of what may even be constituted as supporting criminal activity from a governmental standpoint in this nation.


----------



## beagle9

Katzndogz said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really understand how one evil justifies another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing a mother to birth the product of rape is also evil.
> 
> Lest you try to say differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> There is still a death.  The death of the baby, a death for which the responsible party is never brought to justice.
Click to expand...

If a DNC is performed immediately after a rape (before the egg is fertilized), then I feel that all is well with the aborting of such a potential pregnancy as to be formed out of such an evil act as would be found in forced rape or other forced acts upon an unwilling woman in which she was not a willing participant in. The key is time, and making sure that "time" is of the most important when it comes to stopping a pregnancy that may be born out of a rape or an incest situation. I see no problem with this time schedule requirment, as most if not 99.9% will use this quick time envelope to stop a potential pregnancy from happening, if rape or incest were involved.  I'd say no DNC without a police report.


----------



## Foxfyre

Again I do not wish to judge or focus on guilt or accusations of the mother.  Whether or not abortion is legal she either does or does not want that baby.  She either is or is not willing to intentionally end its life.  Whatever her issues are, they are her own business and not any of our business.  Let her work out her own mattters of conscience and leave it up to her and God to judge her.  And certainly I do not presume to make the terrible choice for a woman who has been victimized by rape or incest.

The issue always with most of us prolifers is the matter of the second life, the unborn child.  And even here we have a dichotomy.  Can the government legitimately force the woman to live her life to support the life she helped begin?  Or does she have the legal right to smoke and drink to excess, do other drugs, and otherwise live in such a way that the baby will almost certainly be born addicted and/or otherwsie severely damaged?  Have you ever held a crack baby in your arms?  One severely damaged with fetal alcohol syndrome?   I have.  And it is a heartbreaking thing.   Neverthless, almost all of us would say that the government must never be given power to force anybody to live in a specific way.   So on that one, we are helpless to intervene.

And would it not be more merciful to the unborn to simply not force him or her to endure that?  That also has to be part of the conversation.

The bottom line again is that the ultimate answer is to return to an appreciation and reverence for life.  We will continue to too often be a brutal and savage and selfish society so long as it is socially acceptable to throw away hundreds of thousands, even millions, of lives for no better reason than they are inconvenient.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

jillian said:


> the ethics are resolved... the supreme court ruled and people should stay out of others' business.
> 
> *and for the record... no one is pro abortion.* we are pro government staying out of our bodies and pro religious zealots keeping to their own concerns.



For the record, I personally have already disproved that statement more than once on this board. The only reason to keep saying it is that you either are pro abortion and want to pretend otherwise, or you to let facts change your opinions.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anybody has argued that government  should ever have the power to dictate who can and can't have children.  At the state and local levels, it should have the power to ensure that any children produced are properly cared for and that can include removing a child from a home in cases of abuse, neglect, or inability to care for the child and placing the child in a safe environment.   If we go with strict interpretation of original intent, the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to get involved in such matters.
> 
> So ultimately it all comes down to whether the unborn chld is consideredto be a life subject to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Or whether it is a throwaway at the whim or decision of the mother.  It is an even stickier wicket in states in which a murder of a pregnant woman counts as a double murder.
> 
> The pro abortion group desperately wants the unborn child to be nothing more than a mass of cells and to be entirely considered a throwaway if that is what the woman wants to do.  Many think that if any part of the child is yet inside the birth canal, the child should be killed with impunity or an aborted baby that continues to live after the procedure should be killed or allowed to die.   These are serious ethical issues for a whole lot of us.
> 
> And until those ethics are fully resolved, this will continue to be a volatiile and emotional issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the ethics are resolved... the supreme court ruled and people should stay out of others' business.
> 
> *and for the record... no one is pro abortion. *we are pro government staying out of our bodies and pro religious zealots keeping to their own concerns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, the disagreement concerns the solution, how to end the practice.
Click to expand...


You think it is correct to state a lie?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Noomi said:


> How to end abortion? Its not possible. Banning abortion will still mean people will have abortions, they will just go underground - which I think is what the lifers would prefer. We can lower the abortion rate by starting sex education in schools early on, and do what the Netherlands does. They have an extremely low rate of teen births because they have been educated on safe sex, yet conservatives think that the way to prevent teen pregnancy is to tell them not to have sex.
> 
> I think we should ask Bristol Palin how well that works.



Can you prove that the reason the Netherlands has a low abortion rate is because of sex education? Of course you can't, so why make the argument in the first place? Is it possible you have an agenda that somehow justifies you making  statements you know to be false?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Indofred said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple FF
> 
> Everyone should keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spot on.
> For those that don't agree with abortion in the case of rape.
> I hope your daughter or wife (or yourself. in the case of a lady) never get raped and have to carry the baby.
> 
> For those that think it's up to the woman to decide by herself - I really don't see a problem with that.
> 
> The lady concerned has to make all the hard choices in what must be a very difficult time for her.
> That in mind, it's up to her, not some daft politician without a clue.
Click to expand...



It's amazing how many abortion supporters think this is a valid argument.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Ravi said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the role of government can be problematic and of course that has to be part of the conversation.  There was a time not all that long ago in America in which abortion on demand, most especially for reasons of birth control, was unthinkable as a legal procedure while ending a medically necessary pregnancy was legal everywhere.  Roe v Wade made abortion on demand legal but did leave the state some power to regulate it in the second and third trimesters.  And that has been pushed to the limit even to the point of the partial birth abortion in which a perfectly healthy baby can be legally killed if any part of that baby is still in the birth canal.   And yes, I know that this is a rare procedure, but it is neverthless legal in some places.  In Illinois, a baby that survives an abortion can be legally killed.   Such things would be unthinkable 60 years ago.  How much longer will it be before the less than perfect baby that is completely born can be legally killed?
> 
> And we all know that it will require a change in people's hearts to again appreciate and revere the sanctity of human life before abortion again becomes something that is necessary and rare and no longer socially acceptable as a convenience.
> 
> I cannot imagine any interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that would make it possible to require abortions however.  When it comes to that we will have no freedoms left and it won't be America any more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution has allready been circumvented.  Our 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 8th have all been abrogated.  *The fact that a baby can survive an abortion and be left to die in a dark room in IL l*ets you know just how far down that despicable path we have travelled.  IMO, any child that survives an abortion is now fully protected by the laws of the land, unfortunately scumbags like the big O can interpret them any way they wish.  Which is why I don't ever want them to have that power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not true and it has never been true.
Click to expand...


I love it when people say things like this, it shows how desperate they are to pretend they have the moral high ground. they are even willing to lie to themselves in order to keep their delusion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

geauxtohell said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rape also doesn't justify a woman to be forced to relive the event every day for 9 months until she can put the baby up for adoption and try to begin to heal psychologically.
> 
> I love how you guys wrap yourself in the garments of compassion while conveniently omitting that fact.
> 
> The current system is fine.  If a woman abhors abortion more than the act of rape, it is her choice to carry the baby.
> 
> If not, then she can't be forced to undergo mental torture simply because zealots like yourself think you have a say in this matter.
Click to expand...


You are describing PTSD, do you think abortion is a cure for it? Do you have some actually reference material to back this up, or are you simply taking a position, and then using emotional arguments to justify it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

geauxtohell said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really understand how one evil justifies another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing a mother to birth the product of rape is also evil.
> 
> Lest you try to say differently.
Click to expand...


Apparently you did not read the post you replied to.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Paulie said:


> Anyone here who knows me well enough knows I'm not a fan of abortion.  But come on, this is just ridiculous.



It is quite simple, actually. Either abortion is wrong, or it isn't. If it is wrong except in some cases you are apply situational ethics, not morality.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Katzndogz said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's harder to imagine than carrying that love child around for 9 months while it kicks you and reminds you every single day that you were raped?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what Cheryl said. She was free to be this child's mother and help her become the beautiful girl that she is. My Sister always said she is glad she had the baby. It helped her to focus on what mattered
> 
> Oh and I am glad too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's when it goes well.   When it doesn't go well, it's a worse disaster.  I know a woman that was raped and had the baby thinking it would help her heal.  Instead she took out her anger on the baby, the girl and the young woman that baby became.   The daughter could not live being the subject of a lifetime of total resentment and no love.  She committed suicide at 17.   Mother died two years later of acute alcoholism.    A woman on another board was the product of a rape but given up for adoption.  She made the mistake of tracking down her biological mother and got told if mother knew she would be tracked down and her privacy invaded, she would have had an abortion.
> 
> I knew the woman and her daughter.  It was a total tragedy.   Years and years of tragedy.
Click to expand...


The fact that some people are not qualified to be parents doesn't justify abortion either. Unless, that is, you think the government can mandate abortions whenever people don't meet whatever qualifications it imposes.

By the way, do you have any evidence she would not have taken her anger out on her child if she hadn't been raped?


----------



## beagle9

Foxfyre said:


> Again I do not wish to judge or focus on guilt or accusations of the mother.  Whether or not abortion is legal she either does or does not want that baby.  She either is or is not willing to intentionally end its life.  Whatever her issues are, they are her own business and not any of our business.  Let her work out her own mattters of conscience and leave it up to her and God to judge her.  And certainly I do not presume to make the terrible choice for a woman who has been victimized by rape or incest.
> 
> The issue always with most of us prolifers is the matter of the second life, the unborn child.  And even here we have a dichotomy.  Can the government legitimately force the woman to live her life to support the life she helped begin?  Or does she have the legal right to smoke and drink to excess, do other drugs, and otherwise live in such a way that the baby will almost certainly be born addicted and/or otherwsie severely damaged?  Have you ever held a crack baby in your arms?  One severely damaged with fetal alcohol syndrome?   I have.  And it is a heartbreaking thing.   Neverthless, almost all of us would say that the government must never be given power to force anybody to live in a specific way.   So on that one, we are helpless to intervene.
> 
> And would it not be more merciful to the unborn to simply not force him or her to endure that?  That also has to be part of the conversation.
> 
> The bottom line again is that the ultimate answer is to return to an appreciation and reverence for life.  We will continue to too often be a brutal and savage and selfish society so long as it is socially acceptable to throw away hundreds of thousands, even millions, of lives for no better reason than they are inconvenient.


Government participation is good, just as long as government is on the right side of the issue when particpating. What we have had in the past, is a government that has been on the wrong side of these issues, and has caused great damage and confusion in this nation from being on the wrong side of these issues.


----------



## beagle9

Quantum Windbag said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what Cheryl said. She was free to be this child's mother and help her become the beautiful girl that she is. My Sister always said she is glad she had the baby. It helped her to focus on what mattered
> 
> Oh and I am glad too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's when it goes well.   When it doesn't go well, it's a worse disaster.  I know a woman that was raped and had the baby thinking it would help her heal.  Instead she took out her anger on the baby, the girl and the young woman that baby became.   The daughter could not live being the subject of a lifetime of total resentment and no love.  She committed suicide at 17.   Mother died two years later of acute alcoholism.    A woman on another board was the product of a rape but given up for adoption.  She made the mistake of tracking down her biological mother and got told if mother knew she would be tracked down and her privacy invaded, she would have had an abortion.
> 
> I knew the woman and her daughter.  It was a total tragedy.   Years and years of tragedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that some people are not qualified to be parents doesn't justify abortion either. Unless, that is, you think the government can mandate abortions whenever people don't meet whatever qualifications it imposes.
> 
> By the way, do you have any evidence she would not have taken her anger out on her child if she hadn't been raped?
Click to expand...


No it justifies adoption quickly there after or the removal of the child from the home if abuse is found. If the parents harm the child in anyway while the child is in their care, then they should be made to pay for this big time in prison, and the child taken to safety quickly.


----------



## beagle9

PixieStix said:


> I cannot imagine what it would be like to be raped and then have to spread my legs so that some stranger can suck the product of rape from my body, especially so close to the time of the rape, and then expect me to be better because of it. I have tried to imagine it.....I imagine it would only complicate the issues.
> 
> By the way, I have a sister that was raped and became pregnant


The admission of you to a hospital after such a situation occurs, and then a DNC or morning after pill maybe (what ever the medicine technology would be), as would be given you in order that you not become pregnant with the rapist baby, would all be part of your health care and the long term healing process to begin, especially after such an event had taken place against you by a sick thug or pervert. 

You act as if you would be treated poorly in such a situation in the way that you described it, but I think it would be the most compassionate experience afterwards that there could be in light of the situation gone through. You would be in the care of those who are your caretakers and not your enemy as the rapist was, so what in the world are you talking about ?


----------



## syrenn

Foxfyre said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither the government nor the courts dictate what my moral center or sense of ethics will be.  And yes, those who want no restrictions of any kind in any form on abortion are pro abortion.  Otherwise they would at least be willing to have a conversation about the ethics which involve not just the woman and her right to do with her body what she wishes, but also involves a second life who has no choice in the matter.  And that is where the ethics come in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple FF
> 
> Everyone should keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the conversation about ethics on a second life..... if you cannot remove the cells before the first trimester.... a nice gentle c section removal... a nice gentle birth....and have it live on its own... giving it ALL the life support you want..... its not viable a life of its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should everyone keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves re the mistreatment of children who are born?   Of even the mistreatment of animals?
> 
> The pro-abortion group does have to make the 'unviable' fetus nothing but meaningless cells and therefore it is okay to discard it without conscience or violation of personal ethics.  The pro-life group sees no stage of life as less critical than any other stage of life for any person.  We all have to go through the 'unviable fetus' stage if we are allowed to live.  *So is the mistreatment of that 'unviable fetus' somehow more okay than the mistreatment of the newborn baby who is no less viable without somebody taking care of all its needs?
> *
> The pro-abortion group can also love children and can also approve the woman who chooses life for her baby.  One can be pro-abortion and still hate the thought of it.
> And the pro-life group can understand why abortion is sometimes necessary and chooses not to judge the woman struggling with the trauma of incest or rape.  A prolifer can be every bit as pro choice in that regard as is the pro-abortion group.
> 
> To the prolifer, the unborn is a human life no matter what stage it happens to be in during any given week or month.   None of us become functioning human beings without going through every stage of human life.  To the prolifer, a pregnancy represents two lives:  the mother and the child she carries.  And if  one believes it is appropriate to step in to defend a mistreated child or animal, perhaps it is more easy to understand the prolifer who sees the unborn child as also a helpless life worthy of love and concern.
Click to expand...




Again... and most por lifers refuse to engage in this..... 


c section the enviable cells out.. and give it ALL the it requires... see to its every need.....  give it is life.  One incubator should be just as good as another.


----------



## syrenn

Indofred said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple FF
> 
> Everyone should keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spot on.
> For those that don't agree with abortion in the case of rape.
> I hope your daughter or wife (or yourself. in the case of a lady) never get raped and have to carry the baby.
> 
> For those that think it's up to the woman to decide by herself - I really don't see a problem with that.
> 
> The lady concerned has to make all the hard choices in what must be a very difficult time for her.
> That in mind, it's up to her, not some daft politician without a clue.
Click to expand...




I makes no difference if anyone agrees with a woman or not in ANY case of abortion.....  its her body and her choice to carry a pregnancy to term or not.


----------



## syrenn

PixieStix said:


> I cannot imagine what it would be like to be raped and then have to spread my legs so that some stranger can suck the product of rape from my body, especially so close to the time of the rape, and then expect me to be better because of it. I have tried to imagine it.....I imagine it would only complicate the issues.
> 
> By the way, I have a sister that was raped and became pregnant




And that is fine for you pix. 


But i am sure there are other women who have zero problem imagining it or doing it. That is why its called a personal choice.


----------



## Foxfyre

syrenn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple FF
> 
> Everyone should keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the conversation about ethics on a second life..... if you cannot remove the cells before the first trimester.... a nice gentle c section removal... a nice gentle birth....and have it live on its own... giving it ALL the life support you want..... its not viable a life of its own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should everyone keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves re the mistreatment of children who are born?   Of even the mistreatment of animals?
> 
> The pro-abortion group does have to make the 'unviable' fetus nothing but meaningless cells and therefore it is okay to discard it without conscience or violation of personal ethics.  The pro-life group sees no stage of life as less critical than any other stage of life for any person.  We all have to go through the 'unviable fetus' stage if we are allowed to live.  *So is the mistreatment of that 'unviable fetus' somehow more okay than the mistreatment of the newborn baby who is no less viable without somebody taking care of all its needs?
> *
> The pro-abortion group can also love children and can also approve the woman who chooses life for her baby.  One can be pro-abortion and still hate the thought of it.
> And the pro-life group can understand why abortion is sometimes necessary and chooses not to judge the woman struggling with the trauma of incest or rape.  A prolifer can be every bit as pro choice in that regard as is the pro-abortion group.
> 
> To the prolifer, the unborn is a human life no matter what stage it happens to be in during any given week or month.   None of us become functioning human beings without going through every stage of human life.  To the prolifer, a pregnancy represents two lives:  the mother and the child she carries.  And if  one believes it is appropriate to step in to defend a mistreated child or animal, perhaps it is more easy to understand the prolifer who sees the unborn child as also a helpless life worthy of love and concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... and most por lifers refuse to engage in this.....
> 
> 
> c section the enviable cells out.. and give it ALL the it requires... see to its every need.....  give it is life.  One incubator should be just as good as another.
Click to expand...


But one incubator isn't as good as another is it.  And a C-section is quite an invasive procedure and not without its own risks--much more risk than an abortion wouldn't you say?

Prolifers might or might not excerpt one line from a post and try to make it the sum total of the intent of the post, but we can leave that for another discussion.  The line that you excerpted however addressed your own assertion of the viability of the fetus being the guideline by which abortion should be deemed acceptable.  I am simply pointing out that the newborn baby is no more viable without total care and support any more than is a fetus at any stage of pregnancy.

So for the prolifer, it still comes down to the one question that the pro-abortion crowd so desperately seems to want to dismiss.  Is the unborn baby a human life or isn't it?  The prolifer says that yes it is, and therefore it is two lives to be considered, and not just the 'choice of the mother'.


----------



## AmyNation

A fetus is not a baby until after RBD.


----------



## syrenn

Foxfyre said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should everyone keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves re the mistreatment of children who are born?   Of even the mistreatment of animals?
> 
> The pro-abortion group does have to make the 'unviable' fetus nothing but meaningless cells and therefore it is okay to discard it without conscience or violation of personal ethics.  The pro-life group sees no stage of life as less critical than any other stage of life for any person.  We all have to go through the 'unviable fetus' stage if we are allowed to live.  *So is the mistreatment of that 'unviable fetus' somehow more okay than the mistreatment of the newborn baby who is no less viable without somebody taking care of all its needs?
> *
> The pro-abortion group can also love children and can also approve the woman who chooses life for her baby.  One can be pro-abortion and still hate the thought of it.
> And the pro-life group can understand why abortion is sometimes necessary and chooses not to judge the woman struggling with the trauma of incest or rape.  A prolifer can be every bit as pro choice in that regard as is the pro-abortion group.
> 
> To the prolifer, the unborn is a human life no matter what stage it happens to be in during any given week or month.   None of us become functioning human beings without going through every stage of human life.  To the prolifer, a pregnancy represents two lives:  the mother and the child she carries.  And if  one believes it is appropriate to step in to defend a mistreated child or animal, perhaps it is more easy to understand the prolifer who sees the unborn child as also a helpless life worthy of love and concern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... and most por lifers refuse to engage in this.....
> 
> 
> c section the enviable cells out.. and give it ALL the it requires... see to its every need.....  give it is life.  One incubator should be just as good as another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But one incubator isn't as good as another is it.  And a C-section is quite an invasive procedure and not without its own risks--much more risk than an abortion wouldn't you say?
> 
> Prolifers might or might not excerpt one line from a post and try to make it the sum total of the intent of the post, but we can leave that for another discussion.  The line that you excerpted however addressed your own assertion of the viability of the fetus being the guideline by which abortion should be deemed acceptable.  I am simply pointing out that the newborn baby is no more viable without total care and support any more than is a fetus at any stage of pregnancy.
> 
> So for the prolifer, it still comes down to the one question that the pro-abortion crowd so desperately seems to want to dismiss.  Is the unborn baby a human life or isn't it?  The prolifer says that yes it is, and therefore it is two lives to be considered, and not just the 'choice of the mother'.
Click to expand...




A c section is also a form of birth. Do you have something against birth now? 


Your example of what is and what is not viable...... are not the same thing. 

If we make both examples equal... Baby=cells..... then you should still have no problem with giving the very same loving care to a bunch of cells on a table. Feed it... keep it warm... love and care for it..... give it all the life supporting measures you want. Let it have its.... life.  


I have no problem answering the question ff. It is human _cells _from the start.  Just as finger nails and hair are human cells. 

Living...and having a _life of its own_ are two very different things. 


So again... prolifers claim its a life of its own.... there should be zero problem with giving it a c section birth at any point after conception.


----------



## Foxfyre

syrenn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... and most por lifers refuse to engage in this.....
> 
> 
> c section the enviable cells out.. and give it ALL the it requires... see to its every need.....  give it is life.  One incubator should be just as good as another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But one incubator isn't as good as another is it.  And a C-section is quite an invasive procedure and not without its own risks--much more risk than an abortion wouldn't you say?
> 
> Prolifers might or might not excerpt one line from a post and try to make it the sum total of the intent of the post, but we can leave that for another discussion.  The line that you excerpted however addressed your own assertion of the viability of the fetus being the guideline by which abortion should be deemed acceptable.  I am simply pointing out that the newborn baby is no more viable without total care and support any more than is a fetus at any stage of pregnancy.
> 
> So for the prolifer, it still comes down to the one question that the pro-abortion crowd so desperately seems to want to dismiss.  Is the unborn baby a human life or isn't it?  The prolifer says that yes it is, and therefore it is two lives to be considered, and not just the 'choice of the mother'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A c section is also a form of birth. Do you have something against birth now?
> 
> 
> Your example of what is and what is not viable...... are not the same thing.
> 
> If we make both examples equal... Baby=cells..... then you should still have no problem with giving the very same loving care to a bunch of cells on a table. Feed it... keep it warm... love and care for it..... give it all the life supporting measures you want. Let it have its.... life.
> 
> 
> I have no problem answering the question ff. It is human _cells _from the start.  Just as finger nails and hair are human cells.
> 
> Living...and having a _life of its own_ are two very different things.
> 
> 
> So again... prolifers claim its a life of its own.... there should be zero problem with giving it a c section birth at any point after conception.
Click to expand...


Certainly a c-section is a form of birth and an excellent choice for women who for whatever reason are unable to safely have a natural birth.  And that is totally irrelevent to this discussion.

Again one more time for the challenged here:  The prolifer values the sanctity of life at all stages necessary to that life.  And the longer the life can stay in the womb for the period of gestation necessary for human life, the better off that person is going to be.  Because of that the prolifer considers two lives:  that of the mother and that of the child.

The pro-abortion crowd, at least those with any conscience at all, has to believe that the unborn is not a human life, is less than a person, in order to justify killing it.  That allows the only consideration to be whatever the choice of the mother might be to be acceptable and not to be challenged.

And that is the discussion that the proabortion crowd seems unwilling to have.


----------



## Paulie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone here who knows me well enough knows I'm not a fan of abortion.  But come on, this is just ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite simple, actually. Either abortion is wrong, or it isn't. If it is wrong except in some cases you are apply situational ethics, not morality.
Click to expand...


I don't feel like killing a week old cluster of cells is any different than the cluster of cells that are killed when you fall down and scrape your elbow.  All live cells, yes, but just CELLS nonetheless.  

Is there a woman who was raped and waiting to the 3rd trimester to terminate?  Probably, but I bet that's as rare as rare gets.  I'm sure the overwhelming majority of women who abort after a rape do it immediately.


----------



## Maple

Quantum Windbag said:


> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
Click to expand...


There is nothing that boils my blood more than a man, ( I am assuming that you are a man) telling a woman anything that relates to her body. Men are rarely victims of rape or incest and I have yet to see a man pregnant and deliver a baby. I am a pro-life conservative, but I would not ever force a woman who had been raped to re-live that nightmare for nine months or the rest of her life. Nor would I ever stand for a man telling her to do so. You men lose the Republican women's vote anytime you talk about it. I am pro-life but I absolutely make the 3 exceptions, for rape, incest and the life of the mother. 

There are some MEN who have even stated that they would not consider the life of the mother. I want to ask you this, are you going to be willing to raise and nuture the 3 kids she has at home when she dies giving birth to her 4th child? Are you going to be the one who has tell the 3 that she left behind that this was god's will. If this is your stand, I don't want to see you going for cancer treatment or anything else as it was God's will that you came down with cancer and treating it to save your life goes against God's will. That's how damn stupid you sound to me when I hear a rant like this.

BTW I am a Republican conservative woman.


----------



## Noomi

I would love to see the pro lifers prove how much they care about children by adopting one. But they won't.


----------



## beagle9

Maple said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing that boils my blood more than a man, ( I am assuming that you are a man) telling a woman anything that relates to her body. Men are rarely victims of rape or incest and I have yet to see a man pregnant and deliver a baby. I am a pro-life conservative, but I would not ever force a woman who had been raped to re-live that nightmare for nine months or the rest of her life. Nor would I ever stand for a man telling her to do so. You men lose the Republican women's vote anytime you talk about it. I am pro-life but I absolutely make the 3 exceptions, for rape, incest and the life of the mother.
> 
> There are some MEN who have even stated that they would not consider the life of the mother. I want to ask you this, are you going to be willing to raise and nuture the 3 kids she has at home when she dies giving birth to her 4th child? Are you going to be the one who has tell the 3 that she left behind that this was god's will. If this is your stand, I don't want to see you going for cancer treatment or anything else as it was God's will that you came down with cancer and treating it to save your life goes against God's will. That's how damn stupid you sound to me when I hear a rant like this.
> 
> BTW I am a Republican conservative woman.
Click to expand...

People like this in which you refer to, use God in their own ways and upon their own terms, instead of God using them in his way in which is rightfully so. Beware of devils who act Godly and invoke God's name to empower their words, where as they think that we are dum enough not to see this, but we know them when they do this, just as others should know them as well when they do this.


----------



## AmyNation

I wish this was an issue we , as a nation, could compromise on and finally move on from. The constant back and forth, the money and time we waste on this issue could be much better spent.


----------



## Noomi

Quantum Windbag said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> How to end abortion? Its not possible. Banning abortion will still mean people will have abortions, they will just go underground - which I think is what the lifers would prefer. We can lower the abortion rate by starting sex education in schools early on, and do what the Netherlands does. They have an extremely low rate of teen births because they have been educated on safe sex, yet conservatives think that the way to prevent teen pregnancy is to tell them not to have sex.
> 
> I think we should ask Bristol Palin how well that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that the reason the Netherlands has a low abortion rate is because of sex education? Of course you can't, so why make the argument in the first place? Is it possible you have an agenda that somehow justifies you making  statements you know to be false?
Click to expand...


Hmm, lets see...

Holland starts sex education at a young age. Parents are happy to have their teenager share the same room as their partners. They are open and honest with their kids. They are taught about contraception. As a result, they have a very low rate of teen births.

In America, parents don't want their kids to learn sex education. Abstinence only education is pushed upon children. Parents - especially the religious freaks - are not as open and honest with their kids about contraception.
As a result, the rate of teen births is sky high.

Only an idiot would believe that the American approach is working.


----------



## syrenn

Foxfyre said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But one incubator isn't as good as another is it.  And a C-section is quite an invasive procedure and not without its own risks--much more risk than an abortion wouldn't you say?
> 
> Prolifers might or might not excerpt one line from a post and try to make it the sum total of the intent of the post, but we can leave that for another discussion.  The line that you excerpted however addressed your own assertion of the viability of the fetus being the guideline by which abortion should be deemed acceptable.  I am simply pointing out that the newborn baby is no more viable without total care and support any more than is a fetus at any stage of pregnancy.
> 
> So for the prolifer, it still comes down to the one question that the pro-abortion crowd so desperately seems to want to dismiss.  Is the unborn baby a human life or isn't it?  The prolifer says that yes it is, and therefore it is two lives to be considered, and not just the 'choice of the mother'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A c section is also a form of birth. Do you have something against birth now?
> 
> 
> Your example of what is and what is not viable...... are not the same thing.
> 
> If we make both examples equal... Baby=cells..... then you should still have no problem with giving the very same loving care to a bunch of cells on a table. Feed it... keep it warm... love and care for it..... give it all the life supporting measures you want. Let it have its.... life.
> 
> 
> I have no problem answering the question ff. It is human _cells _from the start.  Just as finger nails and hair are human cells.
> 
> Living...and having a _life of its own_ are two very different things.
> 
> 
> So again... prolifers claim its a life of its own.... there should be zero problem with giving it a c section birth at any point after conception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly a c-section is a form of birth and an excellent choice for women who for whatever reason are unable to safely have a natural birth.  And that is totally irrelevent to this discussion.
> 
> Again one more time for the challenged here:  The prolifer values the sanctity of life at all stages necessary to that life.  And the longer the life can stay in the womb for the period of gestation necessary for human life, the better off that person is going to be.  Because of that the prolifer considers two lives:  that of the mother and that of the child.
> 
> The pro-abortion crowd, at least those with any conscience at all, has to believe that the unborn is not a human life, is less than a person, in order to justify killing it.  That allows the only consideration to be whatever the choice of the mother might be to be acceptable and not to be challenged.
> 
> And that is the discussion that the proabortion crowd seems unwilling to have.
Click to expand...


C section is very relevant to this discussion.  It is birth. Again.... give the mass of cells birth.... no "abortion" necessary. That should cover all of your arguments against abortion. A c section is birth. 


The pro abortion crowd as you put it, have time and again.... all said the cells are human. They have also said it is not a life of its own. 

So long as the cells are interdependent and not stand alone life without a host..... it is not a baby or child. It is a mass of human non viable human cells.


----------



## beagle9

Noomi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> How to end abortion? Its not possible. Banning abortion will still mean people will have abortions, they will just go underground - which I think is what the lifers would prefer. We can lower the abortion rate by starting sex education in schools early on, and do what the Netherlands does. They have an extremely low rate of teen births because they have been educated on safe sex, yet conservatives think that the way to prevent teen pregnancy is to tell them not to have sex.
> 
> I think we should ask Bristol Palin how well that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that the reason the Netherlands has a low abortion rate is because of sex education? Of course you can't, so why make the argument in the first place? Is it possible you have an agenda that somehow justifies you making  statements you know to be false?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm, lets see...
> 
> Holland starts sex education at a young age. Parents are happy to have their teenager share the same room as their partners. They are open and honest with their kids. They are taught about contraception. As a result, they have a very low rate of teen births.
> 
> In America, parents don't want their kids to learn sex education. Abstinence only education is pushed upon children. Parents - especially the religious freaks - are not as open and honest with their kids about contraception.
> As a result, the rate of teen births is sky high.
> 
> Only an idiot would believe that the American approach is working.
Click to expand...

We tried Hollands version during the sixties, and isn't that where the baby boomers came from ?


----------



## Dr Grump

The Rabbi said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion helps people get born? How?
> 
> By the way, I am not making moral choice for others, I am attempting to prevent people from making immoral choices to kill others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think it's immoral. i think it's immoral to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want. i think it's immoral to then say that she's on her own and you don't support any type of daycare, education assistance and job training for her. i think it's immoral to make a woman have a child who might look like the person who raped her. i think it's immoral to let a woman die because you won't terminate a pregnancy that is killing her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me Me Me. It's all the Left ever thinks about.
Click to expand...


Oh, the irony of that statement..


----------



## Noomi

beagle9 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that the reason the Netherlands has a low abortion rate is because of sex education? Of course you can't, so why make the argument in the first place? Is it possible you have an agenda that somehow justifies you making  statements you know to be false?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, lets see...
> 
> Holland starts sex education at a young age. Parents are happy to have their teenager share the same room as their partners. They are open and honest with their kids. They are taught about contraception. As a result, they have a very low rate of teen births.
> 
> In America, parents don't want their kids to learn sex education. Abstinence only education is pushed upon children. Parents - especially the religious freaks - are not as open and honest with their kids about contraception.
> As a result, the rate of teen births is sky high.
> 
> Only an idiot would believe that the American approach is working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We tried Hollands version during the sixties, and isn't that where the baby boomers came from ?
Click to expand...


I am part of Gen Y. I wouldn't have a clue what happened in the 60's.


----------



## Maple

There have always been abortions, even in the middle ages, a good movie to watch for all of you men and women who think abortions will end if we end Roe vs Wade need to watch is "Cider House Rules." Young women died from back alley hacks spreading infection. Another thing to consider, drugs are illegal yet they are rampant. No law will end abortion. What a woman does with her body is between herself and her god as we can't legislate personal morality.

It's high time to end the talk on this issue, all it does to us conservative Republicans is cause us to lose elections. I respect life, but I also respect the life of the mother as mother's are very important to me as well.


----------



## Dr Grump

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly think I can't?
> 
> 
> 
> The word translated as soul in this verse is nephesh, which means breathing creature. I am sure you are willing to admit that people are living, and breathing, creatures. That makes people souls.
> 
> If you are honest you will rep me for this one since I just used the Bible to prove something science agrees with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't translate into facts. Nor does your faith...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying I am wrong that we all breathe? Do you have any evidence to prove we don't?
Click to expand...


Look up the definition of the word 'soul' then get back to me..


----------



## Dr Grump

Noomi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> How to end abortion? Its not possible. Banning abortion will still mean people will have abortions, they will just go underground - which I think is what the lifers would prefer. We can lower the abortion rate by starting sex education in schools early on, and do what the Netherlands does. They have an extremely low rate of teen births because they have been educated on safe sex, yet conservatives think that the way to prevent teen pregnancy is to tell them not to have sex.
> 
> I think we should ask Bristol Palin how well that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that the reason the Netherlands has a low abortion rate is because of sex education? Of course you can't, so why make the argument in the first place? Is it possible you have an agenda that somehow justifies you making  statements you know to be false?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm, lets see...
> 
> Holland starts sex education at a young age. Parents are happy to have their teenager share the same room as their partners. They are open and honest with their kids. They are taught about contraception. As a result, they have a very low rate of teen births.
> 
> In America, parents don't want their kids to learn sex education. Abstinence only education is pushed upon children. Parents - especially the religious freaks - are not as open and honest with their kids about contraception.
> As a result, the rate of teen births is sky high.
> 
> Only an idiot would believe that the American approach is working.
Click to expand...


Well, look who you're posting to.

'nuff said..


----------



## Dr Grump

beagle9 said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing that boils my blood more than a man, ( I am assuming that you are a man) telling a woman anything that relates to her body. Men are rarely victims of rape or incest and I have yet to see a man pregnant and deliver a baby. I am a pro-life conservative, but I would not ever force a woman who had been raped to re-live that nightmare for nine months or the rest of her life. Nor would I ever stand for a man telling her to do so. You men lose the Republican women's vote anytime you talk about it. I am pro-life but I absolutely make the 3 exceptions, for rape, incest and the life of the mother.
> 
> There are some MEN who have even stated that they would not consider the life of the mother. I want to ask you this, are you going to be willing to raise and nuture the 3 kids she has at home when she dies giving birth to her 4th child? Are you going to be the one who has tell the 3 that she left behind that this was god's will. If this is your stand, I don't want to see you going for cancer treatment or anything else as it was God's will that you came down with cancer and treating it to save your life goes against God's will. That's how damn stupid you sound to me when I hear a rant like this.
> 
> BTW I am a Republican conservative woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People like this in which you refer to, use God in their own ways and upon their own terms, instead of God using them in his way in which is rightfully so. Beware of devils who act Godly and invoke God's name to empower their words, where as they think that we are dum enough not to see this, but we know them when they do this, just as others should know them as well when they do this.
Click to expand...


Wanna try that in English?


----------



## Dr Grump

beagle9 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that the reason the Netherlands has a low abortion rate is because of sex education? Of course you can't, so why make the argument in the first place? Is it possible you have an agenda that somehow justifies you making  statements you know to be false?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, lets see...
> 
> Holland starts sex education at a young age. Parents are happy to have their teenager share the same room as their partners. They are open and honest with their kids. They are taught about contraception. As a result, they have a very low rate of teen births.
> 
> In America, parents don't want their kids to learn sex education. Abstinence only education is pushed upon children. Parents - especially the religious freaks - are not as open and honest with their kids about contraception.
> As a result, the rate of teen births is sky high.
> 
> Only an idiot would believe that the American approach is working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We tried Hollands version during the sixties, and isn't that where the baby boomers came from ?
Click to expand...


Nope. Baby boomers are the result of soldiers returning home from WWII. The 60s kids are Gen Xers...


----------



## beagle9

Maple said:


> There have always been abortions, even in the middle ages, a good movie to watch for all of you men and women who think abortions will end if we end Roe vs Wade need to watch is "Cider House Rules." Young women died from back alley hacks spreading infection. Another thing to consider, drugs are illegal yet they are rampant. No law will end abortion. What a woman does with her body is between herself and her god as we can't legislate personal morality.
> 
> It's high time to end the talk on this issue, all it does to us conservative Republicans is cause us to lose elections. I respect life, but I also respect the life of the mother as mother's are very important to me as well.


Well what the government supports and what it doesn't support is very important here, because government always empowers things, even if it is the wrong things, it still empowers them until realizes it's wrong just the same as well. The only way to get government back in line, is to talk about where it has gone wrong in America, and how it should maybe reconsider it's position that it was duped into supporting, and for which empowered the position once it supported it.


----------



## beagle9

Dr Grump said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing that boils my blood more than a man, ( I am assuming that you are a man) telling a woman anything that relates to her body. Men are rarely victims of rape or incest and I have yet to see a man pregnant and deliver a baby. I am a pro-life conservative, but I would not ever force a woman who had been raped to re-live that nightmare for nine months or the rest of her life. Nor would I ever stand for a man telling her to do so. You men lose the Republican women's vote anytime you talk about it. I am pro-life but I absolutely make the 3 exceptions, for rape, incest and the life of the mother.
> 
> There are some MEN who have even stated that they would not consider the life of the mother. I want to ask you this, are you going to be willing to raise and nuture the 3 kids she has at home when she dies giving birth to her 4th child? Are you going to be the one who has tell the 3 that she left behind that this was god's will. If this is your stand, I don't want to see you going for cancer treatment or anything else as it was God's will that you came down with cancer and treating it to save your life goes against God's will. That's how damn stupid you sound to me when I hear a rant like this.
> 
> BTW I am a Republican conservative woman.
> 
> 
> 
> People like this in which you refer to, use God in their own ways and upon their own terms, instead of God using them in his way in which is rightfully so. Beware of devils who act Godly and invoke God's name to empower their words, where as they think that we are dum enough not to see this, but we know them when they do this, just as others should know them as well when they do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wanna try that in English?
Click to expand...

If you can't understand what I was saying, then there is no need in conversating with you at all...sorry.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Maple said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing that boils my blood more than a man, ( I am assuming that you are a man) telling a woman anything that relates to her body. Men are rarely victims of rape or incest and I have yet to see a man pregnant and deliver a baby. I am a pro-life conservative, but I would not ever force a woman who had been raped to re-live that nightmare for nine months or the rest of her life. Nor would I ever stand for a man telling her to do so. You men lose the Republican women's vote anytime you talk about it. I am pro-life but I absolutely make the 3 exceptions, for rape, incest and the life of the mother.
> 
> There are some MEN who have even stated that they would not consider the life of the mother. I want to ask you this, are you going to be willing to raise and nuture the 3 kids she has at home when she dies giving birth to her 4th child? Are you going to be the one who has tell the 3 that she left behind that this was god's will. If this is your stand, I don't want to see you going for cancer treatment or anything else as it was God's will that you came down with cancer and treating it to save your life goes against God's will. That's how damn stupid you sound to me when I hear a rant like this.
> 
> BTW I am a Republican conservative woman.
Click to expand...


Please, feel free to point out where I said anything like what you just says boils your blood. You should stop projecting your hangups on other people and start actually dealing with what I am saying.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Noomi said:


> I would love to see the pro lifers prove how much they care about children by adopting one. But they won't.



Why don't you challenge Michele Bachmann to prove she cares about children?

Better yet, why don't you start actually talking about the issues I raised in the OP?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Noomi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> How to end abortion? Its not possible. Banning abortion will still mean people will have abortions, they will just go underground - which I think is what the lifers would prefer. We can lower the abortion rate by starting sex education in schools early on, and do what the Netherlands does. They have an extremely low rate of teen births because they have been educated on safe sex, yet conservatives think that the way to prevent teen pregnancy is to tell them not to have sex.
> 
> I think we should ask Bristol Palin how well that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that the reason the Netherlands has a low abortion rate is because of sex education? Of course you can't, so why make the argument in the first place? Is it possible you have an agenda that somehow justifies you making  statements you know to be false?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm, lets see...
> 
> Holland starts sex education at a young age. Parents are happy to have their teenager share the same room as their partners. They are open and honest with their kids. They are taught about contraception. As a result, they have a very low rate of teen births.
> 
> In America, parents don't want their kids to learn sex education. Abstinence only education is pushed upon children. Parents - especially the religious freaks - are not as open and honest with their kids about contraception.
> As a result, the rate of teen births is sky high.
> 
> Only an idiot would believe that the American approach is working.
Click to expand...


None of that actually constitutes proof.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't translate into facts. Nor does your faith...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying I am wrong that we all breathe? Do you have any evidence to prove we don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look up the definition of the word 'soul' then get back to me..
Click to expand...


I prefer the biblical definition, which is the entire self. Come to think of it, that is one of the definitions that you will find in the dictionary.


----------



## catzmeow

Foxfyre said:


> Again one more time for the challenged here:  The prolifer values the sanctity of life at all stages necessary to that life.  And the longer the life can stay in the womb for the period of gestation necessary for human life, the better off that person is going to be.  Because of that the prolifer considers two lives:  that of the mother and that of the child.
> 
> The pro-abortion crowd, at least those with any conscience at all, has to believe that the unborn is not a human life, is less than a person, in order to justify killing it.  That allows the only consideration to be whatever the choice of the mother might be to be acceptable and not to be challenged.
> 
> And that is the discussion that the proabortion crowd seems unwilling to have.



The pro-lifer has every right to make whatever decision she wishes with a fetus inside her body.  She just doesn't have a right to force her values on other people.  The legal abortion crowd is perfectly willing to respect your choices, but understands that your right to control our choices ends at your nose.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Again one more time for the challenged here: no one is pro-abortion, everyone is opposed to abortion  the disagreement is as to an actual, effective solution. Banning abortion or excessive punitive restrictions are not only offensive to the Constitution, but will in no way have the desired effect of ending the practice. 

In addition, the right to life or due process requirements/restrictions apply only to a law making jurisdiction, not to a private citizen.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Again one more time for the challenged here: no one is pro-abortion, everyone is opposed to abortion  the disagreement is as to an actual, effective solution. Banning abortion or excessive punitive restrictions are not only offensive to the Constitution, but will in no way have the desired effect of ending the practice.
> 
> In addition, the right to life or due process requirements/restrictions apply only to a law making jurisdiction, not to a private citizen.



One more time, saying no one is pro abortion is as stupid as saying no one always opposes abortion. There are people that support infanticide, my guess is every single one of them support abortion. Then we have the example of Theodore Shulman.

Abortion extremist Theodore Shulman faces 4 years in jail for threats - New York Daily News

Just because you aren't something doesn't mean no one else is.


----------



## Foxfyre

catzmeow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again one more time for the challenged here:  The prolifer values the sanctity of life at all stages necessary to that life.  And the longer the life can stay in the womb for the period of gestation necessary for human life, the better off that person is going to be.  Because of that the prolifer considers two lives:  that of the mother and that of the child.
> 
> The pro-abortion crowd, at least those with any conscience at all, has to believe that the unborn is not a human life, is less than a person, in order to justify killing it.  That allows the only consideration to be whatever the choice of the mother might be to be acceptable and not to be challenged.
> 
> And that is the discussion that the proabortion crowd seems unwilling to have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-lifer has every right to make whatever decision she wishes with a fetus inside her body.  She just doesn't have a right to force her values on other people.  The legal abortion crowd is perfectly willing to respect your choices, but understands that your right to control our choices ends at your nose.
Click to expand...


She has every bit as much right to care about an innocent life as she has every right to care about anything else though.  To speak one's convictions and argue a defense for the defenseless is also a woman's choice.   To argue a case that the unborn reprsents a human life is also a woman's choice.  And to argue that case forces nothing on anybody.

How much leeway does a woman have when it comes to another life?  Can she choose to do  whatever to the child she has given birth to and has full responsibility for?  Or does the state have some interest in that?   How far does her right to choose go there?


----------



## Ravi

westwall said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution has allready been circumvented.  Our 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 8th have all been abrogated.  *The fact that a baby can survive an abortion and be left to die in a dark room in IL l*ets you know just how far down that despicable path we have travelled.  IMO, any child that survives an abortion is now fully protected by the laws of the land, unfortunately scumbags like the big O can interpret them any way they wish.  Which is why I don't ever want them to have that power.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true and it has never been true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government hearings seem to indicate otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> "The legal and moral confusion that flows from these pernicious ideas is well illustrated by disturbing events that are reported to have occurred at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois. Two nurses from the hospital's delivery ward, Jill Stanek and Allison Baker (who is no longer employed by the hospital), testified before the Subcommittee on the Constitution that physicians at Christ Hospital have performed numerous `induced labor' or `live-birth' abortions, a procedure in which physicians use drugs to induce premature labor and deliver unborn children, many of whom are still alive, and then simply allow those who are born alive to die. 27
> 
> [Footnote]
> 
> [Footnote 27: See Born-Alive Infants Protection Act: Hearings on H.R. 4292 Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong., July 20, 2000 (statement of Jill L. Stanek, R.N.); Born-Alive Infants Protection Act: Hearings on H.R. 4292 Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong., July 20, 2000 (statement of Allison Baker, R.N., B.S.N.).]
> 
> According to medical experts, this procedure is appropriately used only in situations in which an unborn child has a fatal deformity, such as anencephaly or lack of a brain, and infants with such conditions who are born alive are given comfort care (including warmth and nutrition) until they die, which, because of the fatal deformity, is typically within a day or two of birth. According to the testimony of Mrs. Stanek and Mrs. Baker, however, physicians at Christ Hospital have used the procedure to abort healthy infants and infants with non-fatal deformities such as spina bifida and Down Syndrome. 28
> 
> [Footnote] Many of these babies have lived for hours after birth, with no efforts made to determine if any of them could have survived with appropriate medical assistance. 29"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Committee Reports - 106th Congress (1999-2000) - House Report 106-835
Click to expand...

Police investigation found no evidence that the stories were true. If they had, that nurse would be charged with murder.

There are alredy laws on the books against child neglect and murder.


----------



## Noomi

Foxfyre said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again one more time for the challenged here:  The prolifer values the sanctity of life at all stages necessary to that life.  And the longer the life can stay in the womb for the period of gestation necessary for human life, the better off that person is going to be.  Because of that the prolifer considers two lives:  that of the mother and that of the child.
> 
> The pro-abortion crowd, at least those with any conscience at all, has to believe that the unborn is not a human life, is less than a person, in order to justify killing it.  That allows the only consideration to be whatever the choice of the mother might be to be acceptable and not to be challenged.
> 
> And that is the discussion that the proabortion crowd seems unwilling to have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-lifer has every right to make whatever decision she wishes with a fetus inside her body.  She just doesn't have a right to force her values on other people.  The legal abortion crowd is perfectly willing to respect your choices, but understands that your right to control our choices ends at your nose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She has every bit as much right to care about an innocent life as she has every right to care about anything else though.  To speak one's convictions and argue a defense for the defenseless is also a woman's choice.   To argue a case that the unborn reprsents a human life is also a woman's choice.  And to argue that case forces nothing on anybody.
> 
> How much leeway does a woman have when it comes to another life?  Can she choose to do  whatever to the child she has given birth to and has full responsibility for?  Or does the state have some interest in that?   How far does her right to choose go there?
Click to expand...


Her right to choose begins when she becomes pregnant and ends when she gives birth.


----------



## Ravi

PixieStix said:


> I cannot imagine what it would be like to be raped and then have to spread my legs so that some stranger can suck the product of rape from my body, especially so close to the time of the rape, and then expect me to be better because of it. I have tried to imagine it.....I imagine it would only complicate the issues.
> 
> By the way, I have a sister that was raped and became pregnant


You don't HAVE to, you are free to give birth every time you get pregnant.


----------



## Ravi

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution has allready been circumvented.  Our 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 8th have all been abrogated.  *The fact that a baby can survive an abortion and be left to die in a dark room in IL l*ets you know just how far down that despicable path we have travelled.  IMO, any child that survives an abortion is now fully protected by the laws of the land, unfortunately scumbags like the big O can interpret them any way they wish.  Which is why I don't ever want them to have that power.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true and it has never been true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it when people say things like this, it shows how desperate they are to pretend they have the moral high ground. they are even willing to lie to themselves in order to keep their delusion.
Click to expand...


I'm not the one lying here, sweetheart.


----------



## Ravi

Noomi said:


> I would love to see the pro lifers prove how much they care about children by adopting one. But they won't.



Or better yet, incubating one. Why isn't there a registry of these women that want to take away someone's rights on file somewhere waiting and ready to incubate the fetus? And a register of men waiting to pay for it's care?


----------



## editec

The longer I read the incohernt rambling nonsense that passes for political opinion here, the more convinced I am that we need to legalize retroactive abortions, too.


----------



## FA_Q2

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution does not recognize the right to life of a fetus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution is not meant to recognize the right to life of a specific class of people, it is meant to protect everyone from the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hence Roe V Wade, and the right to privacy.
Click to expand...


And yet Roe v Wade DOES recognize that the mother simply does not have the right to privacy carte blanch.  There are legal restrictions that are allowed in Roe v Wade on when you can have an abortion. I have brought this up SEVERAL times and yet none of the pro-choice people here are willing to touch it with a ten foot pole.  Mostly because it shatters the asinine arguments they are using to support the concept she can have an abortion whenever she want because it is her body.  That is a failed idea and certainly DOES NOT reflect actual law.  IF you think that the law is currently incorrect, then say so but constantly hiding behind Roe v Wade with an argument that is specifically called out as false in it is asinine.  


Foxfyre said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should everyone keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves re the mistreatment of children who are born?   Of even the mistreatment of animals?
> 
> The pro-abortion group does have to make the 'unviable' fetus nothing but meaningless cells and therefore it is okay to discard it without conscience or violation of personal ethics.  The pro-life group sees no stage of life as less critical than any other stage of life for any person.  We all have to go through the 'unviable fetus' stage if we are allowed to live.  So is the mistreatment of that 'unviable fetus' somehow more okay than the mistreatment of the newborn baby who is no less viable without somebody taking care of all its needs?
> 
> The pro-abortion group can also love children and can also approve the woman who chooses life for her baby.  One can be pro-abortion and still hate the thought of it.
> And the pro-life group can understand why abortion is sometimes necessary and chooses not to judge the woman struggling with the trauma of incest or rape.  A prolifer can be every bit as pro choice in that regard as is the pro-abortion group.
> 
> To the prolifer, the unborn is a human life no matter what stage it happens to be in during any given week or month.   None of us become functioning human beings without going through every stage of human life.  To the prolifer, a pregnancy represents two lives:  the mother and the child she carries.  And if  one believes it is appropriate to step in to defend a mistreated child or animal, perhaps it is more easy to understand the prolifer who sees the unborn child as also a helpless life worthy of love and concern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your position completely.  And for the most part I support it.  My concern is governmental power.  Giving the government the power to regulate the abortions will lead inexorably to some ultra lefty knucklehead like Paul Erlich getting into power and mandating abortions for everyone he doesn't approve of.  That is simply too powerful an argument against government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the role of government can be problematic and of course that has to be part of the conversation.  There was a time not all that long ago in America in which abortion on demand, most especially for reasons of birth control, was unthinkable as a legal procedure while ending a medically necessary pregnancy was legal everywhere.  Roe v Wade made abortion on demand legal but did leave the state some power to regulate it in the second and third trimesters.  And that has been pushed to the limit even to the point of the partial birth abortion in which a perfectly healthy baby can be legally killed if any part of that baby is still in the birth canal.   And yes, I know that this is a rare procedure, but it is neverthless legal in some places.  In Illinois, a baby that survives an abortion can be legally killed.   Such things would be unthinkable 60 years ago.  How much longer will it be before the less than perfect baby that is completely born can be legally killed?
> 
> And we all know that it will require a change in people's hearts to again appreciate and revere the sanctity of human life before abortion again becomes something that is necessary and rare and no longer socially acceptable as a convenience.
> 
> I cannot imagine any interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that would make it possible to require abortions however.  When it comes to that we will have no freedoms left and it won't be America any more.
Click to expand...

The funny part about this is I just stumbled on an article that talks about this very same concept:
After-Birth Abortion: The pro-choice case for infanticide. - Slate Magazine

The paper was done by some biological ethicists that essentially extended the arguments for abortion.  It brings back the question that I first asked  what is so different between a baby at +10 seconds as one that is minus 1 day?  Where does anyone get supporting abortion that late is all right?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Quantum Windbag said:


> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution. z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
Click to expand...





Sorry but fetuses are not persons and hence not protected by the 14th amendment.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

So QW wants a world where even though a rapist may go to prison, he gets to continue to victimize his victim with the aid of a government that forces his victim - at point of a gun if necessary - to bear his offspring. And while the rapist sits in prison having his needs taken care of by the people's taxes, QW favors a world where the government programs that may have helped his victim raise his child have been defunded to nothing, so she has to beg on the streets to put food into her rapsit's child's mouth.

So to QW - "small government" means government teaming up with rapists to force women to bear children against their will - and then casting them off into the world without any help at all to raise the child the rapist and government forced them to have.


_*
I'm guessing QW has no daughters.*_


----------



## Ravi

OohPooPahDoo said:


> So QW wants a world where even though a rapist may go to prison, he gets to continue to victimize his victim with the aid of a government that forces his victim - at point of a gun if necessary - to bear his offspring. And while the rapist sits in prison having his needs taken care of by the people's taxes, QW favors a world where the government programs that may have helped his victim raise his child have been defunded to nothing, so she has to beg on the streets to put food into her rapsit's child's mouth.
> 
> So to QW - "small government" means government teaming up with rapists to force women to bear children against their will - and then casting them off into the world without any help at all to raise the child the rapist and government forced them to have.
> 
> 
> _*
> I'm guessing QW has no daughters.*_


You summed that up pretty well.


----------



## Foxfyre

Noomi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-lifer has every right to make whatever decision she wishes with a fetus inside her body.  She just doesn't have a right to force her values on other people.  The legal abortion crowd is perfectly willing to respect your choices, but understands that your right to control our choices ends at your nose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She has every bit as much right to care about an innocent life as she has every right to care about anything else though.  To speak one's convictions and argue a defense for the defenseless is also a woman's choice.   To argue a case that the unborn reprsents a human life is also a woman's choice.  And to argue that case forces nothing on anybody.
> 
> How much leeway does a woman have when it comes to another life?  Can she choose to do  whatever to the child she has given birth to and has full responsibility for?  Or does the state have some interest in that?   How far does her right to choose go there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her right to choose begins when she becomes pregnant and ends when she gives birth.
Click to expand...


Yes, that is the stance of most of the pro choice/pro abortion crowd and is the legal position in at least some places.

But the right to choose also includes a right to disagree with that position and a right to encourage that we rethink what we are doing.  To have a right to choose at any stage of pregnancy for any reason must assume that the baby is a throwaway, something less than a human life, something no more significant or of worth than a mole that is exciised or any other infection that we clear up.

The pro-lifer sees that baby as a human life with all the gifts and potential that God breathed into it.   The pro-lifer longs to return to a culture when all human life is revered, respected, and held sacrosanct and never to be discarded just because it is inconvenient.


----------



## westwall

beagle9 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that the reason the Netherlands has a low abortion rate is because of sex education? Of course you can't, so why make the argument in the first place? Is it possible you have an agenda that somehow justifies you making  statements you know to be false?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, lets see...
> 
> Holland starts sex education at a young age. Parents are happy to have their teenager share the same room as their partners. They are open and honest with their kids. They are taught about contraception. As a result, they have a very low rate of teen births.
> 
> In America, parents don't want their kids to learn sex education. Abstinence only education is pushed upon children. Parents - especially the religious freaks - are not as open and honest with their kids about contraception.
> As a result, the rate of teen births is sky high.
> 
> Only an idiot would believe that the American approach is working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We tried Hollands version during the sixties, and isn't that where the baby boomers came from ?
Click to expand...







Ummmm, no.  The boomers come from their parents from WWII who celebrated surviving the war by fornicating up a storm.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

westwall said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, lets see...
> 
> Holland starts sex education at a young age. Parents are happy to have their teenager share the same room as their partners. They are open and honest with their kids. They are taught about contraception. As a result, they have a very low rate of teen births.
> 
> In America, parents don't want their kids to learn sex education. Abstinence only education is pushed upon children. Parents - especially the religious freaks - are not as open and honest with their kids about contraception.
> As a result, the rate of teen births is sky high.
> 
> Only an idiot would believe that the American approach is working.
> 
> 
> 
> We tried Hollands version during the sixties, and isn't that where the baby boomers came from ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, no.  The boomers come from their parents from WWII who celebrated surviving the war by fornicating up a storm.
Click to expand...



The baby boom was caused by the economic boom.


----------



## NoNukes

Avatar4321 said:


> I don't really understand how one evil justifies another.



You do not understand how a woman has the right not to have the baby of a man who committed such a horrible crime against her?


----------



## Dr Grump

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying I am wrong that we all breathe? Do you have any evidence to prove we don't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look up the definition of the word 'soul' then get back to me..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I prefer the biblical definition, which is the entire self. Come to think of it, that is one of the definitions that you will find in the dictionary.
Click to expand...


Um, no it's not....And in any definition, it is something that is claimed to make up PART of the self, not the entirety...


----------



## Dr Grump

Ravi said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to see the pro lifers prove how much they care about children by adopting one. But they won't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or better yet, incubating one. Why isn't there a registry of these women that want to take away someone's rights on file somewhere waiting and ready to incubate the fetus? And a register of men waiting to pay for it's care?
Click to expand...


Ohhh, because if you get pregnant without meaning to then you must be punished!


----------



## Vidi

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We tried Hollands version during the sixties, and isn't that where the baby boomers came from ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, no.  The boomers come from their parents from WWII who celebrated surviving the war by fornicating up a storm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The baby boom was caused by the economic boom.
Click to expand...


No the baby boom was caused by a bunch of guys getting home from war and celebrating the fact they werent dead.


----------



## Vidi

heres the thing folks:

The argument Im seeing throughout this thread is Life Begins at Conception vs Life begins sometime AFTER conception.

 No one has yet defined "conception". Lets start there.

Is it fertilization? Implantation? What biological process is conception exactly?

Points will be deducted from those who do not understand the biological process by which we are created.


----------



## beagle9

catzmeow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again one more time for the challenged here:  The prolifer values the sanctity of life at all stages necessary to that life.  And the longer the life can stay in the womb for the period of gestation necessary for human life, the better off that person is going to be.  Because of that the prolifer considers two lives:  that of the mother and that of the child.
> 
> The pro-abortion crowd, at least those with any conscience at all, has to believe that the unborn is not a human life, is less than a person, in order to justify killing it.  That allows the only consideration to be whatever the choice of the mother might be to be acceptable and not to be challenged.
> 
> And that is the discussion that the proabortion crowd seems unwilling to have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-lifer has every right to make whatever decision she wishes with a fetus inside her body.  She just doesn't have a right to force her values on other people.  The legal abortion crowd is perfectly willing to respect your choices, but understands that your right to control our choices ends at your nose.
Click to expand...


Changing the above in red to just (A woman) instead of a pro-lifer, makes me think that this is not right at all be it morally or ethically by what is written above and is highlighted in red, and it shouldn't be right lawfully either, where as just because a life exist inside of a womans body, she should not be allowed to do anything she wants to it, and if she does do anything she wants to it, then she should be charged accordingly to the acts that she then would have committed on said life that existed within her body/womb. 

When Sharon Tates baby was cut out of her womb by one of Charles Mansons followers, in which she was also killed by the vile evil creature at the time that it had happened, well the nation at that time was sickened badly by these hurendous and traggic unheard of happenings or crimes that had taken place so many years ago now. 

Now these days, I ask what is the difference between Sharon Tates baby in the womb and any other womans baby in the womb ? We placed the perp at that time in prison for life, and this is where she died because the nation couldnot wrap their minds around such a traggic situation, that involved the cutting out of a womans womb her baby, in which should be looked at the same when a woman thinks that she can do anything that she wants with her baby or fetus, by disposing of it like it is nothing, just as the perp thought of Sharon Tates baby when it was removed from her body like it was nothing. Is there really much of a difference when one thinks about it ? Killing is killing, but somehow we have turned a blind eye or figured out how to justify killing babies just because they havn't made it to the light yet, but this makes them no less alive because of.

Have we all in these latter days, become sympothetic to allowing people to be judge and jury over that which is defenseless in the womb, where as they can render a sentence of death, and then carry it out against a defenseless fetus or even a baby without any counciling or intervention involved ? I can't figure out how some of this stuff was not pure illegal to do, but somehow it was being justified...WOW!!


----------



## Ravi

Dr Grump said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to see the pro lifers prove how much they care about children by adopting one. But they won't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or better yet, incubating one. Why isn't there a registry of these women that want to take away someone's rights on file somewhere waiting and ready to incubate the fetus? And a register of men waiting to pay for it's care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhh, because if you get pregnant without meaning to then you must be punished!
Click to expand...

I suspect that is the truth. They don't care about the fetus, they care about shaming and/or punishing the woman. Even if she was raped.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Noomi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-lifer has every right to make whatever decision she wishes with a fetus inside her body.  She just doesn't have a right to force her values on other people.  The legal abortion crowd is perfectly willing to respect your choices, but understands that your right to control our choices ends at your nose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She has every bit as much right to care about an innocent life as she has every right to care about anything else though.  To speak one's convictions and argue a defense for the defenseless is also a woman's choice.   To argue a case that the unborn reprsents a human life is also a woman's choice.  And to argue that case forces nothing on anybody.
> 
> How much leeway does a woman have when it comes to another life?  Can she choose to do  whatever to the child she has given birth to and has full responsibility for?  Or does the state have some interest in that?   How far does her right to choose go there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her right to choose begins when she becomes pregnant and ends when she gives birth.
Click to expand...


Completely pro abortion, and people keep telling me you don't exist.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vidi said:


> heres the thing folks:
> 
> The argument Im seeing throughout this thread is Life Begins at Conception vs Life begins sometime AFTER conception.
> 
> No one has yet defined "conception". Lets start there.
> 
> Is it fertilization? Implantation? What biological process is conception exactly?
> 
> Points will be deducted from those who do not understand the biological process by which we are created.



It doesn't really matter.  It all comes down to one's conscience and appreciation for human life.  It all comes down to whether one can rationalize it in a way that a human life can be casually discarded at the whim of the woman who is told over and over that it is a bunch of cells and therefore is inconsequential.  Or whether we return to a time in which there is no part of a human life that is any less important than any other from the time the woman becomes pregnant until the baby exits her body and begins to breathe on its own and then, with even more help of responsibile people, procceeds on to become an adult and all the stages of life involved in that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true and it has never been true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when people say things like this, it shows how desperate they are to pretend they have the moral high ground. they are even willing to lie to themselves in order to keep their delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one lying here, sweetheart.
Click to expand...


Never happened? Why would they revoke the medical license of a doctor over something that never happens?

Doctor loses license in live birth abortion case - CNN


----------



## Dr Grump

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> heres the thing folks:
> 
> The argument Im seeing throughout this thread is Life Begins at Conception vs Life begins sometime AFTER conception.
> 
> No one has yet defined "conception". Lets start there.
> 
> Is it fertilization? Implantation? What biological process is conception exactly?
> 
> Points will be deducted from those who do not understand the biological process by which we are created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't really matter.  It all comes down to one's conscience and appreciation for human life.  It all comes down to whether one can rationalize it in a way that a human life can be casually discarded at the whim of the woman who is told over and over that it is a bunch of cells and therefore is inconsequential.  Or whether we return to a time in which there is no part of a human life that is any less important than any other from the time the woman becomes pregnant until the baby exits her body and begins to breathe on its own and then, with even more help of responsibile people, procceeds on to become an adult and all the stages of life involved in that.
Click to expand...


But if one doesn't see a 6-8 week old foetus as a human life, that doesn't mean they don't appreciate human life.

You call it rationalisation, but one has to wonder how a group of cells that have no cognitive responses can be seen as human.

A anti-abortionist isn't in any way morally superior or more 'switched on' than a pro-choice person. In my experience, the vast majority (but not all I'll concede) of anti-abortionists have a religious bent attached to their ideals. And once they do that, they lose me...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution. z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but fetuses are not persons and hence not protected by the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...


Since I never actually argued that a fetus is a person, I can understand why you want to jump on that definition to make your point. One thing I have already pointed out though, the legal definition of person, which excludes fetuses, actually includes corporations. That is why I chose to make my argument on the basis of a fetus being alive.


----------



## Dr Grump

Quantum Windbag said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> She has every bit as much right to care about an innocent life as she has every right to care about anything else though.  To speak one's convictions and argue a defense for the defenseless is also a woman's choice.   To argue a case that the unborn reprsents a human life is also a woman's choice.  And to argue that case forces nothing on anybody.
> 
> How much leeway does a woman have when it comes to another life?  Can she choose to do  whatever to the child she has given birth to and has full responsibility for?  Or does the state have some interest in that?   How far does her right to choose go there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her right to choose begins when she becomes pregnant and ends when she gives birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Completely pro abortion, and people keep telling me you don't exist.
Click to expand...


It's called being pro choice, not pro abortion.

Me? I'm both pro choice and anti-abortion....


----------



## Quantum Windbag

OohPooPahDoo said:


> So QW wants a world where even though a rapist may go to prison, he gets to continue to victimize his victim with the aid of a government that forces his victim - at point of a gun if necessary - to bear his offspring. And while the rapist sits in prison having his needs taken care of by the people's taxes, QW favors a world where the government programs that may have helped his victim raise his child have been defunded to nothing, so she has to beg on the streets to put food into her rapsit's child's mouth.
> 
> So to QW - "small government" means government teaming up with rapists to force women to bear children against their will - and then casting them off into the world without any help at all to raise the child the rapist and government forced them to have.
> 
> 
> _*
> I'm guessing QW has no daughters.*_



Is using strawmen the only way you can counter my argument? I guess my position is a lot stronger than I thought.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No rapist has the right to impose the final victimization of his victim: forcing her to bear this child.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We tried Hollands version during the sixties, and isn't that where the baby boomers came from ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, no.  The boomers come from their parents from WWII who celebrated surviving the war by fornicating up a storm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The baby boom was caused by the economic boom.
Click to expand...



Funny, that is not what Wikipedia says.


----------



## Ravi

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when people say things like this, it shows how desperate they are to pretend they have the moral high ground. they are even willing to lie to themselves in order to keep their delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one lying here, sweetheart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never happened? Why would they revoke the medical license of a doctor over something that never happens?
> 
> Doctor loses license in live birth abortion case - CNN
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with Obama, dummy


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look up the definition of the word 'soul' then get back to me..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer the biblical definition, which is the entire self. Come to think of it, that is one of the definitions that you will find in the dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no it's not....And in any definition, it is something that is claimed to make up PART of the self, not the entirety...
Click to expand...


Really? 

*1:* the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life 
2_a_ *:* the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe  _b_ _capitalized_ _Christian Science_ *:* god 1b 

3*:* *a person's total self

Soul - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
*


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Vidi said:


> heres the thing folks:
> 
> The argument Im seeing throughout this thread is Life Begins at Conception vs Life begins sometime AFTER conception.
> 
> No one has yet defined "conception". Lets start there.
> 
> Is it fertilization? Implantation? What biological process is conception exactly?
> 
> Points will be deducted from those who do not understand the biological process by which we are created.



This is irrelevant to the thread, despite the attempts of several people to make it the object of discussion. go start your own thread.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dr Grump said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> heres the thing folks:
> 
> The argument Im seeing throughout this thread is Life Begins at Conception vs Life begins sometime AFTER conception.
> 
> No one has yet defined "conception". Lets start there.
> 
> Is it fertilization? Implantation? What biological process is conception exactly?
> 
> Points will be deducted from those who do not understand the biological process by which we are created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't really matter.  It all comes down to one's conscience and appreciation for human life.  It all comes down to whether one can rationalize it in a way that a human life can be casually discarded at the whim of the woman who is told over and over that it is a bunch of cells and therefore is inconsequential.  Or whether we return to a time in which there is no part of a human life that is any less important than any other from the time the woman becomes pregnant until the baby exits her body and begins to breathe on its own and then, with even more help of responsibile people, procceeds on to become an adult and all the stages of life involved in that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if one doesn't see a 6-8 week old foetus as a human life, that doesn't mean they don't appreciate human life.
> 
> You call it rationalisation, but one has to wonder how a group of cells that have no cognitive responses can be seen as human.
> 
> A anti-abortionist isn't in any way morally superior or more 'switched on' than a pro-choice person. In my experience, the vast majority (but not all I'll concede) of anti-abortionists have a religious bent attached to their ideals. And once they do that, they lose me...
Click to expand...


How can a man in a come be called human? He has no cognitive response either, but no one ever questions his humanity because of that.


----------



## Dr Grump

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer the biblical definition, which is the entire self. Come to think of it, that is one of the definitions that you will find in the dictionary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no it's not....And in any definition, it is something that is claimed to make up PART of the self, not the entirety...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> *1:* the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life
> 2_a_ *:* the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe  _b_ _capitalized_ _Christian Science_ *:* god 1b
> 
> 3*:* *a person's total self
> 
> Soul - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> *
Click to expand...


And yet one and two don't support your argument..

_1.
the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
2.
the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come: arguing the immortality of the soul.
3.
the disembodied spirit of a deceased person: He feared the soul of the deceased would haunt him.
4.
the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.
5.
a human being; person. _

Five does here, but 1-4 don't. Shrug..

I've never seen a soul referred to as a person in any way shape of form. The embodiment of what some think make up in the intangible part of the human - thinking, thought processes etc - sure. But a human being itself? Nope...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her right to choose begins when she becomes pregnant and ends when she gives birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Completely pro abortion, and people keep telling me you don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called being pro choice, not pro abortion.
> 
> Me? I'm both pro choice and anti-abortion....
Click to expand...


They call Romney a conservative, doesn't make him one anymore than calling a pro abortion person pro choice makes them not pro abortion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one lying here, sweetheart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never happened? Why would they revoke the medical license of a doctor over something that never happens?
> 
> Doctor loses license in live birth abortion case - CNN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with Obama, dummy
Click to expand...


My thread has nothing to do with Obama either. what's your point?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no it's not....And in any definition, it is something that is claimed to make up PART of the self, not the entirety...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> *1:* the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life
> 2_a_ *:* the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe  _b_ _capitalized_ _Christian Science_ *:* god 1b
> 
> 3*:* *a person's total self
> 
> Soul - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet one and two don't support your argument..
> 
> _1.
> the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
> 2.
> the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come: arguing the immortality of the soul.
> 3.
> the disembodied spirit of a deceased person: He feared the soul of the deceased would haunt him.
> 4.
> the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.
> 5.
> a human being; person. _
> 
> Five does here, but 1-4 don't. Shrug..
> 
> I've never seen a soul referred to as a person in any way shape of form. The embodiment of what some think make up in the intangible part of the human - thinking, thought processes etc - sure. But a human being itself? Nope...
Click to expand...


What part of "one of the definitions" do you not understand?


----------



## Dr Grump

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't really matter.  It all comes down to one's conscience and appreciation for human life.  It all comes down to whether one can rationalize it in a way that a human life can be casually discarded at the whim of the woman who is told over and over that it is a bunch of cells and therefore is inconsequential.  Or whether we return to a time in which there is no part of a human life that is any less important than any other from the time the woman becomes pregnant until the baby exits her body and begins to breathe on its own and then, with even more help of responsibile people, procceeds on to become an adult and all the stages of life involved in that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if one doesn't see a 6-8 week old foetus as a human life, that doesn't mean they don't appreciate human life.
> 
> You call it rationalisation, but one has to wonder how a group of cells that have no cognitive responses can be seen as human.
> 
> A anti-abortionist isn't in any way morally superior or more 'switched on' than a pro-choice person. In my experience, the vast majority (but not all I'll concede) of anti-abortionists have a religious bent attached to their ideals. And once they do that, they lose me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can a man in a come be called human? He has no cognitive response either, but no one ever questions his humanity because of that.
Click to expand...


1) If they have no cognitive response or brain waves, then they are a vegetable and the machine usually gets switched off
2) If there are brainwaves then they are cognitive, but we just can't see it because their mind is trapped. Here's an example of a man who was overtly cognitive, but in a very, very limited way. However, his brain function was was far from limited..   UK man who failed to overturn euthanasia law dies - Yahoo! News

IOW, your example is comparing apples and oranges...


----------



## Dr Grump

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> *1:* the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life
> 2_a_ *:* the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe  _b_ _capitalized_ _Christian Science_ *:* god 1b
> 
> 3*:* *a person's total self
> 
> Soul - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet one and two don't support your argument..
> 
> _1.
> the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
> 2.
> the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come: arguing the immortality of the soul.
> 3.
> the disembodied spirit of a deceased person: He feared the soul of the deceased would haunt him.
> 4.
> the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.
> 5.
> a human being; person. _
> 
> Five does here, but 1-4 don't. Shrug..
> 
> I've never seen a soul referred to as a person in any way shape of form. The embodiment of what some think make up in the intangible part of the human - thinking, thought processes etc - sure. But a human being itself? Nope...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "one of the definitions" do you not understand?
Click to expand...


That wasn't my point. Which part of that don't you understand?


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> heres the thing folks:
> 
> The argument Im seeing throughout this thread is Life Begins at Conception vs Life begins sometime AFTER conception.
> 
> No one has yet defined "conception". Lets start there.
> 
> Is it fertilization? Implantation? What biological process is conception exactly?
> 
> Points will be deducted from those who do not understand the biological process by which we are created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't really matter.  It all comes down to one's conscience and appreciation for human life.  It all comes down to whether one can rationalize it in a way that a human life can be casually discarded at the whim of the woman who is told over and over that it is a bunch of cells and therefore is inconsequential.  Or whether we return to a time in which there is no part of a human life that is any less important than any other from the time the woman becomes pregnant until the baby exits her body and begins to breathe on its own and then, with even more help of responsibile people, procceeds on to become an adult and all the stages of life involved in that.
Click to expand...



actually it absolutely DOES matter, but it takes an understanding of how the process of human procreation actually works in order to see how it matters.

I find it irresponsible to NOT use birth control if one is financially or emotionally incapable of raising a child. But depending on WHEN conception is defined as occuring, some would regard birth control as abortion as well.

So how about in the future, we define the terms we are using so we all have a frame of reference before we start calling each other monster baby killers or misogynistic pigs, hmmm?


----------



## Dr Grump

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Completely pro abortion, and people keep telling me you don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called being pro choice, not pro abortion.
> 
> Me? I'm both pro choice and anti-abortion....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They call Romney a conservative, doesn't make him one anymore than calling a pro abortion person pro choice makes them not pro abortion.
Click to expand...


I would argue that somebody who actively wants everybody to abort due to world over population is pro-abortion. I know women who have had abortions. Not one of them was 'pro' it in any way, shape or form....


----------



## Vidi

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Completely pro abortion, and people keep telling me you don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called being pro choice, not pro abortion.
> 
> Me? I'm both pro choice and anti-abortion....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They call Romney a conservative, doesn't make him one anymore than calling a pro abortion person pro choice makes them not pro abortion.
Click to expand...


Black and White no greys huh?


----------



## jwoodie

Quantum Windbag said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So QW wants a world where even though a rapist may go to prison, he gets to continue to victimize his victim with the aid of a government that forces his victim - at point of a gun if necessary - to bear his offspring. And while the rapist sits in prison having his needs taken care of by the people's taxes, QW favors a world where the government programs that may have helped his victim raise his child have been defunded to nothing, so she has to beg on the streets to put food into her rapsit's child's mouth.
> 
> So to QW - "small government" means government teaming up with rapists to force women to bear children against their will - and then casting them off into the world without any help at all to raise the child the rapist and government forced them to have.
> 
> 
> _*
> I'm guessing QW has no daughters.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is using strawmen the only way you can counter my argument? I guess my position is a lot stronger than I thought.
Click to expand...


Actually, it is more of a red herring argument, but let's take it a step further:  If you discovered that one of your grandchildren had been conceived during a rape, would you want that child put to death?  Exactly where do you draw the line for infanticide?


----------



## Dr Grump

jwoodie said:


> Actually, it is more of a red herring argument, but let's take it a step further:  If you discovered that one of your grandchildren had been conceived during a rape, would you want that child put to death?  Exactly where do you draw the line for infanticide?


_
in·fan·ti·cide
&#8194; &#8194;[in-fan-tuh-sahyd] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act of killing an *infant*.
2.
the practice of killing newborn infants.
3.
a person who kills an *infant*. _


_in·fant
&#8194; &#8194;[in-fuhnt] Show IPA
noun
1.
a child during the earliest period of its life, especially before he or she can walk; baby.
2.
Law . a person who is not of full age, especially one who has not reached the age of 18 years; a minor.
3.
a beginner, as in experience or learning; novice: The new candidate is a political infant. _

Another strawman...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if one doesn't see a 6-8 week old foetus as a human life, that doesn't mean they don't appreciate human life.
> 
> You call it rationalisation, but one has to wonder how a group of cells that have no cognitive responses can be seen as human.
> 
> A anti-abortionist isn't in any way morally superior or more 'switched on' than a pro-choice person. In my experience, the vast majority (but not all I'll concede) of anti-abortionists have a religious bent attached to their ideals. And once they do that, they lose me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can a man in a come be called human? He has no cognitive response either, but no one ever questions his humanity because of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) If they have no cognitive response or brain waves, then they are a vegetable and the machine usually gets switched off
> 2) If there are brainwaves then they are cognitive, but we just can't see it because their mind is trapped. Here's an example of a man who was overtly cognitive, but in a very, very limited way. However, his brain function was was far from limited..   UK man who failed to overturn euthanasia law dies - Yahoo! News
> 
> IOW, your example is comparing apples and oranges...
Click to expand...


Cognitive brain function implies that the brain is processing information. That is something that is entirely separate from brain function. Comatose patients have brain function, not cognition.

In other words, you are redefining, and ignoring science, cognition to support your position.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet one and two don't support your argument..
> 
> _1.
> the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
> 2.
> the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come: arguing the immortality of the soul.
> 3.
> the disembodied spirit of a deceased person: He feared the soul of the deceased would haunt him.
> 4.
> the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.
> 5.
> a human being; person. _
> 
> Five does here, but 1-4 don't. Shrug..
> 
> I've never seen a soul referred to as a person in any way shape of form. The embodiment of what some think make up in the intangible part of the human - thinking, thought processes etc - sure. But a human being itself? Nope...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "one of the definitions" do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't my point. Which part of that don't you understand?
Click to expand...


I specifically pointed out which definition of soul I am using, You denied it was valid, and I proved it is. Now you are trying to pretend you were making another point, but I am not going to let you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called being pro choice, not pro abortion.
> 
> Me? I'm both pro choice and anti-abortion....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They call Romney a conservative, doesn't make him one anymore than calling a pro abortion person pro choice makes them not pro abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would argue that somebody who actively wants everybody to abort due to world over population is pro-abortion. I know women who have had abortions. Not one of them was 'pro' it in any way, shape or form....
Click to expand...


If I am to take your argument literally, you are saying that your personal experience encompasses the entire world, and that anything that you have not personally experienced has not happened. Strangely enough, I don't believe you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Vidi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called being pro choice, not pro abortion.
> 
> Me? I'm both pro choice and anti-abortion....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They call Romney a conservative, doesn't make him one anymore than calling a pro abortion person pro choice makes them not pro abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Black and White no greys huh?
Click to expand...


Nope, I fully admit that there are quite a few pro choice people who are not pro abortion. What I refuese to allow anyone to argue is that no one in the entire world is pro abortion, that is facially absurd.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

jwoodie said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So QW wants a world where even though a rapist may go to prison, he gets to continue to victimize his victim with the aid of a government that forces his victim - at point of a gun if necessary - to bear his offspring. And while the rapist sits in prison having his needs taken care of by the people's taxes, QW favors a world where the government programs that may have helped his victim raise his child have been defunded to nothing, so she has to beg on the streets to put food into her rapsit's child's mouth.
> 
> So to QW - "small government" means government teaming up with rapists to force women to bear children against their will - and then casting them off into the world without any help at all to raise the child the rapist and government forced them to have.
> 
> 
> _*
> I'm guessing QW has no daughters.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is using strawmen the only way you can counter my argument? I guess my position is a lot stronger than I thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it is more of a red herring argument, but let's take it a step further:  If you discovered that one of your grandchildren had been conceived during a rape, would you want that child put to death?  Exactly where do you draw the line for infanticide?
Click to expand...


I was referring to him arguing that I want a word where rapists get to continue to victimize people. Since I am the one arguing that rape does not justify abortion I am pretty sure I can make a case that  it doesn't justify infanticide either.


----------



## Valerie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what Cheryl said. She was free to be this child's mother and help her become the beautiful girl that she is. My Sister always said she is glad she had the baby. It helped her to focus on what mattered
> 
> Oh and I am glad too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's when it goes well.   When it doesn't go well, it's a worse disaster.  I know a woman that was raped and had the baby thinking it would help her heal.  Instead she took out her anger on the baby, the girl and the young woman that baby became.   The daughter could not live being the subject of a lifetime of total resentment and no love.  She committed suicide at 17.   Mother died two years later of acute alcoholism.    A woman on another board was the product of a rape but given up for adoption.  She made the mistake of tracking down her biological mother and got told if mother knew she would be tracked down and her privacy invaded, she would have had an abortion.
> 
> I knew the woman and her daughter.  It was a total tragedy.   Years and years of tragedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that some people are not qualified to be parents doesn't justify abortion either. Unless, that is, you think the government can mandate abortions whenever people don't meet whatever qualifications it imposes.
> 
> By the way, do you have any evidence she would not have taken her anger out on her child if she hadn't been raped?
Click to expand...


----------



## Ravi

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never happened? Why would they revoke the medical license of a doctor over something that never happens?
> 
> Doctor loses license in live birth abortion case - CNN
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with Obama, dummy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My thread has nothing to do with Obama either. what's your point?
Click to expand...

You replied to something we were discussing without even knowing what you replied to....but you did highlight the fact that you don't need to make laws for what is already illegal, so it wasn't a total waste.


----------



## Vidi

Quantum Windbag said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So QW wants a world where even though a rapist may go to prison, he gets to continue to victimize his victim with the aid of a government that forces his victim - at point of a gun if necessary - to bear his offspring. And while the rapist sits in prison having his needs taken care of by the people's taxes, QW favors a world where the government programs that may have helped his victim raise his child have been defunded to nothing, so she has to beg on the streets to put food into her rapsit's child's mouth.
> 
> So to QW - "small government" means government teaming up with rapists to force women to bear children against their will - and then casting them off into the world without any help at all to raise the child the rapist and government forced them to have.
> 
> 
> _*
> I'm guessing QW has no daughters.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is using strawmen the only way you can counter my argument? I guess my position is a lot stronger than I thought.
Click to expand...


As the Constitution in no way guarantees a right to life, your position has always been one based on a false premise. 

Dont feel bad though. Most of the threads original posts lately seem to be based on a false premise.


----------



## Vidi

Quantum Windbag said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what Cheryl said. She was free to be this child's mother and help her become the beautiful girl that she is. My Sister always said she is glad she had the baby. It helped her to focus on what mattered
> 
> Oh and I am glad too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's when it goes well.   When it doesn't go well, it's a worse disaster.  I know a woman that was raped and had the baby thinking it would help her heal.  Instead she took out her anger on the baby, the girl and the young woman that baby became.   The daughter could not live being the subject of a lifetime of total resentment and no love.  She committed suicide at 17.   Mother died two years later of acute alcoholism.    A woman on another board was the product of a rape but given up for adoption.  She made the mistake of tracking down her biological mother and got told if mother knew she would be tracked down and her privacy invaded, she would have had an abortion.
> 
> I knew the woman and her daughter.  It was a total tragedy.   Years and years of tragedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that some people are not qualified to be parents doesn't justify abortion either. Unless, that is, you think the government can mandate abortions whenever people don't meet whatever qualifications it imposes.
> 
> By the way, do you have any evidence she would not have taken her anger out on her child if she hadn't been raped?
Click to expand...


We need a licence to marry, to drive, hell, to FISH...but any idiot can procreate.

Maybe thats not always best.


----------



## Dr Grump

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can a man in a come be called human? He has no cognitive response either, but no one ever questions his humanity because of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) If they have no cognitive response or brain waves, then they are a vegetable and the machine usually gets switched off
> 2) If there are brainwaves then they are cognitive, but we just can't see it because their mind is trapped. Here's an example of a man who was overtly cognitive, but in a very, very limited way. However, his brain function was was far from limited..   UK man who failed to overturn euthanasia law dies - Yahoo! News
> 
> IOW, your example is comparing apples and oranges...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cognitive brain function implies that the brain is processing information. That is something that is entirely separate from brain function. Comatose patients have brain function, not cognition.
> 
> In other words, you are redefining, and ignoring science, cognition to support your position.
Click to expand...


Um no. There have been many instances where people have been in comas or seemingly unresponsive, that once they have regained their faculties have told people that they could see and hear everything going on around them, but couldn't say or do anything due to their condition.

THAT aside, we are getting sidetracked. You example is, and will remain, a strawman to this argument...


----------



## Dr Grump

Quantum Windbag said:


> I specifically pointed out which definition of soul I am using, You denied it was valid, and I proved it is. Now you are trying to pretend you were making another point, but I am not going to let you.



No, I disagree with that definition and would love to know who decided that that was the definition. Meanwhile, you miss the other four or five that came before it on the scale to suit your own purpose...funny how that works...


----------



## Dr Grump

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> They call Romney a conservative, doesn't make him one anymore than calling a pro abortion person pro choice makes them not pro abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue that somebody who actively wants everybody to abort due to world over population is pro-abortion. I know women who have had abortions. Not one of them was 'pro' it in any way, shape or form....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I am to take your argument literally, you are saying that your personal experience encompasses the entire world, and that anything that you have not personally experienced has not happened. Strangely enough, I don't believe you.
Click to expand...


You don't have to believe me and you do not have to take my argument literally. What you do have to do, because it is a fact, is believe that if somebody has an abortion it doesn't mean that they are pro abortion.

I eat Brussell sprouts. I don't eat them because I am pro them, I eat them because I know vegetables are good for me. In fact, I hate the taste of them.

You use the term pro-abortion so as to be emotive and somehow you think it supports your argument. It doesn't.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with Obama, dummy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My thread has nothing to do with Obama either. what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You replied to something we were discussing without even knowing what you replied to....but you did highlight the fact that you don't need to make laws for what is already illegal, so it wasn't a total waste.
Click to expand...


You made the statement that children who survive abortions are never left to die, you were wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Vidi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So QW wants a world where even though a rapist may go to prison, he gets to continue to victimize his victim with the aid of a government that forces his victim - at point of a gun if necessary - to bear his offspring. And while the rapist sits in prison having his needs taken care of by the people's taxes, QW favors a world where the government programs that may have helped his victim raise his child have been defunded to nothing, so she has to beg on the streets to put food into her rapsit's child's mouth.
> 
> So to QW - "small government" means government teaming up with rapists to force women to bear children against their will - and then casting them off into the world without any help at all to raise the child the rapist and government forced them to have.
> 
> 
> _*
> I'm guessing QW has no daughters.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is using strawmen the only way you can counter my argument? I guess my position is a lot stronger than I thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the Constitution in no way guarantees a right to life, your position has always been one based on a false premise.
> 
> Dont feel bad though. Most of the threads original posts lately seem to be based on a false premise.
Click to expand...


I quoted the 5th Amendment in my OP, I suggest you go back and read it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Vidi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's when it goes well.   When it doesn't go well, it's a worse disaster.  I know a woman that was raped and had the baby thinking it would help her heal.  Instead she took out her anger on the baby, the girl and the young woman that baby became.   The daughter could not live being the subject of a lifetime of total resentment and no love.  She committed suicide at 17.   Mother died two years later of acute alcoholism.    A woman on another board was the product of a rape but given up for adoption.  She made the mistake of tracking down her biological mother and got told if mother knew she would be tracked down and her privacy invaded, she would have had an abortion.
> 
> I knew the woman and her daughter.  It was a total tragedy.   Years and years of tragedy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that some people are not qualified to be parents doesn't justify abortion either. Unless, that is, you think the government can mandate abortions whenever people don't meet whatever qualifications it imposes.
> 
> By the way, do you have any evidence she would not have taken her anger out on her child if she hadn't been raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We need a licence to marry, to drive, hell, to FISH...but any idiot can procreate.
> 
> Maybe thats not always best.
Click to expand...


The last time I looked you were the one that was arguing that the right to choose trumps the power of the state, did you change your mind?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) If they have no cognitive response or brain waves, then they are a vegetable and the machine usually gets switched off
> 2) If there are brainwaves then they are cognitive, but we just can't see it because their mind is trapped. Here's an example of a man who was overtly cognitive, but in a very, very limited way. However, his brain function was was far from limited..   UK man who failed to overturn euthanasia law dies - Yahoo! News
> 
> IOW, your example is comparing apples and oranges...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cognitive brain function implies that the brain is processing information. That is something that is entirely separate from brain function. Comatose patients have brain function, not cognition.
> 
> In other words, you are redefining, and ignoring science, cognition to support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um no. There have been many instances where people have been in comas or seemingly unresponsive, that once they have regained their faculties have told people that they could see and hear everything going on around them, but couldn't say or do anything due to their condition.
> 
> THAT aside, we are getting sidetracked. You example is, and will remain, a strawman to this argument...
Click to expand...


There 8 levels of coma, some people are more responsive than others. The deepest comas have no cognitive response at all. 

You are the one that used cognition as a definition of human. Asking you to be specific about what you mean by that is not a strawman,  it is entirely appropriate to determine exactly what you mean. It appears to me that what you meant was that you don't have a definition, you just used the term because you though I am anti science and ignorant. Unfortunately, for you, I am neither.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I specifically pointed out which definition of soul I am using, You denied it was valid, and I proved it is. Now you are trying to pretend you were making another point, but I am not going to let you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I disagree with that definition and would love to know who decided that that was the definition. Meanwhile, you miss the other four or five that came before it on the scale to suit your own purpose...funny how that works...
Click to expand...


Oh, I see, you decided you didn't like me using a perfectly valid definition of soul, even when I proved that the dictionary lists my definition. I know it is not the first definition, I never said it was. That does not make it invalid, something anyone that actually understands English understands. You don't get to insist that I use your definition just because you prefer it over mine. I am sticking with soul as being the entire person because that is the biblical one.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue that somebody who actively wants everybody to abort due to world over population is pro-abortion. I know women who have had abortions. Not one of them was 'pro' it in any way, shape or form....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I am to take your argument literally, you are saying that your personal experience encompasses the entire world, and that anything that you have not personally experienced has not happened. Strangely enough, I don't believe you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to believe me and you do not have to take my argument literally. What you do have to do, because it is a fact, is believe that if somebody has an abortion it doesn't mean that they are pro abortion.
> 
> I eat Brussell sprouts. I don't eat them because I am pro them, I eat them because I know vegetables are good for me. In fact, I hate the taste of them.
> 
> You use the term pro-abortion so as to be emotive and somehow you think it supports your argument. It doesn't.
Click to expand...


Talk about strawmen. Please feel free to point out where I ever said that. Since I didn't, I will simply point out that you are still wrong.


----------



## Dr Grump

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I specifically pointed out which definition of soul I am using, You denied it was valid, and I proved it is. Now you are trying to pretend you were making another point, but I am not going to let you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I disagree with that definition and would love to know who decided that that was the definition. Meanwhile, you miss the other four or five that came before it on the scale to suit your own purpose...funny how that works...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see, you decided you didn't like me using a perfectly valid definition of soul, even when I proved that the dictionary lists my definition. I know it is not the first definition, I never said it was. That does not make it invalid, something anyone that actually understands English understands. You don't get to insist that I use your definition just because you prefer it over mine. I am sticking with soul as being the entire person because that is the biblical one.
Click to expand...



No, I don't like the fact you cherry pick answers to suit yourself. At best is delusionary, at worst dishonest. Take your pick


----------



## Dr Grump

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cognitive brain function implies that the brain is processing information. That is something that is entirely separate from brain function. Comatose patients have brain function, not cognition.
> 
> In other words, you are redefining, and ignoring science, cognition to support your position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um no. There have been many instances where people have been in comas or seemingly unresponsive, that once they have regained their faculties have told people that they could see and hear everything going on around them, but couldn't say or do anything due to their condition.
> 
> THAT aside, we are getting sidetracked. You example is, and will remain, a strawman to this argument...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There 8 levels of coma, some people are more responsive than others. The deepest comas have no cognitive response at all.
> 
> You are the one that used cognition as a definition of human. Asking you to be specific about what you mean by that is not a strawman,  it is entirely appropriate to determine exactly what you mean. It appears to me that what you meant was that you don't have a definition, you just used the term because you though I am anti science and ignorant. Unfortunately, for you, I am neither.
Click to expand...


Not at all with regard to ignorance (although you do show that from time to time).

Just like my last post you are being dishonest. You yourself admit there are several levels of coma and - yet again - decide to use the 'deepest' version to suit your purposes and point while ignoring the others...


----------



## Vidi

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um no. There have been many instances where people have been in comas or seemingly unresponsive, that once they have regained their faculties have told people that they could see and hear everything going on around them, but couldn't say or do anything due to their condition.
> 
> THAT aside, we are getting sidetracked. You example is, and will remain, a strawman to this argument...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There 8 levels of coma, some people are more responsive than others. The deepest comas have no cognitive response at all.
> 
> You are the one that used cognition as a definition of human. Asking you to be specific about what you mean by that is not a strawman,  it is entirely appropriate to determine exactly what you mean. It appears to me that what you meant was that you don't have a definition, you just used the term because you though I am anti science and ignorant. Unfortunately, for you, I am neither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all with regard to ignorance (or though you do show that from time to time).
> 
> Just like my last post you are being dishonest. You yourself admit there are several levels of coma and - yet again - decide to use the 'deepest' version to suit your purposes and point while ignoring the others...
Click to expand...



QW will only take into account anything that supports his argument. Anything that denies his argument is considered a random post or a strawman argument.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I disagree with that definition and would love to know who decided that that was the definition. Meanwhile, you miss the other four or five that came before it on the scale to suit your own purpose...funny how that works...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see, you decided you didn't like me using a perfectly valid definition of soul, even when I proved that the dictionary lists my definition. I know it is not the first definition, I never said it was. That does not make it invalid, something anyone that actually understands English understands. You don't get to insist that I use your definition just because you prefer it over mine. I am sticking with soul as being the entire person because that is the biblical one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't like the fact you cherry pick answers to suit yourself. At best is delusionary, at worst dishonest. Take your pick
Click to expand...


I was challenged to prove that men are souls. To do so I quoted from the Bible, which clearly states that man became a soul after God breather life into him. This definition offended you somehow, even though you are an atheist, probably because it does not gibe with your misinterpretation of what the Bible says. I made it clear I was sticking with that definition, and even pointed out that dictionaries list it as one definition of the word. That is not cherry picking, that is reasoning. Something you are obviously unwilling to do yourself.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um no. There have been many instances where people have been in comas or seemingly unresponsive, that once they have regained their faculties have told people that they could see and hear everything going on around them, but couldn't say or do anything due to their condition.
> 
> THAT aside, we are getting sidetracked. You example is, and will remain, a strawman to this argument...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There 8 levels of coma, some people are more responsive than others. The deepest comas have no cognitive response at all.
> 
> You are the one that used cognition as a definition of human. Asking you to be specific about what you mean by that is not a strawman,  it is entirely appropriate to determine exactly what you mean. It appears to me that what you meant was that you don't have a definition, you just used the term because you though I am anti science and ignorant. Unfortunately, for you, I am neither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all with regard to ignorance (although you do show that from time to time).
> 
> Just like my last post you are being dishonest. You yourself admit there are several levels of coma and - yet again - decide to use the 'deepest' version to suit your purposes and point while ignoring the others...
Click to expand...


Wow.

I mentioned there are several levels of coma to counter your anecdotal evidence that some people in comas claim to have heard people talking. Not sure how that makes me dishonest, but I never claimed to understand how a deluded mind thinks. The deeper levels of comas have no cognitive functions, which you attempted to use to prove the a fetus is not alive. I am still waiting for an honest answer to my question about whether a comatose patient with no cognitive function is alive or not, but really do not expect you to provide one.

Why don't you surprise me?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Vidi said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> There 8 levels of coma, some people are more responsive than others. The deepest comas have no cognitive response at all.
> 
> You are the one that used cognition as a definition of human. Asking you to be specific about what you mean by that is not a strawman,  it is entirely appropriate to determine exactly what you mean. It appears to me that what you meant was that you don't have a definition, you just used the term because you though I am anti science and ignorant. Unfortunately, for you, I am neither.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all with regard to ignorance (or though you do show that from time to time).
> 
> Just like my last post you are being dishonest. You yourself admit there are several levels of coma and - yet again - decide to use the 'deepest' version to suit your purposes and point while ignoring the others...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> QW will only take into account anything that supports his argument. Anything that denies his argument is considered a random post or a strawman argument.
Click to expand...


Really? 

So far all anyone has said is that a fetus is not a person, something I never claimed. When a couple of people pointed out that, legally, the point is settled law, I actually agreed with them. When one poster said that he didn't care, he would support a rape victim's right to an abortion, I actually applauded his honesty. Can you explain how all of that adds up to me calling any argument that does not support my position a strawman? Could it be that you are the one using the strawman arguments?


----------



## Article 15

Abortion doesn't need to be justified.  

End thread.


----------



## Ravi

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> My thread has nothing to do with Obama either. what's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> You replied to something we were discussing without even knowing what you replied to....but you did highlight the fact that you don't need to make laws for what is already illegal, so it wasn't a total waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made the statement that children who survive abortions are never left to die, you were wrong.
Click to expand...

No, I said it was never legal.


----------



## Ravi

Vidi said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> There 8 levels of coma, some people are more responsive than others. The deepest comas have no cognitive response at all.
> 
> You are the one that used cognition as a definition of human. Asking you to be specific about what you mean by that is not a strawman,  it is entirely appropriate to determine exactly what you mean. It appears to me that what you meant was that you don't have a definition, you just used the term because you though I am anti science and ignorant. Unfortunately, for you, I am neither.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all with regard to ignorance (or though you do show that from time to time).
> 
> Just like my last post you are being dishonest. You yourself admit there are several levels of coma and - yet again - decide to use the 'deepest' version to suit your purposes and point while ignoring the others...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> QW will only take into account anything that supports his argument. Anything that denies his argument is considered a random post or a strawman argument.
Click to expand...

I have noticed that.


----------



## editec

Smell the misogyny?

Note how these folks who claim they love freedom think nothing about telling women what they must do with THEIR bodies?

Lovers of freedom, my ass.


----------



## Valerie

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You replied to something we were discussing without even knowing what you replied to....but you did highlight the fact that you don't need to make laws for what is already illegal, so it wasn't a total waste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made the statement that children who survive abortions are never left to die, you were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I said it was never legal.
Click to expand...





Gawd that was like pulling teeth.    I doubt he'll get it...


----------



## Valerie

Valerie said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's when it goes well.   When it doesn't go well, it's a worse disaster.  I know a woman that was raped and had the baby thinking it would help her heal.  Instead she took out her anger on the baby, the girl and the young woman that baby became.   The daughter could not live being the subject of a lifetime of total resentment and no love.  She committed suicide at 17.   Mother died two years later of acute alcoholism.    A woman on another board was the product of a rape but given up for adoption.  She made the mistake of tracking down her biological mother and got told if mother knew she would be tracked down and her privacy invaded, she would have had an abortion.
> 
> I knew the woman and her daughter.  It was a total tragedy.   Years and years of tragedy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that some people are not qualified to be parents doesn't justify abortion either. Unless, that is, you think the government can mandate abortions whenever people don't meet whatever qualifications it imposes.
> 
> By the way, do you have any evidence she would not have taken her anger out on her child if she hadn't been raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





^  Making fun of QW and his avatar!  






> Who Posted?
> Total Posts: 377
> User Name 	Posts
> Quantum Windbag 	110


----------



## JakeStarkey

Red Herring applies to your argument: fallacy of false analogy.



jwoodie said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So QW wants a world where even though a rapist may go to prison, he gets to continue to victimize his victim with the aid of a government that forces his victim - at point of a gun if necessary - to bear his offspring. And while the rapist sits in prison having his needs taken care of by the people's taxes, QW favors a world where the government programs that may have helped his victim raise his child have been defunded to nothing, so she has to beg on the streets to put food into her rapsit's child's mouth.
> 
> So to QW - "small government" means government teaming up with rapists to force women to bear children against their will - and then casting them off into the world without any help at all to raise the child the rapist and government forced them to have.
> 
> 
> _*
> I'm guessing QW has no daughters.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is using strawmen the only way you can counter my argument? I guess my position is a lot stronger than I thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it is more of a red herring argument, but let's take it a step further:  If you discovered that one of your grandchildren had been conceived during a rape, would you want that child put to death?  Exactly where do you draw the line for infanticide?
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> My thread has nothing to do with Obama either. what's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> You replied to something we were discussing without even knowing what you replied to....but you did highlight the fact that you don't need to make laws for what is already illegal, so it wasn't a total waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made the statement that children who survive abortions are never left to die, you were wrong.
Click to expand...


They are left to die if deemed unviable following the abortion.  After reading up, Ravi is right.  Even in Illinois, a viable baby who survives an abortion is given proper care and every reasonable effort must be made on its behalf.  Obama was falsely accused that he wanted to kill those babies.  What he voted against was legislation that would have required the doctor to try to save the unviable baby who survived the abortion.


----------



## Zoom

syrenn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous  crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in  cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be  subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or  limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness  against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without  due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,  without just compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade.
> 
> A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.
Click to expand...

Nicely done.   Thread killer.


----------



## Foxfyre

Zoom said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade.
> 
> A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nicely done.   Thread killer.
Click to expand...


Nope.  Just Syrenn's beliefs which are absolutely her right to hold.  As are all of the rest of us equally blessed with the right to hold the convictions we hold.

For me, a woman, the right to my body ends when I share it with a second life.  I didn't have to take the risk to start that second life, but once I do, for me it is a matter of conscience of taking on the responsibility of that second life.  It is not that much different than being asked to drive somebody someplace.  I might not want the passenger.  I may feel tied down and unpleasantly obligated because I have one.  But neverthless, once I take on that passenger, I am as a matter of personal ethics and conscience required to consider his or her safety and well being as much as my own.   I think that is an attitude that all should have.  I would like that to be the socially acceptable norm.


----------



## Katzndogz

Quantum Windbag said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what Cheryl said. She was free to be this child's mother and help her become the beautiful girl that she is. My Sister always said she is glad she had the baby. It helped her to focus on what mattered
> 
> Oh and I am glad too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's when it goes well.   When it doesn't go well, it's a worse disaster.  I know a woman that was raped and had the baby thinking it would help her heal.  Instead she took out her anger on the baby, the girl and the young woman that baby became.   The daughter could not live being the subject of a lifetime of total resentment and no love.  She committed suicide at 17.   Mother died two years later of acute alcoholism.    A woman on another board was the product of a rape but given up for adoption.  She made the mistake of tracking down her biological mother and got told if mother knew she would be tracked down and her privacy invaded, she would have had an abortion.
> 
> I knew the woman and her daughter.  It was a total tragedy.   Years and years of tragedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that some people are not qualified to be parents doesn't justify abortion either. Unless, that is, you think the government can mandate abortions whenever people don't meet whatever qualifications it imposes.
> 
> By the way, do you have any evidence she would not have taken her anger out on her child if she hadn't been raped?
Click to expand...


None whatsoever.  Nor was I intending to justify abortion.  Just pointing out that while some women might happily and successfully embrace the child of a rapist, not all do.   After knowing this woman, I truly believe she kept the child with some feeling that she was punishing some part of the rapist by her treatment of the child.   After all, abortion was fully legal, this woman could have had an abortion, she could have adopted it out.  But she chose to keep the child as an object of misdirected revenge.   It doesn't always work out.  It just doesn't.   We would like to think it does, or could, but that's just not true.


----------



## Foxfyre

Katzndogz said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's when it goes well.   When it doesn't go well, it's a worse disaster.  I know a woman that was raped and had the baby thinking it would help her heal.  Instead she took out her anger on the baby, the girl and the young woman that baby became.   The daughter could not live being the subject of a lifetime of total resentment and no love.  She committed suicide at 17.   Mother died two years later of acute alcoholism.    A woman on another board was the product of a rape but given up for adoption.  She made the mistake of tracking down her biological mother and got told if mother knew she would be tracked down and her privacy invaded, she would have had an abortion.
> 
> I knew the woman and her daughter.  It was a total tragedy.   Years and years of tragedy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that some people are not qualified to be parents doesn't justify abortion either. Unless, that is, you think the government can mandate abortions whenever people don't meet whatever qualifications it imposes.
> 
> By the way, do you have any evidence she would not have taken her anger out on her child if she hadn't been raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None whatsoever.  Nor was I intending to justify abortion.  Just pointing out that while some women might happily and successfully embrace the child of a rapist, not all do.   After knowing this woman, I truly believe she kept the child with some feeling that she was punishing some part of the rapist by her treatment of the child.   After all, abortion was fully legal, this woman could have had an abortion, she could have adopted it out.  But she chose to keep the child as an object of misdirected revenge.   It doesn't always work out.  It just doesn't.   We would like to think it does, or could, but that's just not true.
Click to expand...


There is no justification for abuse or mistreatment of any child for any reason.  I think we all might even agree on that.

And I am not so naive to believe that every child is born to loving or competent or less-than-evil parents.  I know better.

Again I will not presume to judge any woman who finds herself pregnant due to rape or incest or who is carrying a severely damaged child.  I will leave that to her and her doctor and her God to deal with.

At the same time, I still have to believe that the unborn baby is a human life and I can't see that any other way.   There was a time in America that almost everybody saw it that way.  It is my fervent hope that we will return to being a society who again sees it that way.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"unviable" means "can't survive"?  Is that correct?  Still and all, that's rough legislation.



Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You replied to something we were discussing without even knowing what you replied to....but you did highlight the fact that you don't need to make laws for what is already illegal, so it wasn't a total waste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made the statement that children who survive abortions are never left to die, you were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are left to die if deemed unviable following the abortion.  After reading up, Ravi is right.  Even in Illinois, a viable baby who survives an abortion is given proper care and every reasonable effort must be made on its behalf.  Obama was falsely accused that he wanted to kill those babies.  What he voted against was legislation that would have required the doctor to try to save the unviable baby who survived the abortion.
Click to expand...


----------



## Katzndogz

Foxfyre said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that some people are not qualified to be parents doesn't justify abortion either. Unless, that is, you think the government can mandate abortions whenever people don't meet whatever qualifications it imposes.
> 
> By the way, do you have any evidence she would not have taken her anger out on her child if she hadn't been raped?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None whatsoever.  Nor was I intending to justify abortion.  Just pointing out that while some women might happily and successfully embrace the child of a rapist, not all do.   After knowing this woman, I truly believe she kept the child with some feeling that she was punishing some part of the rapist by her treatment of the child.   After all, abortion was fully legal, this woman could have had an abortion, she could have adopted it out.  But she chose to keep the child as an object of misdirected revenge.   It doesn't always work out.  It just doesn't.   We would like to think it does, or could, but that's just not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no justification for abuse or mistreatment of any child for any reason.  I think we all might even agree on that.
> 
> And I am not so naive to believe that every child is born to loving or competent or less-than-evil parents.  I know better.
> 
> Again I will not presume to judge any woman who finds herself pregnant due to rape or incest or who is carrying a severely damaged child.  I will leave that to her and her doctor and her God to deal with.
> 
> At the same time, I still have to believe that the unborn baby is a human life and I can't see that any other way.   There was a time in America that almost everybody saw it that way.  It is my fervent hope that we will return to being a society who again sees it that way.
Click to expand...


Ahh, you know!   

There was a time when the unborn baby was a human being deserving of life, but a recognition that there are times when a woman can be so driven by desperation that any alternative is desirable.   Today, it's the reverse.  No unborn baby is deserving of life, they aren't even alive and if they are, they are not human beings.   There are exceptions to that general rule.   

Like you, we can only hope to return to societal sanity.


----------



## Katzndogz

Conception due to rape or incest is just a red herring.  Abortionists, and agencies like Planned Parenthood that promote abortion routinely return girls to the rapist and to the very family member that impregnated her in the first place.   They really don't care about the girl, just the rapist.


----------



## Foxfyre

Katzndogz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> None whatsoever.  Nor was I intending to justify abortion.  Just pointing out that while some women might happily and successfully embrace the child of a rapist, not all do.   After knowing this woman, I truly believe she kept the child with some feeling that she was punishing some part of the rapist by her treatment of the child.   After all, abortion was fully legal, this woman could have had an abortion, she could have adopted it out.  But she chose to keep the child as an object of misdirected revenge.   It doesn't always work out.  It just doesn't.   We would like to think it does, or could, but that's just not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no justification for abuse or mistreatment of any child for any reason.  I think we all might even agree on that.
> 
> And I am not so naive to believe that every child is born to loving or competent or less-than-evil parents.  I know better.
> 
> Again I will not presume to judge any woman who finds herself pregnant due to rape or incest or who is carrying a severely damaged child.  I will leave that to her and her doctor and her God to deal with.
> 
> At the same time, I still have to believe that the unborn baby is a human life and I can't see that any other way.   There was a time in America that almost everybody saw it that way.  It is my fervent hope that we will return to being a society who again sees it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh, you know!
> 
> There was a time when the unborn baby was a human being deserving of life, but a recognition that there are times when a woman can be so driven by desperation that any alternative is desirable.   Today, it's the reverse.  No unborn baby is deserving of life, they aren't even alive and if they are, they are not human beings.   There are exceptions to that general rule.
> 
> Like you, we can only hope to return to societal sanity.
Click to expand...


And it is that mindset that I find so offensive and heart wrenching, i.e. that the unborn baby is not a human being and can be discarded at will.  To the prolifer, none of us will enjoy life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness without going through the pre-birth stages of life.  I am all for the woman being in control of her own body and making choices that are right for her.

I am also all for the woman to have reverence for and appreciation for any life that she had a part in creating.   I am all for her understanding that there isn't just her life and needs to be considered, but also a second life.


----------



## Polk

I would like to thank the people who posted in this thread in support of the OP's premise. A lot of people will criticize you for holding an "inhuman" position, but the reality is that if a fetus is fully human, the method of conception does not matter. While I do not agree with that premise, at least you've thought through the question.


----------



## Katzndogz

Is it possible that categories of life can be split off?  No.  There is no such thing as a child of a rapist or due to incest is somehow not life or something other than human.  The circumstances of conception do not make that life into something different from a child that is wanted.    ALL babies must not be alive or not human.   That is what liberals intend.  A wholesale redefinition of life itself.  That's what is so horrifying at what liberals are doing.

If libs really believe that rape, including family rape is so traumatic that the girl should not be forced into bearing the child, then why do those same libs return the girl directly to her rapist?   Why?  How concerned are they really?   In fact, they are not concerned about psychological or physical harm to the girl but they are very much concerned with anything that advances abortion and if they can use a sob story about a 14 year old girl that had three abortions due to her rapist father, they'll send her back to him for a fourth.


----------



## Foxfyre

Katzndogz said:


> Conception due to rape or incest is just a red herring.  Abortionists, and agencies like Planned Parenthood that promote abortion routinely return girls to the rapist and to the very family member that impregnated her in the first place.   They really don't care about the girl, just the rapist.



But what they care about really isn't am issue is it?  I can't imagine a vocation of destroying hundreds or thousands of babies for no better reason than the mother doesn't want them.  But that shall be left to their consciences.  They have to live with themselves.

But as for the mother faced with the terrible decision of whether to give the baby forced upon her through rape or dealing with the risks of pregnancy due to incest or faced with the prospects of a terribly deformed child, again I won't presume to judge her and will leave that to her doctor and her conscience to deal with.   Certainly I won't judge the woman for whom a pregnancy is dangerous and the pregnancy needs to be ended.

But neither of my children, nor the one we lost through miscarriage, was planned, nor were any of them 'wanted' at the time of conception.  But even the one that was lost was special.  And I can't imagine a world without the two who lived.

I just want a society that reveres and holds life sancrsanct again.  I want a society in which lives are not throwaways because they aren't convenient.


----------



## Polk

Katzndogz said:


> Is it possible that categories of life can be split off?  No.  There is no such thing as a child of a rapist or due to incest is somehow not life or something other than human.  The circumstances of conception do not make that life into something different from a child that is wanted.    ALL babies must not be alive or not human.   That is what liberals intend.  A wholesale redefinition of life itself.  That's what is so horrifying at what liberals are doing.
> 
> If libs really believe that rape, including family rape is so traumatic that the girl should not be forced into bearing the child, then why do those same libs return the girl directly to her rapist?   Why?  How concerned are they really?   In fact, they are not concerned about psychological or physical harm to the girl but they are very much concerned with anything that advances abortion and if they can use a sob story about a 14 year old girl that had three abortions due to her rapist father, they'll send her back to him for a fourth.



Reasoning behind "libs return the girl directly to her rapist" claim?


----------



## Katzndogz

I don't know the reasoning behind performing an abortion on a girl impregnated by a family member, not reporting it to the authorities and then sending her home.  

Ohio Planned Parenthood Abortion Center Sued Over Incest Case Coverup | LifeNews.com

A suburban Cincinnati Planned Parenthood has been sued by a teenage girl who accuses it of covering up her sexual victimization by her father. Under Ohio law, doctors, nurses, teachers and other professionals are required to report alleged sexual abuse to authorities and the teen says that didn&#8217;t happen in her abortion case.

The unnamed girl filed the lawsuit in Warren County Common Pleas Court on Wednesday saying she told Planned Parenthood staff about the incest.

Why does PP fight so hard to protect rapists?  What's the reasoning behind that?

Planned Parenthood, abortion clinics fight over medical records in child abuse investigations

Child rape is a serious crime and under both Kansas and Indiana law, when a girl under 14 is pregnant, she has been raped. A Kansas court has subpoenaed abortion clinic medical records likely to contain evidence of child rape and illegal late term abortions, issues being investigated by Attorney General Phill Kline. Planned Parenthood of Indiana has sued to prevent the Attorney General and the Medical Fraud Control Unit, from seeing the medical records of 12- and 13-year-old child abuse victims. Certainly, the Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of a state, has the duty to investigate potential child abuse in order to protect children. And, as was previously proven by Life Dynamics, abortion clinics routinely cover up child rape.


----------



## Polk

The first link is based on nothing more than one person's claim. The second link is just some bloggers making claims without any supporting evidence.


----------



## Foxfyre

Polk said:


> The first link is based on nothing more than one person's claim. The second link is just some bloggers making claims without any supporting evidence.



Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics, however, is a little more than just a blogger.  Whatever you think of the research done by his organization, it has become part of the national conversation.



> Articles about Mark and Life Dynamics have been published in both Time and Newsweek and he has written for The Christian American, All About Issues, and Focus on the Family's Citizen magazine. He has also appeared on many local and national television news outlets including ABC World News Tonight, NBC Nightly News, the CBS Evening News, Fox News, Nightline, 20/20, the O'Rilley Factor, and the 700 Club. He is also a regular contributor to World Net Daily, American Family Radio, Family News in Focus and the USA Radio Network.
> 
> In 1999, Mark launched LifeTalk as the nation's first pro-life television talk show. Today, his co-hosts include Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life; Cherie Johnson, Troy Newman, the national leader of Operation Rescue; Dr. Johnny Hunter, the president of America's largest black pro-life organization; and Janet Morana, co-founder of Silent No More
> Abortion Pro life Planned Parenthood at Life Dynamics


----------



## Katzndogz

Any pro life position will be dismissed as not credible.   I understood that from the beginning.   Even before I made the post.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Give us some credible evidence for your incredible statement.



Katzndogz said:


> Conception due to rape or incest is just a red herring.  Abortionists, and agencies like Planned Parenthood that promote abortion routinely return girls to the rapist and to the very family member that impregnated her in the first place.   They really don't care about the girl, just the rapist.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You replied to something we were discussing without even knowing what you replied to....but you did highlight the fact that you don't need to make laws for what is already illegal, so it wasn't a total waste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made the statement that children who survive abortions are never left to die, you were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I said it was never legal.
Click to expand...


No, you said it never happened, stop lying.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

editec said:


> Smell the misogyny?
> 
> Note how these folks who claim they love freedom think nothing about telling women what they must do with THEIR bodies?
> 
> Lovers of freedom, my ass.



Feel free to go back through the thread and point out where I said women must do anything. After you do that, go read the rules for the Clean Debate Zone and stop attacking people you cannot refute.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You replied to something we were discussing without even knowing what you replied to....but you did highlight the fact that you don't need to make laws for what is already illegal, so it wasn't a total waste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made the statement that children who survive abortions are never left to die, you were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are left to die if deemed unviable following the abortion.  After reading up, Ravi is right.  Even in Illinois, a viable baby who survives an abortion is given proper care and every reasonable effort must be made on its behalf.  Obama was falsely accused that he wanted to kill those babies.  What he voted against was legislation that would have required the doctor to try to save the unviable baby who survived the abortion.
Click to expand...


Hate to point out the obvious here, but any baby that survives an abortion is, by definition, viable. That make Obama a person who voted to kill a live birth child.


----------



## Valerie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made the statement that children who survive abortions are never left to die, you were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said it was never legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you said it never happened, stop lying.
Click to expand...






  No, it never happened that is was legal...which is what was actually said in the post she was replying to (below)... And uh if it was legal why would he lose his license?






_*The fact that a baby can survive an abortion and be left to die in a dark room in IL lets you know just how far down that despicable path we have travelled. IMO, any child that survives an abortion is now fully protected by the laws of the land*_

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-does-not-justify-abortion-7.html#post5875189


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Polk said:


> I would like to thank the people who posted in this thread in support of the OP's premise. A lot of people will criticize you for holding an "inhuman" position, but the reality is that if a fetus is fully human, the method of conception does not matter. While I do not agree with that premise, at least you've thought through the question.



An honest assessment of the issues, appreciate it.


----------



## Valerie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made the statement that children who survive abortions are never left to die, you were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said it was never legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you said it never happened, stop lying.
Click to expand...





You were hoping no one would notice...?   



_*The fact that a baby can survive an abortion and be left to die in a dark room in IL lets you know just how far down that despicable path we have travelled. IMO, any child that survives an abortion is now fully protected by the laws of the land*_




Ravi said:


> That is not true and it has never been true.




http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-does-not-justify-abortion-7.html#post5875189


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Valerie said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said it was never legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you said it never happened, stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it never happened that is was legal...which is what was actually said in the post she was replying to (below)... And uh if it was legal why would he lose his license?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*The fact that a baby can survive an abortion and be left to die in a dark room in IL lets you know just how far down that despicable path we have travelled. IMO, any child that survives an abortion is now fully protected by the laws of the land*_
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-does-not-justify-abortion-7.html#post5875189
Click to expand...


Funny, the post you pointed to does not say anything about it being legal, it just says that babies that survive abortions, which are obviously viable, were never left to die.


----------



## Kiki Cannoli

Lets keep the fetus created out of evil and lets execute the rapist for creating it.


----------



## Valerie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you said it never happened, stop lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it never happened that is was legal...which is what was actually said in the post she was replying to (below)... And uh if it was legal why would he lose his license?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*The fact that a baby can survive an abortion and be left to die in a dark room in IL lets you know just how far down that despicable path we have travelled. IMO, any child that survives an abortion is now fully protected by the laws of the land*_
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-does-not-justify-abortion-7.html#post5875189
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, the post you pointed to does not say anything about it being legal, it just says that babies that survive abortions, which are obviously viable, were never left to die.
Click to expand...





  Funny you can't read.  Not funny you lie like a rug...


_*any child that survives an abortion is now fully protected by the laws of the land*_


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Valerie said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it never happened that is was legal...which is what was actually said in the post she was replying to (below)... And uh if it was legal why would he lose his license?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*The fact that a baby can survive an abortion and be left to die in a dark room in IL lets you know just how far down that despicable path we have travelled. IMO, any child that survives an abortion is now fully protected by the laws of the land*_
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-does-not-justify-abortion-7.html#post5875189
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the post you pointed to does not say anything about it being legal, it just says that babies that survive abortions, which are obviously viable, were never left to die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you can't read.  Not funny you lie like a rug...
> 
> 
> _*any child that survives an abortion is now fully protected by the laws of the land*_
Click to expand...


I can't read? Did you miss the IMO in front of the phrase you just quoted? FYI, that means in my opinion.


----------



## Valerie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the post you pointed to does not say anything about it being legal, it just says that babies that survive abortions, which are obviously viable, were never left to die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you can't read.  Not funny you lie like a rug...
> 
> 
> _*any child that survives an abortion is now fully protected by the laws of the land*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't read? Did you miss the IMO in front of the phrase you just quoted? FYI, that means in my opinion.
Click to expand...





Did you miss the fact that THAT post is the post Ravi was responding to when she said THAT never happened THAT is what she was referring to... 




Ravi said:


> That is not true and it has never been true.


----------



## Dr Grump

Quantum Windbag said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made the statement that children who survive abortions are never left to die, you were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are left to die if deemed unviable following the abortion.  After reading up, Ravi is right.  Even in Illinois, a viable baby who survives an abortion is given proper care and every reasonable effort must be made on its behalf.  Obama was falsely accused that he wanted to kill those babies.  What he voted against was legislation that would have required the doctor to try to save the unviable baby who survived the abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate to point out the obvious here, but any baby that survives an abortion is, by definition, viable. That make Obama a person who voted to kill a live birth child.
Click to expand...


There are foetus's that have survived abortion? Really?


----------



## PixieStix

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are left to die if deemed unviable following the abortion.  After reading up, Ravi is right.  Even in Illinois, a viable baby who survives an abortion is given proper care and every reasonable effort must be made on its behalf.  Obama was falsely accused that he wanted to kill those babies.  What he voted against was legislation that would have required the doctor to try to save the unviable baby who survived the abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to point out the obvious here, but any baby that survives an abortion is, by definition, viable. That make Obama a person who voted to kill a live birth child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are foetus's that have survived abortion? Really?
Click to expand...


Yes, and one of the most cruel kinds of abortions, one in which the mother actually gives birth to dead baby. At least most of the time. But someone had other plans for this baby

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKrW7vP8W00]Gianna Jessen :: Abortion Survivor (Part 1) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Valerie said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you can't read.  Not funny you lie like a rug...
> 
> 
> _*any child that survives an abortion is now fully protected by the laws of the land*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't read? Did you miss the IMO in front of the phrase you just quoted? FYI, that means in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss the fact that THAT post is the post Ravi was responding to when she said THAT never happened THAT is what she was referring to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true and it has never been true.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


It has never been true that any child that survives abortion is fully protected by the laws of the land? If that is what she mean I will have to agree, laws do not protect anyone. The problem is, that is not what she meant, something we both know.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are left to die if deemed unviable following the abortion.  After reading up, Ravi is right.  Even in Illinois, a viable baby who survives an abortion is given proper care and every reasonable effort must be made on its behalf.  Obama was falsely accused that he wanted to kill those babies.  What he voted against was legislation that would have required the doctor to try to save the unviable baby who survived the abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to point out the obvious here, but any baby that survives an abortion is, by definition, viable. That make Obama a person who voted to kill a live birth child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are foetus's that have survived abortion? Really?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## Noomi

PixieStix said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to point out the obvious here, but any baby that survives an abortion is, by definition, viable. That make Obama a person who voted to kill a live birth child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are foetus's that have survived abortion? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and one of the most cruel kinds of abortions, one in which the mother actually gives birth to dead baby. At least most of the time. But someone had other plans for this baby
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKrW7vP8W00]Gianna Jessen :: Abortion Survivor (Part 1) - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


But she 'survived' a saline abortion, which burn the skin. She must have an amazing plastic surgeon!


----------



## Noomi

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to point out the obvious here, but any baby that survives an abortion is, by definition, viable. That make Obama a person who voted to kill a live birth child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are foetus's that have survived abortion? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


That's like saying you can survive being murdered. An abortion is intended to kill the fetus. If the fetus lives, no abortion can have taken place.


----------



## Ravi

Quantum Windbag said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you said it never happened, stop lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it never happened that is was legal...which is what was actually said in the post she was replying to (below)... And uh if it was legal why would he lose his license?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*The fact that a baby can survive an abortion and be left to die in a dark room in IL lets you know just how far down that despicable path we have travelled. IMO, any child that survives an abortion is now fully protected by the laws of the land*_
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-does-not-justify-abortion-7.html#post5875189
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, the post you pointed to does not say anything about it being legal, it just says that babies that survive abortions, which are obviously viable, were never left to die.
Click to expand...

Putz. It has never been legal to allow a living child to die of neglect.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The conclusion does not match the discussion.  In fact, many live birth children are not considered viable, and in fact die quickly despite all the efforts to save them.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made the statement that children who survive abortions are never left to die, you were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are left to die if deemed unviable following the abortion.  After reading up, Ravi is right.  Even in Illinois, a viable baby who survives an abortion is given proper care and every reasonable effort must be made on its behalf.  Obama was falsely accused that he wanted to kill those babies.  What he voted against was legislation that would have required the doctor to try to save the unviable baby who survived the abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate to point out the obvious here, but any baby that survives an abortion is, by definition, viable. That make Obama a person who voted to kill a live birth child.
Click to expand...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Noomi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are foetus's that have survived abortion? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying you can survive being murdered. An abortion is intended to kill the fetus. If the fetus lives, no abortion can have taken place.
Click to expand...


Good to see you agree with me that a fetus is alive.

By the way, abortions are designed to remove the fetus from the from the uterus to end the pregnancy, not to kill the fetus.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it never happened that is was legal...which is what was actually said in the post she was replying to (below)... And uh if it was legal why would he lose his license?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*The fact that a baby can survive an abortion and be left to die in a dark room in IL lets you know just how far down that despicable path we have travelled. IMO, any child that survives an abortion is now fully protected by the laws of the land*_
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-does-not-justify-abortion-7.html#post5875189
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the post you pointed to does not say anything about it being legal, it just says that babies that survive abortions, which are obviously viable, were never left to die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Putz. It has never been legal to allow a living child to die of neglect.
Click to expand...


I never said it was, I just said the law doesn't protect them. It isn't intended to, it is intended to punish people who neglect children.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> The conclusion does not match the discussion.  In fact, many live birth children are not considered viable, and in fact die quickly despite all the efforts to save them.
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are left to die if deemed unviable following the abortion.  After reading up, Ravi is right.  Even in Illinois, a viable baby who survives an abortion is given proper care and every reasonable effort must be made on its behalf.  Obama was falsely accused that he wanted to kill those babies.  What he voted against was legislation that would have required the doctor to try to save the unviable baby who survived the abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to point out the obvious here, but any baby that survives an abortion is, by definition, viable. That make Obama a person who voted to kill a live birth child.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Strange. The law in every single state makes killing a child that is born alive murder, yet you want me to believe that if they die it proves they are not viable. Another strange thing, every single child that is born dies eventually, does that mean that no one is viable?


----------



## Jackson

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are left to die if deemed unviable following the abortion.  After reading up, Ravi is right.  Even in Illinois, a viable baby who survives an abortion is given proper care and every reasonable effort must be made on its behalf.  Obama was falsely accused that he wanted to kill those babies.  What he voted against was legislation that would have required the doctor to try to save the unviable baby who survived the abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to point out the obvious here, but any baby that survives an abortion is, by definition, viable. That make Obama a person who voted to kill a live birth child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are foetus's that have survived abortion? Really?
Click to expand...


Many children survive failed abortions - I am One

The initial ad is a $150,000 buy in Missouri, and shows a woman &#8211; Melissa Ohden &#8211; speaking to the camera about having been born alive in spite of an abortion procedure.
Abortion opponents have long decried Obama&#8217;s record in the Illinois legislature on regulating late-term abortions, but little money has been spent to advertise on the issue since he became president.

&#8220;Many children, more than you might think, actually survive failed abortions and are born alive. I know because I&#8217;m one of them,&#8221; Ohden says in the SBA List ad. *&#8220;When he was in the Illinois state Senate, Barack Obama voted to deny basic constitutional protections for babies born alive from an abortion &#8211; not once, but four times."*

She concludes: &#8220;I know it&#8217;s by the grace of God I&#8217;m alive today, if only to ask America this question: is this the kind of leadership that will move us forward, that will discard the weakest among us? How will you answer?&#8221;SBA List to launch Missouri ads against Obama on abortion - POLITICO.com



POLITICO.com: VIDEOS


----------



## beagle9

Quantum Windbag said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made the statement that children who survive abortions are never left to die, you were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are left to die if deemed unviable following the abortion.  After reading up, Ravi is right.  Even in Illinois, a viable baby who survives an abortion is given proper care and every reasonable effort must be made on its behalf.  Obama was falsely accused that he wanted to kill those babies.  What he voted against was legislation that would have required the doctor to try to save the unviable baby who survived the abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate to point out the obvious here, but any baby that survives an abortion is, by definition, viable. That make Obama a person who voted to kill a live birth child.
Click to expand...

Obama has shown that he has absolutely no morals or decency within him, and that he is the worst kind of poilitican because of this, and I feel sorry for his family that they are now probably realizing this as it has come out in this Presidency as is being revealed of him, so (what is a man that gains the whole world, yet loses his own soul?), this is what comes to mind right about now in my thoughts. Obama is so weak in character that he won't make even a stand for the most defenseless and helpless to come into this world safely, and by helping hands instead of into evil hands. I have made my statements of opinion upon what should be in regards to this issue, and I am willing to stand by them, but can Obama stand by his statements or actions pertaining to such an issue ? Apparently he is like the ocean waves driven by the wild winds, where as he is tossed and turned every which of direction in life, and it is revealing of his early life in which the same was the case for him then as it is now it apears. Yet why with all of a persons intelect as is found within them, would they not be on a path finally to what is right in life, instead of allowing the past to mold and hold him into place?  One day his time will have come in his life, just as it shall be for all of us the same, and then next comes the judgement soon there afterwards, but will he be able to stand before God and answer for his life and choices made within it as found afterwards, otherwise when he is called within that sitting will he be comfortable that he has done what was right in his life ? He claimed openy that he was Christain, but yet he mocks every single thing that is supposed to be in what being a Christians is all about, so who is this Obama, and is he going to be an Obamanation to behold in this nation, before his day is done?


----------



## Wolfmann

Hello

The argument that a woman who is RAPED cannot have an abortion is OBSCENE and is presented by people who have NO pity.

Put yourself in their shoes.  You are brutally violated and quite possibly physically brutalized.  Now some unfeeling people who are imposing their misguided religious values on your life have gotten laws passed that say that along with the physical and mental scares you will care (mental for life), you MUST carry the product of that violation to term and in most cases raise that child which is a constant reminder of what happened to you.  I wonder how many women you are forcing to do this to commit suicide as a result or simply abandon the child (or worse).

GOD this is as heartless as it gets.

"Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy".  This is what "Christians" or anyone else of faith MUST believe.  If you don't then how can you call yourself a person of faith?

Compassion and mercy are at the heart of God's word.  In cases like this trying showing some.

Wolfman 24


----------



## JakeStarkey

You do not always get the word meanings.

In the military, we learned that not every wound was survivable, though you would be amazed at some of the head wound casualties that did survive.

Of course certain births occur that the results are quite observable that the infant will not survive.

That does not mean, Quantum, that anyone gets to smother the child.





Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conclusion does not match the discussion.  In fact, many live birth children are not considered viable, and in fact die quickly despite all the efforts to save them.
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to point out the obvious here, but any baby that survives an abortion is, by definition, viable. That make Obama a person who voted to kill a live birth child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strange. The law in every single state makes killing a child that is born alive murder, yet you want me to believe that if they die it proves they are not viable. Another strange thing, every single child that is born dies eventually, does that mean that no one is viable?
Click to expand...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> You do not always get the word meanings.
> 
> In the military, we learned that not every wound was survivable, though you would be amazed at some of the head wound casualties that did survive.
> 
> Of course certain births occur that the results are quite observable that the infant will not survive.
> 
> That does not mean, Quantum, that anyone gets to smother the child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conclusion does not match the discussion.  In fact, many live birth children are not considered viable, and in fact die quickly despite all the efforts to save them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strange. The law in every single state makes killing a child that is born alive murder, yet you want me to believe that if they die it proves they are not viable. Another strange thing, every single child that is born dies eventually, does that mean that no one is viable?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


If they are alive, they are, by definition, viable.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Gently but firmly, your definition is wrong.



Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not always get the word meanings.
> 
> In the military, we learned that not every wound was survivable, though you would be amazed at some of the head wound casualties that did survive.
> 
> Of course certain births occur that the results are quite observable that the infant will not survive.
> 
> That does not mean, Quantum, that anyone gets to smother the child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strange. The law in every single state makes killing a child that is born alive murder, yet you want me to believe that if they die it proves they are not viable. Another strange thing, every single child that is born dies eventually, does that mean that no one is viable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they are alive, they are, by definition, viable.
Click to expand...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> Gently but firmly, your definition is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not always get the word meanings.
> 
> In the military, we learned that not every wound was survivable, though you would be amazed at some of the head wound casualties that did survive.
> 
> Of course certain births occur that the results are quite observable that the infant will not survive.
> 
> That does not mean, Quantum, that anyone gets to smother the child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they are alive, they are, by definition, viable.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Viable, able to live. Exactly what am I getting wrong here?


----------



## JakeStarkey

That medical people trained in their field can tell when someone is not viable, that is, going to die very soon because of the patient's situation not being able to be rectified.


----------



## Katzndogz

Pregnancy as a result of rape is really not very common.  Rapists today are more likely to wear a condom than then boyfriend.   Too much television, even rapists watch CSI.  

The Tuscaloosa News - Google News Archive Search

We might reduce rape related pregnancy further if we made abortion an act of murder and prosecuted the responsible party, the rapist, for the crime.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The rapist then would be motivated to murder his victim.


----------



## Katzndogz

JakeStarkey said:


> The rapist then would be motivated to murder his victim.



Not anymore than they are already so motivated.   A rapist knows for a fact that no matter how much trauma the victim is put through nothing very much is going to happen to him.   Certainly he's not going to be held responsible for any part of a resulting pregnancy.  

Rapists who think they might get caught wear a condom.  That's why they do it.   They don't murder all rape victims.   More women are murdered by those who are closest to them than rapist strangers.    It's not some guy in a dark alley.   It's the boyfriend, husband, in some cases father.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You would tie yourself up into contortions to quantify your opinion into statistical fact.

But logically, no, you are wrong.  If he can rape and not worry about the death penalty, he has motive to not murder.  If he rapes and an abortion as a result leaves him liable to execution, yes, he has reason to kill.



Katzndogz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rapist then would be motivated to murder his victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not anymore than they are already so motivated.   A rapist knows for a fact that no matter how much trauma the victim is put through nothing very much is going to happen to him.   Certainly he's not going to be held responsible for any part of a resulting pregnancy.
> 
> Rapists who think they might get caught wear a condom.  That's why they do it.   They don't murder all rape victims.   More women are murdered by those who are closest to them than rapist strangers.    It's not some guy in a dark alley.   It's the boyfriend, husband, in some cases father.
Click to expand...


----------



## Wolfmann

Getting a victim "proper" contraception after the rape (victim = someone against whom a crime has been committed) is like shooting the fox after its killed the chicken.


----------



## Wolfmann

Hi

This is no contradiction.  It just means you have the ability to show compassion and mercy unlike those who call for complete bans and then call themselves persons of faith.

Wolfman 24


----------



## Wolfmann

Hello 

 Have you EVER met someone who has been raped or been to a rape scene.  if you had you would not say such cold hearted foolish things.  

Rape victims can and many do go through intensive therapy and a good number of them are able to block what happened to them (not totally forget).  Your premise is that because you don't like abortion SHE has to suffer more.

GFY


----------



## Wolfmann

The right to choose is not a governmental issue it is a persons.  Get it right.


----------



## Wolfmann

Hello

You are wrong.  The "diving" reflex as you call it is a phenomenon in young children and babies and so far only a select few adults.  In almost every case in adults the adult suffered some level of brain damage if the person was under for more than a couple of minutes.

This phenomenon is an evolutionary relic from our past.  It allows young children and babies to "automatically" lower their body temp and heart rate and as a result slow their breathing.  If you have ever seen an infant swim under water thats what they are doing without knowing it.  However, the timeline is not infinite.  As I understand it the longest anyone has done this is about 15 minutes but again there was brain damage.  A decade or more ago a very young child was pulled out of a submerged ice cave along Lake Michigan where I am from.  He had been there for 5 minutes or more and suffered no ill effects.

Wolfman 24


----------



## Wolfmann

Hello

You are wrong.  Chief Justice Marshall from the Jefferson Administration stated in a majority decision in the early 1800's.  Any law that complies with, is based on or is derived from the Constitution is in and of itself shall be considered as part of the Constitution.    This majority decision has NEVER been challenged in over 200 years.

Please check your facts

Wolfman 24


----------



## Amazed

The right to kill a child resides within it's mother.


----------



## beagle9

Katzndogz said:


> Pregnancy as a result of rape is really not very common.  Rapists today are more likely to wear a condom than then boyfriend.   Too much television, even rapists watch CSI.
> 
> The Tuscaloosa News - Google News Archive Search
> 
> We might reduce rape related pregnancy further if we made abortion an act of murder and prosecuted the responsible party, the rapist, for the crime.


I think there is a confusion going on between what is an abortion and what is a DNC or rather the way in which to make sure that a woman does not become pregnant from a rape (immediately there after) or incest the same for that matter, where as if we speak of Abortions, then there is a good chance that no "abortion" is therefore morally or ethically correct, and therefore should never be accepted as it shouldnot be within a civilized society, but in the cases such as rape and/or incest, I think the medical term for making sure that a pregnancy is not resulted from such a situation, would not be called an Abortion -(meaning to abort that which is now growing within the womb in result of becoming pregnant), but would be rather reffered to or should be called by other terms found within the medical world when dealing with rape or incest. Now shouldn't we make sure that we all are on the same page when speaking in these different terms/termonolgies or meanings there of as is found in these certain terms or definitions there of ? Am I Correct in my thinking on these matters maybe ?


----------



## jillian

Wolfmann said:


> Hello
> 
> You are wrong.  Chief Justice Marshall from the Jefferson Administration stated in a majority decision in the early 1800's.  Any law that complies with, is based on or is derived from the Constitution is in and of itself shall be considered as part of the Constitution.    This majority decision has NEVER been challenged in over 200 years.
> 
> Please check your facts
> 
> Wolfman 24



what are you talking about?


----------

