# Abortion as Murder.



## BenNatuf (Jan 19, 2011)

For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.



> Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven other babies who, prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and then were killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.


would these children have been any less viable had this piece of human trash cut them up in utero as opposed to after birth?  If Roe is the standard, and the standard it sets is "viability", how is a fetus, any fetus, unviable after about 4 1/2 months of pregnancy?  All of them are viable given proper medical care, so what is the difference between murdering them in utero or out?

Philly Abortion Doctor Facing 8 Counts Of Murder  CBS Philly &#8211; News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of Philadelphia


----------



## Tank (Jan 19, 2011)

I noticed everyone who supports abortion, has already been born.


----------



## TossObama (Jan 19, 2011)

Of course abortion is murder. However psychopaths seem to think pregnancy is simply a wad of cells like a tree that can be cut down without notice or concern.

Have you ever noticed who is working in abortion clinics? CATHOLICS. Talk about another con job where the right hand is hidden from the left hand. Don't believe one word, not one word that comes from the Vatican, a Bishop or any Parish that claims the church is opposed to abortion. Look behind the scenes and do some historical research. What the Vatican claims in public is NOT what is going on behind the scenes. EWTN, the Catholic tv network even interviewed the Catholic nurses who have deliberately chosen to work in abortion clinics. They claimed they are keeping an eye on everything.

I cannot even imagine the caliber of wimp who would promote or design the murder of babies. Those psychopaths want and need a victim who can't fight back. 

If those criminals were, say, walking down a public street and you were walking with your Granny, and they tried to give you a spill that Granny is just a wad of cells and it's ok to get rid of her, would you let it happen or would you fight? They aren't going to approach you with some nutty crazy garbage like that because they know full well they would be beaten to a pulp right there in front of everyone.

We have places for criminals who commit murder. Cages. They don't belong roaming in the public and certainly don't belong in medicine. Period.

Women have become so propagandized, so downright crazy and so full of hormones to make them artificial females that many of them ignore the fact they are engaging in murder in exchange for their supposed "freedoms". Where did that rubbish come from? Every single claim made by the abortionists and so-called "feminists" is stuff you'd hear from perverts and death row inmates. 

So tell me, where in this country has any of those hideous ideas made a positive change in any way? Looks to me like it's done the opposite.  

What we have is a country awash in screwing monkeys who seek "fulfillment" in abortion clinics as if those clinics were like gas stations. Ya pull in, pay the clerk, get your fumes and off you go all "fulfilled".

Finally, I can remember when those crazies were standing on street corners telling everyone they had to limit the size of their families because we were supposedly over populated. Smart people recognized that was one fat lie, but ignorant people really grabbed onto that false claim and now country after country doesn't even have enough of it's own citizenry to support the country. So what then? Well, in waltzed -- massive immigration. Shifting populations of people who lived in goat skin tents pitched on the desert sands, right on down to South and Central Americans came flooding over borders. Boy, now that was a real fix to a dilemma, huh.

And the key point in time was -- abortion.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 19, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> hey dipshit
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you should yes, the story also sates he's killed possibly 100's of live born babies some as young as 4 1/2 month.  So maybe instead of raising false kinards you might actually answer the question and enlighten us all as to what exactly is the difference is between chopping up a viable fetus in utero or out?  The fetus is no less viable and using Roe being viable cannot be aborted.  Given current medical science all fetus' in any normal pregnancy are viable after about 4 1/2 months, so even using Roe's criteria all are persons deserving of protection from the state.


----------



## Kat (Jan 19, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Anguille (Jan 19, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > hey dipshit
> ...


 It's "canard" Not "kinard".


----------



## TossObama (Jan 19, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> hey dipshit
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey gooball, listen up. 

Murder is murder. An unborn child happens to be "viable" -- a word YOU do not comprehend. The unborn is not a wad of cells like something that rubbed off your body onto your mattress. The unborn child is a growing human being, a person.

Twist it anyway you choose, pervert words and meanings and attach them inappropriately to any ignoramus who will listen to you and believe your guff. But you will never escape the fact abortion is murder, the deliberate and planned killing of another human being. 

You want to distinguish murder only as defined in your posting? Really? Get smart before you try that. Some of us have had a formal education.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 19, 2011)

Anguille said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


I should give a shit?  Sorry pal, I don't really give a shit about grammar nazi's.

BTW, it's "not", not, "Not".


----------



## Anguille (Jan 19, 2011)

TossObama said:


> Get smart before you try that. Some of us have had a formal education.


 
This board could sure use more edumacated people like you.


Where did you attend school?  Clown U.?


----------



## Anguille (Jan 19, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


Nonetheless, you seem a little miffed.

BTW That would be spelling nazi, Not grammer nazi.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 19, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


You're going to have a little trouble posting that "law" since the congress has never passed one.  You also have no understanding of Roe whatsoever, the test is not birth, it's viability.  Whether or not the fetus is in utero or not is irrelevant.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 19, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> TossObama said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


In the eyes of the law the theory is untested in court given current medical science.  And sadly, not likely to be tested any time soon.  But do keep spewing from your mouth whatever shit backs up from your ass.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 19, 2011)

Anguille said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...


What's a fucking "grammer"?


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 19, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


Please continue to enlighten us with your made up bullshit.  perhaps if you actually read Roe you might get a clue... though it would seem you may lack the comprehension skills for even that.  The test in Roe for whether or not the state has an interest in preserving the life is not birth, its viability, in or out of the womb.  That would be why 3rd trimester abortions are pretty much ILLEGAL dumbass.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 19, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


No, it hasn't.  And if "shut the fuck up and mind your own business" is the extent of your debating skill... well, it's pretty laughable.  The baby is not "their body" it is a seperate and distinct human being by any deffinition.  That however is not the issue, the issue here is the legality of killing a viable fetus.  When you finally wrap your mind around that (could be a while... I know), let us know.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 19, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


The SCOTUS set up the trimester system in an age when it was thought unlikely that a fetus would ever be viable before the third trimester.  Medical science has proven them wrong.  Given that the test of whether the state has an interest in preserving the life of an unborn is viability, should the law be changed to reflect the new reality?  BTW, the SCOTUS in Roe determined the state DOES have an interest in preserving viable fetus', so as a citizen of the state, it is my business.


----------



## TossObama (Jan 19, 2011)

Anguille said:


> TossObama said:
> 
> 
> > Get smart before you try that. Some of us have had a formal education.
> ...



The University I attended certainly wasn't Murder University.


----------



## TossObama (Jan 19, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



If the pre-born was not viable, it would be dead, it would not grow. 

Looks to me like a bunch of idiots decided to twist and turn the meaning of the word "viable" and political hacks on the Court fell for it. Any country bumkin knows what "viable" really is. Anyone who has ever planted a grapefruit tree from a dry seemingly dead seed knows what "viable" is.

"Viable" is living. Got that? All those skin cells in your mattress aren't "viable". They aren't living.

Abortion boils down to murder based on, for whatever reason, an unwanted pregnancy. It is NOT about "viability" and never has been about "viability". That's just a catch phrase idiots designed. In fact, if you actually look at the commentary used by abortionists and supporters of abortion you will see it's full of twisted commentary and it was deliberately designed to be such. 

What WE need is a massive clean-up in the Courts.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 19, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


So your argument has devolved into an argument about where children can be legally killed and whether you can see them?  Will the house do?  A nice park perhaps?  Thats pretty weak.  BTW dumbass, need is irrellevant, a baby needs its mother long after its born.  Should she still be able to kill it?  If this is the best you can do at logical reasonning maybe you should take up a new hobby?  How are you at basket weaveing?


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 19, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


Some people want to bash the neighbor with a hammer... so what?  Her wishes are irrellevant, she has no right to kill.  The states cannot change the laws to reflect the new reality unless Roe is either revisitted or overturned.  So, in the meantime, according to the very test Roe set up, we are killing persons the state has an interest in protecting.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 19, 2011)

TossObama said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


I agree 100%.  This case however exposes the flaw in the viability argument the SCOTUS set up.  As according to their own decission a viable fetus is a person the state has an interest in protecting.  So using their own test, it should be clearly illegal to abort after 4 1/2 months.


----------



## Anguille (Jan 19, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


 A type of kinard.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jan 19, 2011)

Tank said:


> I noticed everyone who supports abortion, has already been born.



What's your excuse?


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 19, 2011)

For anyone who chooses i would like to see some cogent response to how the fact that medical science has progressed to the point that virtually every fetus that is the product of a normal preganancy is viable at 4 1/2months does not create an inconsistancy in Roe's mechanics.  Roe stated quite clearly that the state does have an interest in protecting the life of viable persons, thats why they set up the mechanics of the trimester system.  At the time virtually no baby born at less than 8 months lived.  Now, children are born regularly and survive at 4 1/2 months showing conclusively that medical science has changed the point of viability considerably.  If the states interest in protecting viable persons that Roe set up is to be honored, how is the trimester system consistant with it?

This case may highlight that inconsistancy and force the courts to revisit Roe if they wish to remain consistant with it.  If the state has an interest in protecting viable persons then the trimester system prevents them from doing so.


----------



## JBeukema (Jan 19, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pretty self-explanatory.

You're makin' somethin' out of nothin'.


----------



## whitehall (Jan 19, 2011)

Think about it people. It wasn't a "botched" abortion. The full term babies were stabbed to death after they were born. The dirty little secret about "partial birth abortion" is the fact that it isn't about the health of the mother. Why would technicians turn the baby upside down in the birth canal to cause what they used to call a "breach birth" in a seemingly unnecessary and painful procedure to the mother? A glitch in the manslaughter law allows a baby to be killed inches away from a successful birth if it's head remains in the birth canal long enough to be stabbed to death. The doctor in question who ran the "horribly smelling" "slaughter house" of an abortion clinic in Pa is accused of the cold blooded murder of at least sevan infants who laid helpless on a table. Who could stab living puppies to death much less human beings? His wife and 9 other employees are also charged.


----------



## frazzledgear (Jan 20, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> hey dipshit
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I don't understand what you think was not presented fully.  Do you even know what "viable" means?  It means the child will likely live if born at that time -that is all it means.  It means forcing the baby to be born early won't kill it -it will just be born early!  What is it you think amounts to extenuating circumstances in the above?  The fact these children were forced to be born during the 6th, 7th or 8th month of pregnancy?  Think that makes them less human somehow?  Not quite real people for you?  *My youngest son was born when I was just 26 weeks pregnant, was 11 1/2" long and weighed exactly 2 lbs. and immediately cried!  Tiny, born extremely premature, a human being -and EXQUISITELY sensitive to pain.  *That is because the nerve endings of someone born that prematurely are just a few cell layers right below the surface of the skin and the fat layer that will later help cover them not yet developed.  A needle stick would cause his heart rate to nearly double and his blood pressure to drop.  So if you convinced yourself that these not quite human "things" who don't really feel pain -not the least bit true.  They actually feel pain much more acutely than a full term baby does.  But see -they are supposed to still be inside and protected from pain at that point in their development so it normally doesn't matter that their nerve endings are so close to the surface of their paper thin skin.   But you go ahead and keep telling yourself that when they are that young and still in the womb being ripped apart doesn't hurt a bit.   All babies lose weight after their birth before they start gaining again -my son dropped to 1 lb. 9 oz. before he started gaining weight.  So for a while he was even tinier than when he was born!

My extremely prematurely born son is a totally normal 22 year old college student today.  Was he really less human just because he was smaller and younger than a full term baby?  Wouldn't that also mean a 4 year old is actually more human than a 2 year old who is smaller?  And a 15 year old more human than a 12 year old?  If my extremely premature baby wasn't yet quite "human" -exactly when did he become "human"?  I mean its not like someone has a guppy in there until a magical day when it turns into a human -so when does the "human being" thing kick in for you here?    I have never yet met any parent of an extremely premature baby who supports abortion -because they KNOW for a fact it is a living child no matter how small it is having seen their own tiny child with their own eyes at a time it should not yet have been born -but was anyway and can no longer deny it is a real human being and a person in its own right.  One that owns its OWN life and no one else.   Abortion is really THE worst and very lethal form of age discrimination.   

This monster deliberately forced the birth of viable fetuses who were born alive.  Once born no baby is a "fetus" -they are babies.  And when they are born alive they are also citizens of the US with the identical right to keep its life as YOU have.  Forcing a child to be born is not an "abortion" -it is a human being's BIRTH and he KNEW that even if he forced them to be born then -they would live.  AND DID.  That is what "viable" means -it means if they are born at that time -they will likely LIVE.  They did and their birth day was just earlier than it would have been if left alone.   Remember other posts discussing when citizenship occurs?  IT OCCURS AT BIRTH -regardless of whether it is a premature birth or not.  Premature babies are citizens too and these were just premature babies -and citizens too.   With the same right to keep their life as YOU have!  And because they were living, breathing babies instead of dead ones like he wanted - he murdered them by sticking scissors into their backs to cut their spinal cord below the base of the skull.  I hope you aren't suggesting that because he forced an early birth on these living, breathing children it somehow means they were still "not quite human" for you.  If so, I would find that very bizarre, inhumane, disgusting and totally morally bankrupt frankly.  There are about 500,000 children born prematurely every year who are born anywhere from several months early to several weeks early -the vast majority of whom go on to have normal lives.  

I do know the hard core pro-abortion people would insist its really not that big of a deal he murdered these children -and the reason why is because he had a malignant purpose for forcing them to be born early and hoped they would die even though he knew they probably wouldn't.  Killing even viable (which means WOULD LIVE IF BORN THEN) babies before or during birth is something the hard core pro-abortion people approve of anyway -so it somehow "cleanses" the murders for them when he went ahead and murdered them when the babies disappointed him by living!   

The people who would see no big deal here are probably the very same ilk who go absolutely bonkers at the idea of a fucking chicken living in a crowded hen house -but place zero value on the shared humanity of babies being murdered before, during or after their birth.  

I almost threw up reading this article, not just about this monster murdering babies but even the description of the abattoir he was operating.  Dozens of baby feet cut off and lined up on a shelf?  Blood and urine stained areas?  Obviously none of these monsters who were arrested even have a conscience or they would never have been able to sleep at night.  If a jury places no more value on his life than he did for these children, I won't lose any sleep.  

Which is another reason I could never be a liberal.  They got it totally backwards about who has really earned a death penalty among our species.  They think the innocent and very young should be deprived of their lives for the "crime" of being conceived and merely EXISTING and that inconveniencing mommy is worthy of death.  But will take to the street waving signs chanting and demanding that someone who held an entire family hostage, raped and sodomized the 4 year old for hours and then burned the entire family alive be spared the death penalty for a crime he CHOSE to commit KNOWING full well it was a death penalty offense and did it anyway.  I have far more respect for those who oppose both the death penalty and abortion - while I have come to realize those who support abortion but oppose the death penalty are both morally bankrupt and likely mentally ill.

Think this baby in this picture is waiting to see which monster of his own species is going cut his spinal cord with a pair of scissors? His gestational age is about 6 months here but if a human being is a small one, its not a real murder to kill this child?  How about if it was stuck into him a few seconds before he took his first breath earlier this same day?  THAT work for you as "not a real murder" as long as he hasn't been born yet?  Which means if some monster is quick enough to stick him before the child is born its fine and dandy with you to stick scissors into a kid like this as long as its inside the mother?   Pretty revolting position on its own.  But this guy didn't do that. * He did it to one child after another who looked like THIS one.*


----------



## frazzledgear (Jan 20, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



First of all, this is about someone who DID kill babies after they were born -and therefore "real" people in the eyes of the law!

Funny how it is most likely to be Democrats who insist abortion is "none of your business".  It is the EXACT same thing Democrats also said about slavery  -and in fact felt so strongly it was no one else's business they seceded from the Union upon the election of a Republican anti-slavery President.  Yes, Democrats are the party of death today and slavery in the past.  There is NO cleansing the filthy history of Democrats -although some like Hillary Clinton have tried by LYING and claiming the revolting and filthy history of the Democrat Party actually belongs to Republicans and THEY own that of Republicans.   But you have to be a really ignorant MORON to fall for it.

Does repeating that line REALLY work for you when it comes to the life of another human?   If so then it is equally appropriate to say the same thing about incest, child abuse and domestic violence.  Hey -if it isn't YOUR child being raped or YOUR wife being beaten, it isn't any of your damn business either so BUTT OUT!  Especially if it isn't YOUR tax dollars being used for their medical care, right!

It isn't my child being killed and it isn't my tax dollars being used to kill that child  -but with that attitude watching my neighbor's kid get snatched off the street isn't my kid either -so why bother calling police when it means my tax dollars would be used to try and find that kid? The killing of another human being is the concern of all of us as a species and for any moral society.  YOU are simply quibbling about the AGE of the individual being killed.  And I refuse to.   If that amounts to you having "no hope" for me as the left would define it-then THANK GOD for that!

(BTW -the law NEVER allows the father to have ANY say about whether his child will be killed or not.  NOT EVER.   WOMEN own the reproductive rights of men and men have NO reproductive rights whatsoever under our laws.  Have you really never researched why it is that the number one cause of death among pregnant women since shortly after Roe v. Wade is HOMICIDE and nearly always at the hands of the father of her unborn child?  Interestingly, the number one cause of death for pregnant women prior to Roe v. Wade was ALWAYS complications of pregnancy.  Not any more though -its MURDER.  My, aren't we just doing a WONDERFUL job of evolving as a species?  ROFL)


----------



## frazzledgear (Jan 20, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



You people got off track.  This isn't about someone who killed a viable FETUS -an unborn child who would live if born at that time.  He forced the baby to be born FIRST knowing it would likely survive its birth and live.  When they did live and were breathing, living citizens of this country with the same right to keep their life this guy had -he MURDERED THEM.  The fact he forced them to be born early is IRRELEVANT.  They were living, breathing children who survived their premature birth he forced on them -and because they didn't die from being born early -he killed them by stabbing them with scissors and cutting their spinal cords.  AFTER they born and were BREATHING, LIVING CHILDREN.  THAT is why he was arrested.  THAT is MURDER.  He wasn't arrested because he killed a viable fetus while it was inside the mother -but because he killed living, breathing babies AFTER they were born!


----------



## frazzledgear (Jan 20, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.
> ...



Forcing a baby to be born prematurely is NOT an abortion!  It is inducing BIRTH.   An abortion is the killing of a fetus BEFORE it is born and BEFORE it takes its first breath.   Because any baby that takes even ONE breath is a CITIZEN of this country.  It is why even late term abortions are done BEFORE the child is born and BEFORE it is allowed to take its first breath.  If you deliberately kill ANY baby that is BREATHING, it is MURDER.  Not an abortion.   There is NO SUCH THING as killing a fetus after it is born because once it is born it is a BABY and not a fetus.  What law exists that allows anyone to deliberately kill a living, breathing BABY?   A "baby" is not determined by its gestational age and is NEVER determined by whether the person who delivered it wants it dead or not -but ONLY by whether it is born or not.  If it is born, it is NEVER a fetus again.  If that baby is alive -he committed MURDER when he took a pair of scissors, stabbed it in the back and cut its spinal cord in order to MURDER it.

This guy forced babies to be born prematurely -which is NOT an abortion and is just forcing them to be born prematurely.  They inconveniently refused to die and kept on living and breathing just like hundreds of thousands of other premature babies born in this country every year.  Because they refused to die - he MURDERED THEM.  It is why he was arrested for MURDER and not for performing late term abortions!  When you deliberately kill a living, breathing child, no matter its age -it is NEVER an abortion, it is always a MURDER.  Even if you forced it to be born early hoping it would die -when it refuses to die and keeps living and breathing the law says NO ONE has the right to kill that child any more than they have the right to kill YOU.


----------



## frazzledgear (Jan 20, 2011)

whitehall said:


> Think about it people. It wasn't a "botched" abortion. The full term babies were stabbed to death after they were born. The dirty little secret about "partial birth abortion" is the fact that it isn't about the health of the mother. Why would technicians turn the baby upside down in the birth canal to cause what they used to call a "breach birth" in a seemingly unnecessary and painful procedure to the mother? A glitch in the manslaughter law allows a baby to be killed inches away from a successful birth if it's head remains in the birth canal long enough to be stabbed to death. The doctor in question who ran the "horribly smelling" "slaughter house" of an abortion clinic in Pa is accused of the cold blooded murder of at least sevan infants who laid helpless on a table. Who could stab living puppies to death much less human beings? His wife and 9 other employees are also charged.



There is actually NO SUCH THING as a medical need to deliberately kill an unborn child in order to save the life of the mother.  In this day and age to pretend that is a legitimate medical situation is one of THE biggest lies going.  Doctors will try to save the life of BOTH of their patients.  There are only times when they must deliver a baby early which puts its life at risk and which they may not survive because they are too premature - but they will NEVER deliberately kill the baby to save the life of the mother and there is NO medical situation that exists where deliberately killing the baby is ever required.   There are only women who carried a child until it is ready to survive on its own who suddenly decide they want that child DEAD -and doctors willing to oblige them.  For the right price of course.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 20, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.
> ...


So in other words you can't answer the question.  Got it.  Pretty simple really, you're deflecting to nothing.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 20, 2011)

frazzledgear said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


Not off track at all as the question is how it is any different legally to kill an unborn child in the person of a viable fetus whether or not the child is still in the womb.  Does where a child is when you kill it make that much of a difference?  certainly the child is no different, in either case it is viable.  This will test Roe and may force the courts to revisit it if for no other reason than to at minimum update its mechanics to reflect current medical technology regarding viability.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 20, 2011)

Is everyone who doesn't support abortion ok with people dropping those babies off at their houses once their born? we will see how long they stay anti abortion when they have to come out of pocket to support those kids.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> TossObama said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



No one is seeing your 'education' either. You're right though, it is a very simple concept. Murder is murder is murder is murder. You say it's no one's business but yours? Well in every other case of the killing of an innocent human being the state has decided it is indeed someone elses business. There are only two ways to even attempt to legally or morally justify abortion. 1) You define a whatever you want to call it in the womb as somthing less than a person or human being for the whole nine months until it is born, therefore you can't murder what is not human, or 2) you acknowledge at some point in the pregnancy that a fetus is a human person, but murder in that case is justifiable somehow. Pick one.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Is everyone who doesn't support abortion ok with people dropping those babies off at their houses once their born? we will see how long they stay anti abortion when they have to come out of pocket to support those kids.



Nice argument. Now murder is okay if someone is a financial burden to you. Got it.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 20, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Is everyone who doesn't support abortion ok with people dropping those babies off at their houses once their born? we will see how long they stay anti abortion when they have to come out of pocket to support those kids.
> ...



Lets see how long you keep up that rhetoric when people are dropping off babies on your doorstep.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 20, 2011)

Have any of you anti abortion people even adopted an orphan? or even have a foster kid? I doubt it.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



It isn't rhetoric. That is the reality of the argument you are making. That if you don't want something because it's a financial burden, even if that something happens to be your child, it's okay for you to kill it. Further those people who are oppossed to killing innocent children who would not choose to have your child forced on them need to shut up, right?

The difference is those people you are telling to shut up would not have a choice in having an unwanted child forced on them in your scenario. The woman who got pregnant did make a choice and had the opportunity to make a lot of choices that would have kept her from committing murder. I'm a big pro-choice kinda person......up until your choices affect those of other people.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 20, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Alot of women get abortions because they can not afford to provide for another mouth, are you or any of the other anti abortion crowd willing to step up and do it? who is supposed to care for these kids?


----------



## whitehall (Jan 20, 2011)

Using the word "botched" as in botched abortion is just rhetoric to muddy the water. Dr. Kermit is accused of killing at least seven full term infants as they lay squirming on the table. The abortions were "legal" but killing live babies outside the womb is murder.


----------



## JBeukema (Jan 20, 2011)

frazzledgear said:


> *My youngest son was born when I was just 26 weeks pregnant**.*



What's your point?


btw, 26 > 12


----------



## JBeukema (Jan 20, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...




You're an idiot.


----------



## JBeukema (Jan 20, 2011)

frazzledgear said:


> [
> There is actually NO SUCH THING as a medical need to deliberately kill an unborn child in order to save the life of the mother.  In this day and age to pretend that is a legitimate medical situation is one of THE biggest lies going.  Doctors will try to save the life of BOTH of their patients.



Exactly. Try. Sometimes you have to make a decision.

Medical Versus Surgical Abortion | Patient Education | UCSF Medical Center


At <12 weeks, there is no meaningful difference. The only difference is the method. The end result is the same in every instance.




> Women usually have heavy bleeding for several hours and bleed like a period for an average of two weeks.



Could be a serious concern for those with bleeding disorders.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Alot of women get abortions because they can not afford to provide for another mouth, are you or any of the other anti abortion crowd willing to step up and do it? who is supposed to care for these kids?



The parent is supposed to take responsibility for their actions. They made a choice, lots of choices actually. The chose to have sex, they chose to not use protection, they chose to not use the morning after pill, they chose to not get an early term abortion. The only person not making a choice are the people you say should have to adopt children if they're anti-abortion. You don't get to hold other people responsible for your bad decisions, period.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 20, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Alot of women get abortions because they can not afford to provide for another mouth, are you or any of the other anti abortion crowd willing to step up and do it? who is supposed to care for these kids?
> ...



So your telling me you don't want to be responsible for feeding and clothing the kids? I understand, taking care of children is very expensive isn't it? and from what you are saying, you don't want any financial responsibility for kids that are not yours, I understand. What you are saying is true, people need to responsible for their actions and need to take precautions when they have sex but this is far from a perfect world, women get pregnant unexpectedly everyday, and they have been since the beginning of time. We are never going to get to a point where everyone is responsible and plans to have children. Abortion needs to be available because even though you disagree with it, you just basically said right now you want nothing to do with providing financial support for these unwanted children.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 20, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I predict the whole abortion issue will be settled in this thread.

Good thing you thought of these points and made this entirely novel thread.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...




That's the thing I don't disagree with abortion legally.....up to a point. I used to be super anti-abortion. None at anytime for any reason. Now, the more I like it the more I think in terms of abortion anyway Roe v. Wade got it right. My problem is the killing of innocent people. I believe at some point in a pregnancy a fetus is biologically a human being, a person. There is also a stage in a pregnancy where that sack of cells is clearly not a person. I don't have any legal issues with allowing abortions during that time period. I may find it irresponsible, but the harsh reality is all your doing is expelling a collection of cells.  The point is it takes an awful lot of bad choices to get to the latter portion of a pregnancy where you're put in the position of having to choose to kill an innocent life. And at some point people need to be held accountable.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 20, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Oh I definently agree people need to be held accountable, from what I understand most women who do get abortions have a heavy weight on their soul afterwards.


----------



## frazzledgear (Jan 20, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> frazzledgear said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...




This case won't test Roe v. Wade any  more than advances in medical technology did.  The people who think it is fine and dandy to kill human beings if they just get to them when they are very young -always will.  It isn't fine with me at all.  I consider abortion to be nothing but murder, especially since I had an extremely premature baby born younger than many of this monster's victims and know they are living individuals and human beings.  Those who insist it isn't murder are just deluding themselves -and as someone pointed out, the only people who support abortion are ones who successfully escaped that death themselves.  

But this guy can't even hide behind a lie that he was doing abortions!  Simply forcing a baby to be born is NOT an abortion -it is just inducing birth.  It is what he did in order to get LIVE victims for his pleasure.  

This guy is nothing but a serial killer -one who put his trophies right out in plain sight on his shelves.  The only difference between him and any abortionist is he likes to see his victims up close and personal while he snuffs them.   It wasn't enough for him to kill them when he couldn't see them squirm, cry out and die -and yes babies that age absolutely DO cry!  He deliberately chose this method because he LIKED IT, he got a thrill from it -or he would never have done this more than once.  Who but someone who enjoyed it would EVER want to hold a breathing baby while stabbing it to death and then do it again to another baby and to another and another.  Then cut off their feet and line them up to remind him of the pleasure he got from his little victims or put their entire corpses in a jar so they could watch him as he forced his next victim out of its mother so he could hold a breathing baby in his hands while he killed again and again.  

He got away with it this long because of his choice in victims and the fact women were willing participants to offer up their own child for his amusement for him to kill and let him take whatever trophies he wanted from their corpses.   And disgustingly there are people even on this thread who even after knowing this guy was just forcing babies to be born early just so he could get up close and personal and look them in the face while he killed them  -who will still insist its fine and dandy to kill ANY baby at this stage of life no matter which side of the birth canal they may be on.  Revealing who the monsters among us really are.


----------



## Tank (Jan 20, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Have any of you anti abortion people even adopted an orphan? or even have a foster kid? I doubt it.


Who else would be adopting children then the group who is trying to save them?


----------



## frazzledgear (Jan 20, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Have any of you anti abortion people even adopted an orphan? or even have a foster kid? I doubt it.



Are you for real?  What a dumb ass question.   Your question which only reveals the depth of your own moral bankruptcy and you are essentially saying  "no one can legitimately oppose the murder of a very young human being unless they are personally willing to raise and care for them".    I oppose killing children after they are born and at the age of 2, 4, 12, 15 and right on up to adulthood.  So that must also mean that unless I am PERSONALLY willing to adopt at least some of them at all these different ages too I would also be a "hypocrite" to oppose their murder by those who want them dead.  I guess that means unless I am willing to share my home with a pack of strangers I can't oppose the murder of adults either!  Sorry but my personal opposition to murdering human beings of any age NEVER hinges on ANYTHING else but the fact they are human beings.  Their AGE at the time of their murder is irrelevant.   But apparently a real sticking point for YOU. 

(And please liberals, understand what a hypocrite really is and use the word correctly.  A hypocrite is someone who says it is wrong if YOU were to do something, but it is NOT wrong if they do it.  It isn't even someone who did it themselves but says it was wrong when they did it too.  Which makes sense since all humans are fallible and make mistakes and everyone has done something they know was wrong and doesn't make it ok just because they did it.  Someone who shoplifted but said it was wrong of him to do is NOT being a hypocrite if he says it is wrong if you do it too.  Which is why someone is only a hypocrite if they say it is only wrong if you were to do it, but NOT wrong if they do it.)

Again, forcing a baby to be born is NOT abortion.  It was just inducing the baby's birth and at this stage he KNEW they would be born alive.  Just like if the mother had gone to the hospital and birth was induced -a living child would be born too.  Except THAT baby would be put in the nursery instead of being held in someone's hand so they could look at its face up close and personal while stabbing it to death.  *This man forced them to be born so he could hold a breathing child in his hands and see it up close and personal while he murdered the child. * Pretending this was a "botched" abortion is something you are telling yourself to make yourself feel better about supporting a man who was really just a serial killer.  No different from someone who sneaks into a hospital nursery and stabbed babies to death there.  The only difference is the mothers brought their child to him -where he forced them to be born ALIVE and then while they were breathing, squirming living babies -he killed them.   *Which is why he was arrested for MURDER and not for performing "late term abortions" which is a totally different crime in his state.*


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 20, 2011)

frazzledgear said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Have any of you anti abortion people even adopted an orphan? or even have a foster kid? I doubt it.
> ...









Wah wah wah, have you even adopted any children? do any foster children stay with you? what? no? than shut your fucking mouth, you are against abortion but you want no responsibility for the children if they are born, so go ahead and fuck yourself. I love how you anti abortion idiots back peddle on that by saying "well its not my problem people should be more responsibe". Whatever, fuck you, fuck your rhetoric and fuck the horse you rode in on.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 20, 2011)

Tank said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Have any of you anti abortion people even adopted an orphan? or even have a foster kid? I doubt it.
> ...



Thats the point, all these anti abortion fanatics like frazzlegear for instance are against abortion but have done nothing to save any children, if someone dropped a baby on their door step they would flip the fuck out and not know what to do, and probably just drop the baby off at a hospital and be done with it, their fucking hypocrites.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



No they're not. A person opposed to abortion who doesn't want another child is different than a person getting an abortion because they don't want another child. One person took the necesary steps to keep a pregnancy from happening, the other did not.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 20, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Tank said:
> ...



Yes they are hypocrites, because if an anti abortion fanatic moron like frazzlegreed was in a situation where a woman refused to get an abortion but needed help raising the child, he would refuse to help, because in reality he is a selfish little cock who doesn't care about anyone outside of himself and maybe his family. No one really cares about these babies that are being aborted, I don't see any of you volunteering to take them.


----------



## rikules (Jan 20, 2011)

Tank said:


> I noticed everyone who supports abortion, has already been born.



i've noticed that a lot of people who OPPOSE abortion spend a LOT of time sharpening their guns getting ready for the next civil war so they can kill as many liberals and democrats as possible.....


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 20, 2011)

rikules said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> > I noticed everyone who supports abortion, has already been born.
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## mammastevens (Jan 20, 2011)

The current effort to repeal "Obamacare" is actually aimed at broader restrictions on 

abortion, not Obamas health care law.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> its not murder.
> fetus do not have the protection of the state.so that angle is a fail.
> lets say they did..its still not the state nor yours business.
> i feel the sameway about drugs,food,and seatbelts.
> its not my problem.




Unfortunately for your argument the state's basis is not a scientific one. It's a legal one. If you have TO tell yourself you're not committing murder through late term abortions because the state doesn't recognize a child in the womb as a human being, that ought to tell you something about the weakness of your argument. 

It's also a little disturbing that you you think something that is alive is comparable to things that aren't.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2011)

rikules said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> > I noticed everyone who supports abortion, has already been born.
> ...



Seriously you've noticed this? You live in a place that's so redneck you're surrounded by people itching to get it on with government. Me thinks you are a liar, sir.


----------



## JohnA (Jan 20, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



 are you such  a RETARD that you dont understand the concept 

 WE all agree once the baby is born its murder to kill it . no one disagrees on that  point and it isnt your business  and should,nt be the govt,s what another  human does with there body .

 your definition is wrong and bigoted 
 the featus  is in FACT  part of the mothers  body  it is not as you suggest a  * seperate and distinct human*   from her,
 without  her it would not servive , if she doesnt care to assist and support it  in its development it will die , only she has control of that .as was pointed out in a previous  post its a parasite    

  in the 3rd trimester it is viable meaning it  MAY   servive  with help  from ANY   human not just the mother .
  Thats the concept you dont understand 

 read and learn  meathead


----------



## frazzledgear (Jan 20, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> frazzledgear said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Oh wow -so unless I follow YOUR rules, I have no legitimate grounds to oppose someone taking a breathing child and stabbing it to death?  Then shouldn't the same standard be used to decide whether someone has the right to kill YOU too?  Unless someone takes in and pays for the upkeep of an amoral, dangerous fucked up asshole, they have no grounds for objecting to your murder either?  It is the shared humanity of the individual being killed that is ALWAYS legitimate grounds for objecting to someone's murder.  Not whether someone is willing to start footing the bill for them.  MORON

I didn't answer at all about whether I adopted ANYONE -first because its none of your damned business what I do in my personal life.  *To say nothing of the fact that what happened to these children was not an abortion in the first place!*   Stabbing a living, breathing baby to death is NEVER "abortion"!  You really don't know the legal difference between killing someone before they ever start breathing and killing them after they are breathing?  I'll give you a clue -*kill the ones already breathing and you will be charged with their MURDER.  And it doesn't matter how old that person is or whether their mommy wants them any more at that point. * The law says they have the same right to keep their life that YOU do as a citizen of this country with the same rights as you!

I can't help it that you suffer from a serious reading comprehension deficit.  So your stupid, immoral foul mouthed ranting is really off the wall but speaks volumes about your "intelligence".  I said my opposition to killing other human beings is not related to my ability to take personal responsibility for ANY of them -regardless of their age.  I didn't say whether I have adopted anyone or not -just that opposing the murder of a breathing child does not EVER require anyone to personally adopt a child!  You are really out of your fucking mind!  So whether I adopt children or take in foster children has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS anymore than it does when I say I oppose murdering adults too.  These children were MURDERED after they were born and breathing.  Guess what ASSHOLE?  There is a law about killing anyone who is BREATHING and it doesn't matter how old they are.  I didn't write that law -it exists in every single state in this country!  You aren't allowed to take a living, breathing child and stab it to death!  PERIOD.  Its called.....(wait for it)........MURDER!  It isn't called "abortion" when you stab a living, breathing child to death.  Even if YOU like the idea of stabbing breathing babies to death and personally applaud stabbing living, breathing babies to death.  *Try to wrap your shriveled brain around this one:  Once a baby is born alive and breathing -it immediately has the same right to its life that YOU do.  BY LAW *  That's right -its our law that living, breathing people may not be stabbed to death -which is obviously news to you.  Fortunately for the rest of our species YOUR opinion that you see no problem with stabbing living, breathing babies to death and think it is fine and dandy just because the mother still wants her now living, breathing child dead - doesn't mean jackshit!  Because there is a law that says you can't do that -because it is murder.  Which is why this serial killer was charged with MURDER.

With your total lack of reasoning ability, surely I can only claim a legitimate moral ground to oppose the murder of homeless people only after I let a pack of homeless people move into my house, right?  WTF kind of soulless person are you?  I oppose the murder of human beings because they are HUMAN BEINGS.  The value of the life of another human being or whether they have a right to keep their life is NEVER hinged on whether I take personal responsibility to provide and care for anyone else in life!  

These children were NOT aborted fetuses because all he did was induce their premature birth.  THAT is not an abortion -it is called "being born".  He delivered living, breathing children -and then killed them.  Which is not allowed in any moral country and has NEVER been allowed in this one and still isn't.  Which is why he was arrested for MURDER you fucking soulless idiot! 

You just showed us all that your mentality is pretty much the same as any run-of-the-mill sociopath who insists "right" is whatever HE likes and "wrong" is whatever doesn't personally benefit him.  Our prisons are full of such people.


----------



## Tank (Jan 20, 2011)

rikules said:


> i've noticed that a lot of people who OPPOSE abortion spend a LOT of time sharpening their guns.


You've seen people "sharpening their guns"?

I think your lying.



rikules said:


> getting ready for the next civil war so they can kill as many liberals and democrats as possible.....


Just think of it as just a really late term abortion.


----------



## TossObama (Jan 20, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



I happen to be a Woman and a Mother, Grandmother and Great Grandmother. You actually want to state that the murder of an unborn child equates to you having "power and control" over your own body?? Really?? 

It sure ain't YOUR body you advocate killing, is it?

Now you listen to me. If you want to play screwing monkey you are stupid to the max if you think sex does not produce babies -- and stupid to the max in other ways as well. Furthermore, you can use birth control. Murdering an unborn baby is NOT ok. You got that?

Who in their right mind would even consider any such female as a wife or even a girlfriend, if she is one who supports and accepts abortions? Such a female does not have good reasoning abilities. Nor is she hardly warm and fuzzy. Such a female is ONLY a screwing monkey. ONLY a screwing monkey, a disgusting excuse of a woman who is irresponsible to the max and is led only by what is in her underwear.

There is WAY more to being a woman than just being a female, and YOU are still stuck in the female.

And finally, your idea about baseball bats? You might want to rethink that one, kiddo. You play screwing monkey you are going to get screwing monkey treatment.

You are clearly not Mother material. Or Woman material.


----------



## TossObama (Jan 20, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> For anyone who chooses i would like to see some cogent response to how the fact that medical science has progressed to the point that virtually every fetus that is the product of a normal preganancy is viable at 4 1/2months does not create an inconsistancy in Roe's mechanics.  Roe stated quite clearly that the state does have an interest in protecting the life of viable persons, thats why they set up the mechanics of the trimester system.  At the time virtually no baby born at less than 8 months lived.  Now, children are born regularly and survive at 4 1/2 months showing conclusively that medical science has changed the point of viability considerably.  If the states interest in protecting viable persons that Roe set up is to be honored, how is the trimester system consistant with it?
> 
> This case may highlight that inconsistancy and force the courts to revisit Roe if they wish to remain consistant with it.  If the state has an interest in protecting viable persons then the trimester system prevents them from doing so.



What branch of medical science made that claim? OB/GYN? OB/GYNs happen to be the failures in Medical School. Did you know that? 

Maybe someone smart should take the time to show them films of human egg and sperm interactions. I call that viable as viable can get.

I'll do some research on who and what in medical science has made those claims and will most assuredly post what I found. I expect to find a bunch of phony science in that deal.

It appears what they've done is attempt to redefine real science in favor of pseudo-science to support their wild claims. I expect to find a massive con job.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



then at some point in the pregnancy you do recognize that you're dealing with a human life and not just a parasite


----------



## TossObama (Jan 20, 2011)

I'm beginning to wonder if some of the loudest harpies in favor of abortion are men rather than women. Many of the comments I've seen on this thread are clearly male.

Find another way to play screwing monkey if you don't want pregnancy to occur. Got that dudes?

And stop this crap of trying to justify abortion as long as it's done during your timeframe. Conception creates a new life. Got that? 

Now get the hell out of our underwear with your idiot ideas and legal game playing. You good ol boys are sickening and stupid.


----------



## TossObama (Jan 20, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> TossObama said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



You are a male aren't you? Get off the abortion issue buster. If you claim to be female, I want to see DNA proof of that. 

And don't even talk about "the eyes of the law". Justice is blind as a bat which means even idiots like you must be listened to in the Courts.

Now crawl back in your cage and stay there.

Hope that doesn't hamper your screwing monkey antics.


----------



## frazzledgear (Jan 21, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



I guess the majority of Americans are anti-abortion "fanatics" then because 57% of Americans think abortion should NOT be legal just to end an unwanted pregnancy!  YOU are in the minority on this one which must mean YOU are actually the extremist fanatic here.  The majority of Americans are PRO-LIFE now, NOT pro-abortion!  That means YOU are the fringe whackjob here and you only confirmed it with your stupid rants.  Sorry to break the news but most people in this country disagree with YOU.  

Your moral depravity is truly breath-taking.  First of all I mentioned in passing that yes, I am anti-abortion (just like the majority of people in this country are) -but pointed out THIS is not an instance of abortion AT ALL.  This man was not arrested for doing late term abortions.  Late term abortions mean he would have killed the fetus before it was born.  You cannot abort a living, breathing child after they are already born!  For it to be an abortion, the killing MUST take place prior to birth!  But that isn't what this man did!  So quit the pretense that this was "abortion" when it was NOT.  

He was arrested because he was delivering live, breathing babies and THEN killed them with a pair of scissors.  That is MURDER in every state of the union you STUPID DUMB FUCK IMMORAL ASSHOLE.   It isn't abortion.   Which is probably why he was arrested for murder -and not for performing late term abortions.  DUH  

Seriously what is it you don't get about our laws regarding murder?  You aren't allowed to stab living, breathing people to death in this country.  Once a person has been born alive and is breathing -they have the same rights as YOU to live.  Which is why the law doesn't give a flying fuck how old they are or whether their mommy still wants them dead or not.  Our law says if you want your child dead, you must kill it *before* birth.  No exceptions to that one, sorry.  I know you are convinced there are as long as mommy still wants the kid dead even after its born she still gets to kill it -but no she doesn't and there are no exceptions anywhere in this country to that.  *If you are born alive the law says YOU GET TO KEEP YOUR LIFE and the fact your mommy is a heartless bitch who still wants you dead is IRRELEVANT because she no longer has any right to make you dead.*  In addition in most states the law says if you want your child dead you must kill it before that child is capable of surviving outside the womb!  Which in case you didn't know is MONTHS before a full term birth!  A normal pregnancy lasts 40 weeks.  Fetal viability starts at 22 weeks, just slightly halfway through a normal pregnancy!  So yeah, most states put a definite window on when it is legal to kill your unborn child.  

YOU in all your moronic puerile ranting at anyone who doesn't pretend killing unwanted babies is a wonderful thing and believe it is killing human life (because it sure isn't killing a kitten's life is it moron?) seem pretty intent on calling what this man was doing "abortion".  *But the reason he was arrested is because IT WASN'T an abortion!  Sorry to break it to you but what he was doing wasn't an "abortion" ANYWHERE in this country* Got that?  Not a difficult concept to grasp really.  If you kill someone after they are already born alive and are breathing it isn't "abortion".   Might want to remember than when its your kid your trying to kill, ok?

Instead of carrying out an abortion which would have required him to kill the child before it was born and breathing and therefore a citizen of the US with the same protection of the law you have -he waited until they were squirming, breathing babies so he could hold them in his hand and look them in the face and really enjoy the slaughter up close and personal.  And then he cut off their little feet for his trophy -just like so many other serial killers take a trophy from their murders too.  The problem for him is that in every state of the union WITHOUT EXCEPTION -he killed a human being as defined under the law.  Which makes it a crime of MURDER in every state.  Not an abortion.  He killed a living, breathing person which means that person was a citizen of the US, someone who had the same guaranteed protections under the law that we all have as citizens -which includes a right to not be murdered.  It is why he is charged with multiple counts of murder -and would have been in every single state in this country.  Seriously man -get a grip on yourself already.  What this guy was doing is NOT an "abortion" in any state -and he fucking well knew it!  And if you didn't know that before -now you do.  *This isn't an abortion under the law in any state in this country.  DEAL WITH IT.*

You don't know me at all so for you to presume to know what I would and would not do is just your stupidity trying to pretend you have the moral high ground on the issue of abortion.  Except you have no morals at all when it comes to the issue so shut the fuck up and quit ranting as if you really give a shit about anyone else but yourself.  Who do you think are the people adopting children in this country in the first place?  People who agree unwanted babies should be KILLED?  Get real.  Most adoptive parents OPPOSE abortion and most liberals would rather adopt a puppy from the pound than adopt a child -so deal with reality here.      

This man is a MONSTER and *for you to keep whining, ranting, frothing at the mouth and going on and on about abortion when this is NOT abortion under the law ANYWHERE in this country you FUCKING MORON -makes me realize he isn't the only monster.*

More Americans ?Pro-Life? Than ?Pro-Choice? for First Time

Most Americans Oppose Most Abortions, Wirthlin Poll*Finds  The Forerunner


----------



## TossObama (Jan 21, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> frazzledgear said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Yes, as a matter of fact I have and do at this point in time. You want to tell me to what?? 

Dude, move on. And please don't reproduce.


----------



## TossObama (Jan 21, 2011)

Forcing a baby to be born can lead to the death of that baby. If that baby dies, it's murder if the intent was to cause the death of the baby.

What we need in law is something besides a bunch of morons.


----------



## Kat (Jan 21, 2011)

TossObama said:


> Forcing a baby to be born can lead to the death of that baby. If that baby dies, it's murder if the intent was to cause the death of the baby.
> 
> What we need in law is something besides a bunch of morons.



  Hope you understand what you said there, b/c I sure didn't.


----------



## TossObama (Jan 21, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Choice?? Murder is not an option. The timeframe for proper choices are at the point in time the screwing monkey decided to mate. THAT is when the choice should have been made, and it would have been an easy choice. Say no or use protection.

The rights of an "adult", be it male or female adult, do not take precedence over the rights of the unborn or an infant or a child to live and not be terminated by the desires, wants and actions of a female who had no business whatsoever having sex. Further, any female who submits to abortion should be sterilized and thrown in a cage the rest of her life.


----------



## frazzledgear (Jan 21, 2011)

TossObama said:


> I'm beginning to wonder if some of the loudest harpies in favor of abortion are men rather than women. Many of the comments I've seen on this thread are clearly male.
> 
> Find another way to play screwing monkey if you don't want pregnancy to occur. Got that dudes?
> 
> ...



There is a reason you noticed all the male voices in support of abortion here.  The demographic that most strongly supports abortion are white single men between 25-40 years old -in fact white single men of this age group are THE most ardent and strongest supporters of abortion in other nations as well.   Oh gee I wonder why.  Oh yeah, "women's rights" my ass.  

59% of women OPPOSE abortion while 54% of men SUPPORT it.  A Gallup poll asked "at which point does a child's right to be born outweigh the woman's right to choose whether she wants to have a child" and 52.6% of all women answered "conception" while 47.3% of men agreed with that.  Almost twice as many men said "birth" as did women.   Pro-life organizations all consistently report their membership has twice as many women as men or more and there are far more women in pro-life organizations than there are in pro-abortion organizations combined which includes the National Organization of Women.  NOW likes to pretend it represents the positions and views of the average woman when in fact its positions on most issues are opposed by the vast majority of women and not just when it comes to their position on abortion.  They are in reality viewed by most women as a whacko fringe group.  If a woman has had an abortion she is six times more likely to become a pro-life activist than a pro-abortion activist.

All the abortion advocacy groups combined have nowhere near the number of members that the National Women's Coalition for Life has.   And in spite of the fact that far more women belong to pro-life groups than pro-abortion ones, when the media wants to get comments from some group to speak out on issues like abortion on behalf of women -they almost always choose someone from a pro-abortion group like NOW which is actually a fringe extremist group.  Like the media itself.

One unintended consequence of Roe v. Wade is that the number 1 cause of death for a pregnant woman changed from complications of pregnancy to homicide -with her killer almost without exception being the father of her unborn child.  And interestingly, if a woman is pressured to have an abortion by the father of her child and she doesn't get one -her chances of being violently attacked and murdered takes a big jump. In fact research shows that 64% of all women who have an abortion report being pressured to do so by the father of the child -so much so that some call it an epidemic of forced abortions taking place in this country.

Again, "women's rights" my ass.

News

Special Report Exposes America&#8217;s Forced Abortion Epidemic | free abortion 

Report Finds Women Who Refuse Abortions Often Face Violent Attacks, Death | LifeNews.com

ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments - Google Books


----------



## TossObama (Jan 21, 2011)

Kat said:


> TossObama said:
> 
> 
> > Forcing a baby to be born can lead to the death of that baby. If that baby dies, it's murder if the intent was to cause the death of the baby.
> ...



There are legitimate times a Doctor will force or bring on a premature birth of a baby either to save the life of the Mother or the Baby. There is no intent to harm or kill the baby in this picture. Even if the baby later dies, in this case it is not murder because there was no intent to kill the baby.

Then there are the abortionists butchers who force the birth of a baby to kill the baby or they murder the baby as it sits in the womb then force the birth. In this picture the intent was always to achieve the murder of the baby.

I've always wondered at the stupidity of this abortion issue and the gross ignorance of those in the legal system who have legalized abortion thereby making the life of the baby secondary to the life of the low creature who is the Mother. Why did they not legitimize the murder of the Mother and save the innocent baby??

I suppose the problem is that the jerks couldn't come up with enough word spins to justify the medical murder of the Mother, but could easily come up with the spins to justify the murder of the baby.

If this is, as they claim, a matter of "choice" then why does a helpless innocent baby have no choice in the matter, and virtually no legal protections either?

I guess lawyers really like screwing monkeys but don't want to pay child support.


----------



## Tank (Jan 21, 2011)

tossobama said:


> forcing a baby to be born can lead to the death of that baby. If that baby dies, it's murder if the intent was to cause the death of the baby.


wtf?


----------



## BrianH (Jan 21, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



If the fetus is a wad of cells like you suggest, then the fetus is alive considering that HUMAN CELLS ARE LIVING ORGANISMS........They're actually considered by science to be the smallest unit of living organisms...  Not saying I am on anyone's side, but your wad of cell argument is kind of retarded as well.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 21, 2011)

frazzledgear said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Tank said:
> ...



You are a fucking idiot, I never said I agreed with late term abortions or the story out in Philly. You are still nothing but talk, your on heres spouting your rhetoric but I ask you again have you adopted any orphans? foster kids? no? really? thats what I thought, now shut your fuckin mouth and go fuck yourself.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 21, 2011)

TossObama said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > frazzledgear said:
> ...



Whatever motherfucker you didn't adopt shit, stop fucking lying.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 21, 2011)

frazzledgear said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > frazzledgear said:
> ...



You are such a fucking hypocrite, I hope someone drops a baby off on your doorstep so you can put your money where your mouth is bitch. I'm willing to bet you take the baby to the nearest hospital and be done it with it, your such a fucking bitch and a liar look at you all this tough talk but you haven't lifted a finger to help any orphans.


----------



## Jackson (Jan 21, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> frazzledgear said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



High Gravity, that's all the biological mother had to do, too.  Leave the living baby at the hoospital so it could be adopted by a couple who desperately wanted a baby but couldn't have one.  No need to kill him or her.


----------



## Jackson (Jan 21, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> frazzledgear said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



High Gravity, that's all the biological mother had to do also.  Leave the baby at the hospital.  There are so many people who want to have families but can't have children.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 21, 2011)

Jackson said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > frazzledgear said:
> ...



I understand that but if there were no abortions and all these women left their babies at the hospital, social services and orphanages would be flooded. My point is these anti abortion goons themselves want nothing to do with the babies they supposedly want to save.


----------



## Jackson (Jan 21, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



You know what would be a good idea?  When a girl or woman goes into an abortion clinic to have a baby, they are permitted to talk to a possible receiving couple that would take the child as their own.  It wouldn't then just be an "abortion mill" but an alternative for the young woman for giving birth to the child.  Would you agree with something like that?


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 21, 2011)

Jackson said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson said:
> ...



I wouldn't have a problem with that.


----------



## Jackson (Jan 21, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Problem solved!  I'll get on that right away!  LOL!


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 21, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



I think the distincition is of course they are alive, but at what point in gestation is it considered a human being or a peson.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 21, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Whatever motherfucker you didn't adopt shit, stop fucking lying.



responses like these are hilarious. Dude, why bother asking the question if you've already made up your mind that you're not going to believe anyone's answer?


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 21, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever motherfucker you didn't adopt shit, stop fucking lying.
> ...



That poster is a lying sack of shit, its not hard to figure out.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 21, 2011)

I think we should send Frazzledgear to the nearest abortion clinic so he can tell all the women who go in there he will help pay to raise their children if they keep them.


----------



## frazzledgear (Jan 21, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> I think we should send Frazzledgear to the nearest abortion clinic so he can tell all the women who go in there he will help pay to raise their children if they keep them.



First of all I'm a woman and apparently you didn't bother to read an earlier post of mine.  Your foul mouthed rantings are NEVER going to affect my opinion on this you immoral asshole.  FOR A REASON!    

I KNOW FOR A FACT that a fetus is a living human being and a person in its own right.  I gave birth to a child when I was 26 weeks pregnant.  Do you need to count that up to figure out how many months pregnant I was?  I had just started wearing maternity clothes 3 days before I gave birth -which was brought on early because I had been in a car accident.  And before you accuse me of lying about that because you can't deal with reality -I posted that same information before several times on a couple of different topics at least 2 years ago and again within the last year -so this isn't the first time I've mentioned it and it won't be the last either.

You understand that you fucking MORON?  My 2 lb. baby was born alive, breathed on his own, waving his arms and legs around and immediately started crying.  After spending 2 1/2 months in the neonatal intensive care, I took him home and even then it was 
1 1/2 months before his original due date.   He is now a 22 year old college student.  Do you want to guess whether HE thinks aborting him at that stage of my pregnancy would have been murder or not?  Do you think survival rates for premature babies got WORSE since I had my extremely premature baby?

You clearly don't even know what you are talking about, all you are doing is raging and bellowing in your absolutely insane and IGNORANT rants about how you approve of killing babies and claiming anyone who disagrees is a "hypocritical fanatic".    But it is YOUR opinion in this country that is the minority opinion and plenty of people who think it is people like YOU who are the extremists.  Extremists who have nothing positive to contribute except to keep raging about killing them.  FUCK YOU, YOU BLOODTHIRSTY MONSTER!    You can't make it any clearer to us all just how morally bankrupt you really are when you keep repeating that unless someone is personally willing to foot the bill for someone's child they have no right to object to that child's murder!  That is truly a jaw dropping statement that reveals just how cold and empty you are!  (And maybe you noticed that couples have to leave the country to find babies to adopt because there aren't enough here -adopting couples also OPPOSE abortion.)

My son was NOT the youngest living premature baby even in that hospital much less in the country to live. Not by a long shot!  My child was the AVERAGE gestational age of the CHILDREN in that neonatal intensive care unit.  And they were ALL children in there -without exception.  NOT A SINGLE ONE of them were lumps of nonliving cells you demented fucker!  

Understand this you jackass.   No real woman who has ever given birth is ever going to agree with your IDIOCY that the person inside her was not a real person.   You will find a MINORITY of them who still support abortion -but the vast majority OPPOSE IT.  Just like the majority of ALL women OPPOSE ABORTION! 

It is MEN like YOU who see abortion as the means of indulging in careless, irresponsible, promiscuous sex who want abortion.  And it is MEN who pressure 64% of all women getting abortions into getting one when they don't want it.  It is MEN who will violently attack and even murder a pregnant woman when she refuses to get abortion.  Because protecting a WOMAN'S right to choose is not part of the equation for MEN like YOU.  You support abortion in order to protect MEN.  Not women and certainly not your children whom you just want DEAD and out of your way.

MY opinion on this issue is the same as the majority of ALL women in this country.  WOMEN do NOT support abortion on demand and it is WOMEN who do NOT believe they have a right to kill their child just because it is inconvenient to have a child at that time!  GET OVER YOURSELF and accept the facts:  It is WOMEN themselves who do NOT share your opinion on this!  

So take your EXTREMIST opinions and shove them up your ass where they belong.  I suspect the real reason you are engaging in this overblown insane raging rants -is because you probably pressured a woman to kill your child and she did.  SO LIVE WITH IT NOW and stop demanding everyone else needs to change their opinion about it in order to make you feel better about what you had done to your own child.  It is no one's job to make you feel better about it.  

ANYONE who thinks killing a fetus of that age is fine and dandy -should be forced to witness it personally so it is no longer a theoretical exercise and that way they will actually know what they are talking about for a change.  But even then you will NEVER be able to convince any woman who gave birth to a child that the moving, kicking child she carried, the one who responded to her voice and to the touch of her hand on her stomach, who had hiccups while inside her, who made it undeniably clear to her when it was uncomfortable and needed his mother to change her position -isn't really a human being and a person.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 21, 2011)

frazzledgear said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > I think we should send Frazzledgear to the nearest abortion clinic so he can tell all the women who go in there he will help pay to raise their children if they keep them.
> ...



You know what I don't give a fuck what you are man or woman, you are bat shit crazy and that is evident by your posts. I am not denying whether the babies that are aborted are humans or not you are putting words in my mouth and creating a strawman. I stand by what I said, you are all talk, full of shit and just a big liar. If you were put on the spot and a few women who were thinking of having abortions asked you if you would help raise their children so they wouldn't have to get the abortion, you would fold like a fucking belt, spout off with some ridiculous rhetoric and flee. You have said nothing to prove that you have done anything to help the orphans that are currently alive so why do you give a fuck about people having abortions? You don't give a fuck about these dead kids so stop fucking lying, you care about yourself and your family thats it.


----------



## frazzledgear (Jan 21, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> frazzledgear said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



You still don't get it.  It is people like YOU who are the extremists.  When you say something as stupid and morally bankrupt as no one has a right to object to the murders of these children unless they are personally willing to take them in -YOU give yourself away and you come off as pretty damn evil frankly.  

I don't have to first personally be willing to take in every human being on the planet before I am "allowed" to object to their murder.  The fact you think I do -speaks volumes about your moral bankruptcy and the fact it is YOU who place zero value on the shared humanity of another human being so of course you have no objection to slaughtering human beings.  You make it clear that you don't value human life -so why would you give a shit if people want to kill anyone?

Again,  it is YOUR opinion on this issue that is out of line and viewed as extremist.  Not mine.  It is their shared humanity that makes me care you soulless monster.  Same reason I donate money to help the victims of natural disasters even though they are total strangers to me too.  Same reason I donate money to the same three charities every year that I think give the most bang for my buck in helping others.  People who are total strangers to me too and that I will never meet and never know.  

You don't get it.  I don't have to personally know anyone to care about the fact they are a human being.  THAT is completely sufficient reason for me to insist another human being has the RIGHT to his life.  That is all the reason I need to care and I need no other.  I don't know what the fuck you need -but you won't ever find it defending the bloody carnage of abortion.


----------



## Valerie (Jan 21, 2011)

_Fetal Rights

The rights of any unborn human fetus, which is generally a developing human from roughly eight weeks after conception to birth.

Like other categories such as Civil Rights and Human Rights, fetal rights embraces a complex variety of topics and issues involving a number of areas of the law, including criminal, employment, health care, and Family Law.

Historically, under both English Common Law and U.S. law, the fetus has not been recognized as a person with full rights. Instead, legal rights have centered on the mother, with the fetus treated as a part of her. Nevertheless, U.S. law has in certain instances granted the fetus limited rights, particularly as medical science has made it increasingly possible to directly view, monitor, diagnose, and treat the fetus as a patient.

The term fetal rights came into wide usage following the landmark 1973 Abortion case roe v. wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147. In that case,* the Supreme Court ruled that a woman has a constitutionally guaranteed unqualified right to abortion in the first trimester of her pregnancy.* She also has a right to terminate a pregnancy in the second trimester, although the state may limit that right when the procedure poses a health risk to the mother that is greater than the risk of carrying the fetus to term. In making its decision, the Court ruled that a fetus is not a person under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, *the Court also maintained that the state has an interest in protecting the life of a fetus after viability*&#8212;that is, after the point at which the fetus is capable of living outside the womb. As a result, states were permitted to outlaw abortion in the third trimester of pregnancy except when the procedure is necessary to preserve the life of the mother.

_

Fetal Rights legal definition of Fetal Rights. Fetal Rights synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.


----------



## frazzledgear (Jan 21, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> frazzledgear said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Your nonstop overblown rage-filled rantings confirms what I suspected in the first place -see above.

Your opinion is irrelevant and extremist.  It is WOMEN who oppose abortion in the first place.  Your phony bullshit about caring about women when it comes to abortion is just that -BULLSHIT.  WOMEN disagree with you about abortion and they disagree that supporting abortion is "caring" about women!  You can't deal with that.  And even though you want to convince yourself that women who go have an abortion would back YOU up on this -think again.  A woman who has had an abortion herself is 6 times more likely to become a pro-life activist than a pro-abortion one.   

The majority of ALL women reject the opinion of men like you -whether they have had an abortion themselves or are facing an unwanted pregnancy right at this minute or never had a child.  The majority of ALL women disagree with YOUR insistence there is nothing wrong if they kill their unborn child.   THEY say there is.   Deal with it and since they are the ones left holding the bag, THEIR opinion counts for a hell of a lot more than yours.

Any intelligent woman can figure out why you are so hot under the collar about the topic.   No doubt pretended to be oh so caring when you drove a woman to an abortion clinic to make sure she killed your kid, huh.  And heaved a big sigh of relief that you were off the hook.  But she couldn't deal with it later and dumped you like a sack of rotten potatoes.  Too bad.  But telling yourself there was nothing immoral about what happened is a lie.  And you _know _it which is why you keep doing the insane ranting thing -hoping someone will agree with you.  Doesn't matter if someone does or not -because it is the vast majority of the women in the first place who disagree with YOU about it, reject your phony "concern" for them, reject your opinion that a woman's convenience is more important than someone's life - and don't want your opinion to prevail.  Deal with it and get over yourself because the majority women already have.  Its time to deal with why YOU would support something in the phony pretense of "caring" for women when it is women themselves who REJECT that as "caring" and oppose abortion on demand.

Looking for company won't ease your guilty conscience -coming to grips with it and insuring it doesn't happen again is your only hope.  Not trying to spread the evil.  If you go back to your first rage-filled foul mouthed insanely ranting post -the one you were responding to was nothing like that.  It was the first clue that this is something really personal for you and why you so quickly went off the deep end about it.  Its personal for me too but for a different reason and your need to ease your guilty conscience is never going to change my opinion on this issue.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 21, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Is everyone who doesn't support abortion ok with people dropping those babies off at their houses once their born? we will see how long they stay anti abortion when they have to come out of pocket to support those kids.


Whether you believe people are selfish or not is irrelevant to the question.

Roe is incoinsistant in that it grants that states do have an interest in preserving the life of viable unborn persons, it then negates any and all action the state might do to actually protect those persons.  These persons which is what Roe MUST describe them as, as the state has NO interest in preserving non-living, non-person, lumps of flesh, by virtue of the 14th amendment are entitled to the same protections under the law as any other person.  Including having their murederers brought to justice.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 21, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


Gee, the next time any of the kids might have to skip a meal I guess I'll bash one in the head with a hammer so the others can eat.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 21, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


Wow, what a brilliant riposte.  I can't believe you haven't been recognized for such enlightened repartee'


----------



## frazzledgear (Jan 21, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Is everyone who doesn't support abortion ok with people dropping those babies off at their houses once their born? we will see how long they stay anti abortion when they have to come out of pocket to support those kids.
> ...




Seriously I do not understand his opinion that if people actually had to take care of the child themselves they would suddenly start believing just killing them is a better answer.  That is actually a very bizarre and totally off-the-wall thing to say.  Does he think if people had to personally accept toddlers being dropped off at the doorstep they would suddenly believe killing them was suddenly acceptable? Or if people had to accept troubled teenagers being dropped off at their door they would suddenly approve of killing teenagers?  You are not going to get a rational discussion from someone who has already made it clear that the shared humanity of others is insufficient for him to oppose killing them.  Which frankly gives me the creeps.  Our laws are not based on whether anyone is willing to take personal responsibility for someone before objecting to them being killed.  It is based on their shared humanity alone that is sufficient justification for opposing their murders.  But he is repeatedly insisting that is NOT sufficient.

I think this person has some serious emotional baggage of a very personal nature that has left him incapable of a dispassionate and rational discussion on the issue and why most of his posts are really just rage-filled rantings.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 21, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.
> ...


maybe you actually have something cogent to add to it?


Nah, that would be out of character for you.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 21, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


So do most people who bash kids with hammers, but we don't leave them walking around.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 21, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


yes they do and Roe and Casey are what says they do.  A viable fetus is a person entitled to protections.  Granted the court used up some circular logic in granting the state had an interest in protecting them while also attempting top claim they are not "persons".  That is the inconsistancy.  if the state has an interest, they must be persons as the state only has an interest in protecting a persons life, liberty or property.  They have no interest in lumps of flesh


> lets say they did..its still not the state nor yours business.
> i feel the sameway about drugs,food,and seatbelts.
> its not my problem.


murder is the states business.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 21, 2011)

rikules said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> > I noticed everyone who supports abortion, has already been born.
> ...


We're against the killing of _innocents_


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 21, 2011)

JohnA said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


the baby is not their body



> your definition is wrong and bigoted


when i need your opinion on my opinion... well, lets just say that ain't gonna happen 


> the featus  is in FACT  part of the mothers  body  it is not as you suggest a  * seperate and distinct human*   from her,
> without  her it would not servive


are you completely ignorant?  The thread is about *VIABLE* fetus'.  That would be those that *WOULD* survive outside of the mothers body.  So while you're thinking up neat words to insult me with maybe next time you can actually come armed with a relevant argument.





> , if she doesnt care to assist and support it  in its development it will die , only she has control of that .as was pointed out in a previous  post its a parasite


false, if that were true, they wouldn't be *VIABLE* fetus'.   



> in the 3rd trimester it is viable meaning it  MAY   servive  with help  from ANY   human not just the mother .
> Thats the concept you dont understand
> 
> read and learn  meathead


it seems to be what YOU don't understand, medical science has pushed back the date of viability to about 4 1/2 months, that would be BEFORE the third trimester.  next time you attempt to "educate" me maybe you should come armed with one, or perhaps just some basic reading comprehension.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 21, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


it is VIABILITY that is the issue not some artificial time constraint.  Once viable the fetus is legally a person the state has an interest in protecting.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 21, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> then change the law, till then shut the fuck up and mind your own business.


how does one work to change the law while "shutting the fuck up and minding thier own business"?  

Perhaps you could use some lessons in logical reasoning? 


> Im sure the theory has been tested, but i dont care enough to go looking.....its not that important to me, nothing is going to change anyways.


Casey already changed it some.  VIABILITY is the standard not the mechanics of the trimester system


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 21, 2011)

TossObama said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > For anyone who chooses i would like to see some cogent response to how the fact that medical science has progressed to the point that virtually every fetus that is the product of a normal preganancy is viable at 4 1/2months does not create an inconsistancy in Roe's mechanics.  Roe stated quite clearly that the state does have an interest in protecting the life of viable persons, thats why they set up the mechanics of the trimester system.  At the time virtually no baby born at less than 8 months lived.  Now, children are born regularly and survive at 4 1/2 months showing conclusively that medical science has changed the point of viability considerably.  If the states interest in protecting viable persons that Roe set up is to be honored, how is the trimester system consistant with it?
> ...


what claim?  I didn't say any branch of medical science made any claim.



> I'll do some research on who and what in medical science has made those claims and will most assuredly post what I found. I expect to find a bunch of phony science in that deal.
> 
> It appears what they've done is attempt to redefine real science in favor of pseudo-science to support their wild claims. I expect to find a massive con job.


good luck Mr. Phelps.  We know medical science has pushed viability back beyond the third trimester because children are born before then who live.  You don't need a study to know that.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 21, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


Viability


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 21, 2011)

frazzledgear said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


Or quite possibly ranting filled rages.  Maybe he's off his meds?


----------



## Father Time (Jan 21, 2011)

Tank said:


> I noticed everyone who supports abortion, has already been born.



That's not clever in the least.

But fine I'll paraphrase Carlin

"The only people who care about the sanctity of life are living people. You never see dead people talking about how special life is"


----------



## BrianH (Jan 24, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



That's the question...and unfortunately, the answer is an opinion.  IMO, that heart beats pretty early in the pregnancy...


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 24, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Is everyone who doesn't support abortion ok with people dropping those babies off at their houses once their born? we will see how long they stay anti abortion when they have to come out of pocket to support those kids.
> ...



Whatever you don't have any interest in these kids either, your not doing anything to help but sitting here typing bullshit. At least people who are ok with abortion are honest, you anti abortion clowns are the biggest fucking liars I ever seen in my life.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 24, 2011)

frazzledgear said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > frazzledgear said:
> ...



Your typing all this useless nonsense but you haven't lifted a finger to help any kids in your real life, all you have is a bunch of hype and alot of useless rhetoric, shame on you.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 24, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



I don't think it's an opinion so much as there is no real black and white line you can draw that says prior to this day in a pregnancy it isn't a person and after it is. 

I guess what I don't understand is that if Roe's ruling was no abortions if the fetus is viable, why we don't prosecute people that have abortions when they are indeed viable for murder. Do we prosecute them for anything at all?


----------



## frazzledgear (Jan 24, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> frazzledgear said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



I would always rather be in the group of people who object to the murder of another human being for no reason but the fact they are human -than be among those who insist there is nothing immoral about killing someone just because their existence is "inconvenient".  

Quit pretending you know a damn thing about me for a change.   You aren't even close and you know that old saying about happens when you ASSUME something, right?  It is just a CHILDISH stunt to try and deflect the discussion from this issue.  This is how IMMATURE brains deal with issues that make them uncomfortable -they always try to just change the subject.  *So enough with this total bullshit that no one is entitled to an opinion that differs from your own unless they personally take responsibility for the children of someone else.*  THAT hasn't got a damn thing to do with anything at all.   NO ONE is required to take personal responsibility for someone before they can legitimately object to their murder and it is mindbogglingly revolting that you would think otherwise!  It means you don't even have a real foundation to your morals -it all hinges on how it PERSONALLY affects you before you decide something is right or wrong.  That is exactly how the mind of a sociopath works -someone whose higher brain functions are more in line with that of a reptile than a human.     

So you and your self-centered, inhumane, self-justifying total lack of morals have the balls to say "shame on ME?"  Wow, very sick.  What "shame" exists for defending the right of someone to keep their life?  I don't have to be personally willing to take care of YOU to object to your murder.  Oh THAT you have no problem with if its YOUR life I object to being murdered!!  And you WANT people to object if its YOUR murder.   I get it now.  Its just taking the life of someone ELSE you have no problem with!  Enough with your disgusting insistence that someone must be willing to take personal responsibility for someone before they can legitimately object to their murder.  I'll NEVER EVER be willing to take personal responsibility for you -but I still object to your murder anyway.  

Shame on YOU for believing these are the least bit connected issues you amoral crocodile.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 24, 2011)

frazzledgear said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > frazzledgear said:
> ...





Keep posting your lies bitch, so I can laugh at you. You have done nothing to help unwanted children, so why do you care about babies being aborted? secretly you do agree with abortions because you want nothing to do with taking care of someone elses kids.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 24, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> frazzledgear said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



High, you don't get it. You never will. She's right. People like you have ZERO moral integrity. Your principles are for sale obviously when the situation personally affects you.

You also don't get the fundamental difference that gives those that would not choose to have more children the right to object to those who kill the unborn they did choose to become and stay pregnant with.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 24, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > frazzledgear said:
> ...



Morals and integrity don't pay the bills, there are plenty of people with good morals that end up homeless on the streets. Bottom line is if a woman is unable to care for a child and wants to get an abortion its none of your business, unless your willing to step in and adopt a couple of these would be aborted kids but not you or frazzledgear are willing to do that, you offer nothing but useless rhetoric.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 24, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


You don't know me, you don't know anything about me, and if "fuck you faggot" was the best you could come up with when you dissed me then you're not a very imaginative homophobe.  When you have something to add about the subject instead of fantasizing about posters... come back and try again.  And try to stay on topic.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 24, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Your just getting the respect you deserve, nothing more nothing less.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 24, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> frazzledgear said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


I'm trying to figure out which was the greater waste, your posts, or your birth... it's a close call.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 24, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > frazzledgear said:
> ...



Wow I'm so offended.


----------



## BrianH (Jan 24, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



When my wife was pregnant with my daughter, I remember th doctor telling us that past a certain number of weeks, then the pregnancy is considered viable...I just can't remember when she said....  I don't know if it's "in the books" but this is what she thought anyway.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 24, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Morals and integrity don't pay the bills, there are plenty of people with good morals that end up homeless on the streets. Bottom line is if a woman is unable to care for a child and wants to get an abortion its none of your business, unless your willing to step in and adopt a couple of these would be aborted kids but not you or frazzledgear are willing to do that, you offer nothing but useless rhetoric.



And that argument is faulty logic, pure and simple. Your argument is essentially that if you believe x then you must be willing to do y. Well that simply isn't the case here. NO ONE has the right to make someone else pay for their irresponsible choices. I made my choice to not have kids right now. By telling me I must adopt because I'm anti abortion not only takes choice away from me, it gives another the choice to absolve themselves of responsibility for their actions.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 24, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


You are a completely useless poster who does nothing but fantasize about what you think other people do and how they live, when in reality you know nothing.  You're rude, abusive, intollerant, and frankly stupid.  You don't even know what this thread was about, you just saw abortion and it got your little panties in a bunch.  You have no knowledge of law, no knowledge of people, no debate skills, there is in essence nothing redeeming about you. 

Is doctor kevorkian free?  Honestly, you may want to give him a call and maybe look into ending your miserable and hate filled existance.  As i said earlier, its the innocents life I'm interested in saving.  I can't imagine your useful to anyone with the hate you spew for no apparent reason.  People have been reasonable with you, they've explained their position, they've engaged you honestly and with facts, and all you've done is call people liars while you make up lies about how you imagine they live, and call people names and display a remarkable unfamiliarity with anything approaching reasonable discorse.  So please come back when you get out of the 10th grade and try again.

If any of that gives you trouble, let me try it in a way that you may understand

fuck off you useless piece of shit.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 24, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


What, are you mad about paying child supoort or something?  What's the matter, fat bitch from the club wouldn't get an abortion?


----------



## BrianH (Jan 24, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> frazzledgear said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



unwanted children?  Maybe to their jackass parents, but there are PLENTY of people willing to adopt "unwanted" children.  I can name four people off the top of my head that have adopted or are about to adopt children.  There are so many people out there that want kids but can't have them.  

My answer to those idiots that love to screw without protection...by a .25 cent condom rather than spending it on crack and beer.  People that like to fuck but don't want the consequences after the fact are selfish...plain and simple.  Sounds like you've got expert experience in this....jackass


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 25, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



hahahahaha if anyone has their panties in a bunch it is you bitch, you don't give a fuck about these kids so stop lying.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 25, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Wow stop offending me please.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 25, 2011)

that's your stock response?

We all know that people who want them dead must care more about them than anyone who fights to save them..


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 25, 2011)

BrianH said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > frazzledgear said:
> ...



What the fuck? you are never going to stop people from having unwanted pregnancies, we are never going to live in a world where everyone follows your bullshit morals and rhetoric, the bottom line is there are unwanted pregnancies everyday and alot of these women can't take care of these children, if they want to get an abortion that is their business, you are not going to help any of these women change their minds anyways so go fuck yourself retard.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 25, 2011)

And if you have ANY evidence that proves that abortion reduces child abuse, child murder, or the incidence of child abandonment, please provide it.

Of course I know that you don't have any abuse because it's been proven ad nauseum that abortion doesn't do any of those things.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 25, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> that's your stock response?
> 
> We all know that people who want them dead must care more about them than anyone who fights to save them..



Its none of your fucking business liar, you don't care so shut your slut mouth.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 25, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> And if you have ANY evidence that proves that abortion reduces child abuse, child murder, or the incidence of child abandonment, please provide it.
> 
> Of course I know that you don't have any abuse because it's been proven ad nauseum that abortion doesn't do any of those things.



Are you fucking high? I never said abortion reduces anything.


----------



## BrianH (Jan 25, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



How are they unwanted children if they are wanted by someone.  Damn your dense.  I never claimed you'd stop people from being irresponsible.  How about they grow up and take some frickin responsibility for their actions...something you obviously are absolving them of...By the sounds of it, I bet you do stupid shit all the time and don't think you should deal with the consequences....lol What a dumbass...  By far one of the greaetest dumbasses I've encountered on these threads....  give yourself an applause for ranking up there with the some of the best Artards there are...


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 25, 2011)

BrianH said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



LOL yeah I am one of the "greaetest" dumbasses huh? what the fuck ever. It takes years to adopt a child and the requirements are very rigid, and even then there is no guarantees the child will find a home, probably get placed in foster care with 7-8 other children. Yeah what a great life. Why don't you go ahead and adopt some of these kids you fucking hypocrite? Telling people to "stop being irresponsible" won't stop the problem with unwanted pregnancies, your dumb ass was probably an unwanted pregnancy. You can take your useless morales and worthless rhetoric, shove them up your ass and fuck yourself with them you piece of trash fucking ****.


----------



## BrianH (Jan 25, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



As a matter of fact shit for brains, I was an unplanned pregnancy.  I was conceived when my parents were in high school.  Lucky for me, my parents were better people than you and followed through with their actions.  Like I said before, I know numerous people that have adopted or are about to adopt.  I guess maybe I just know better people than you...you know, those who are able to pass these rigid requirements.  For a screenname with "gravity" in it, you sure are up in the clouds...on second thought, your head's in your ass.    

By the way, learn to spell before you disagree with being the greatest dumbass.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 25, 2011)

BrianH said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



You were the one who mispelled greatest you stupid fuck, so you are in no place to talk about spelling. You say you know "numerous" people willing to adopt huh? funny you are not one of them you lying sack of worthless shit. You don't give a damn about these would be aborted kids you are a fucking liar, you make pinochio look like Aberham Lincoln. If someone dropped a baby off on your doorstep you would shit your pants you fucking piece of trash, secretly you do agree with abortion because you want nothing to do with these unwanted children, so go eat shit and lay down in front of a train you worthless fucking piece of useless garbage.


----------



## BrianH (Jan 25, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...




lol....you're almost not worth arguing with...but I will just for shits and grins.
1. I have a kid, and my wife have talked about adopting in the event she can't have any more.  So suck balls on that.
2. Yes, I do know people who have adopted or are about to adopt.  Just because you don't know any decent people doesn't mean that I don't.  Suck balls on that one too.
3. And yes, you are one of the GREATEST dumbasses I've ever had the displeasure of coming in contact with.  My dog's a better person than you are...lol.  What a douche.
If you weren't so bad at debating I might actually take you seriously.  Lick ass on this one...


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 25, 2011)

BrianH said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



You can lick my ass you fucking worthless piece of trash, you are a fraud and a liar. You do not care about any of these kids so fuck you and your stupid bitch ass friends too faggot.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 25, 2011)

Lol.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 25, 2011)

It didn't take HG long to melt down, did it?


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 25, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> It didn't take HG long to melt down, did it?



It didn't take you long to escort women to have abortions is it you fraud?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 25, 2011)

That was probably before you were born, skippy.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 25, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> That was probably before you were born, skippy.



Why were you escorting women to get abortions you fraud?


----------



## BrianH (Jan 25, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



lol.... I don't give a shit if you agree with abortions...I'm just trying to piss you off.....  It's a matter of opinion anyway....


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 9, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


You don't know shit about me asshole.  Whats your fucking malfunction?  People have been mostly polite, mostly civil, and yet you have nothing but ghey slurs.  Are you hasving trouble coming out of the closet?  Afraid of your sexuality?  Are you ashamed you get off looking at naked men on the internet?  The conflict within you is deep... maybe you should try someyhing else in you.  Dude, that fat bitch fucked you up.  Just send the fucking check and get over it.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 9, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


and we're never going to stop people from shooting, stabbing and robbing each other either... maybe we should just throw out all laws.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

TossObama said:


> Of course abortion is murder. However psychopaths seem to think pregnancy is simply a wad of cells like a tree that can be cut down without notice or concern.
> 
> Have you ever noticed who is working in abortion clinics? CATHOLICS. Talk about another con job where the right hand is hidden from the left hand. Don't believe one word, not one word that comes from the Vatican, a Bishop or any Parish that claims the church is opposed to abortion. Look behind the scenes and do some historical research. What the Vatican claims in public is NOT what is going on behind the scenes. EWTN, the Catholic tv network even interviewed the Catholic nurses who have deliberately chosen to work in abortion clinics. They claimed they are keeping an eye on everything.
> 
> ...


You are full of it!!!


----------



## jillian (Feb 9, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



yet we have a constitutional right to control our own bodies... 

or do constitutional rights only matter when they protect things that rightwingnuts like?


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

jillian said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


Yes, when you aren't killing someone elses body. The right to life comes before the others for a reason, without it, all other rights are null and void.


----------



## jillian (Feb 9, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



really? interesting the supreme court didn't see it that way.

so stay out of other people's bedrooms and bodies.

thanks!


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

jillian said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


They used to not see slavery as a bad thing and tyrants usually can create laws to snuff out the "undesirables", Germany did it, Russia did it, MAO did it, and radical judges did it as well here is the USA.http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/fig16baby8.jpg


----------



## jillian (Feb 9, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



your religion thinks abortion should be unlawful. mine doesn't.

last time i checked, yours doesn't trump mine.

not interested in you imposing your religion on me. 

thanks so much.

oh, and i'm not interested in any anti-choice rabid religious right websites. so don't waste your time posting them in response to me.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 9, 2011)

jillian said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


you have no constitutional right to commit murder.  You can use your body (control it) to bash your kids with a hammer, but you can no more bash your kids in the head with a hammer than you can kill a viable fetus.  Both are protected persons, but only the ones that are already born get justice.  When the SCOTUS reccognized a states interst in protecting the lives of the unborn once they were "viable" they in effect made them persons.  The state has no interest in protecting the lives of non-person human beings or lumps of flesh.  That is what the law actually is, but prosecutors will not enforce it.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

jillian said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Either human life is to be respected or not, I say it is at what ever stage of development the person is in.  Like I said here in the US slaves were considered the property of other people as well and it was perfectly legal to kill what you owned, it was wrong then and it is wrong now.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/weeks51.jpg
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/LateTermAbortions/abortedbaby05.jpg


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 9, 2011)

jillian said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


have you ever actually read Roe or Casey?  There is no unfettered right to abortion.  It can be restricted or even PUNISHED after viability.  It should be, just like any other murder.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...


Actually Roe legalized it till the due date, the reason this doctor has the charges on him, is the method of murder he used. Partial Birth abortion was banned under Bush.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Abortion is no murder. End of argument....


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 9, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Thats why I said it "can" be under Roe.  When the court ruled on Roe they set up the premise of viability and declared states could act to protect viable unborn children.  Yes, the states have to either enact laws to do that or choose to enforce the ones already on the books... like murder.  But the point was, _they can_


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

Either human life is to be respected or not, I say it is at what ever stage of development the person is in.  Like I said here in the US slaves were considered the property of other people as well and it was perfectly legal to kill what you owned, it was wrong then and it is wrong now.[/QUOTE]

A foetus is not a human life. Don't believe me? Take a 3 month foetus out of a woman's body and watch it grow...oh, it won't. Why? Because it is not a human body.

Let us not forget, your _opinion _is coloured by your religion. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one if you get knocked up unexpectedly.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Yes it is.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Fed law out trumps state law....shrug....


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


LOL, is that what you call debate?  Yes, abortion _can be _murder.  Its simply a matter of will on the part of the state.  So far, no state seems willing to enforce their statutes against killing a person unless that person is bnorn, but they could, and Roe iss what makes it possible.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Please post links to drs who have been arrested for murder after performing abortions....


----------



## jillian (Feb 9, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



no. it isn't. not every killing is murder. murder is defined by statute.

so once again, you're wrong.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> A foetus is not a human life. Don't believe me? Take a 3 month foetus out of a woman's body and watch it grow...oh, it won't. Why? Because it is not a human body.
> 
> Let us not forget, your _opinion _is coloured by your religion. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one if you get knocked up unexpectedly.


A fetus most certainly is a human life, there is nothing else it can be.  medical science has progressed to the point where a 4.5 month old fetus with proper medical care is viable, and it is therefore, according to the law, a person the state has an interest in protecting.  Thats what Roe says.

BTW, people opinions are colored by a lot of things, some by religion, some by some other philosophy and still others by their ignorance of facts.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Well, not so much lack of debate. Let's put it this way, I've been on messageboards coming up ten years, on this one five. I've had many indepth discussions on boards about abortion.

What it comes down to is this. Roe vs Wade supercedes anything on state statutes. Yes, partial birth abortion is illegal under certain circumstances. That's what it comes down to. If you want to go down the moral path, then that is another argument. Legally abortion is legal and not murder as defined by law.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 9, 2011)

jillian said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


perhaps you should read a statute?  Murder is the unlawful killing of another person.  Once a fetus is viable it is a person, that is what Roe determined.  This person has the same right to not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process as any other person.  There are no seperate classes of persons under the law.  has something to do with that whole "equal treatment" thingy.  A viable unborn child has the same right to be protected by the laws against murder as any other person


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

jillian said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


I am right and one day the so-called terroristic slaughter that is legal will be changed Like what Hitler got away with it will be exposed and stopped, just because it is legal to murder in different country does not make it no longer murder.


----------



## jillian (Feb 9, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



why do religious zealots feel the need to ram their beliefs down everyone else's throats?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...


Are you always this obtuse?  Of course it does, and it is FEDERAL law as defined by ROE that states that the states have an interest in protecting the LIFE of a viable fetus.  What laws they pass or enforce to do so is their business.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Logical falacy.  A failure to enforce the law does not make it not the law.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

jillian said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Why do secular humanists feel the need to murder whom they consider undesirables?


----------



## jillian (Feb 9, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



who says i'm a "secular humanist". nutter?

you know, i've never met anyone else whose moral judgment i trusted more than my own... 
govern your own life. 

stay out of everyone else's.

because you're not pro life.... you're pro birth.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

jillian said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


I am pro-life, I see that in order to argue it you have to call names like "nutter", tell me you support women killing their own children, so exactly what impact do you feel your name calling is going to have on me?


----------



## jillian (Feb 9, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



is there some reason you feel the need to illustrate your posts?

you're offended by "nutter"? too bad. i'm offended by being told i sanction murder by some loony toon who wants to infringe on our constitutional rights because she's a religious zealot.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


that is false.  

legally abortion is murder, its just not enforced.  Roe is the law, yes?

Roe determined that the states have an interest in protecting the life of viable fetus'.  The state has no interest in protecting the "life" of unliving flesh.  The states interest is determined by its DUTY to not deprive any PERSON of LIFE without due process of law.  Without that interest the state has none.  Therefore, for legal purposes a viable fetus is a person.

Are there any classes of persons in the constitution for whom equal treatment and due process do not apply?

Are the persons in your state protected against murder by the law?  

Are they receptive of what justice the law will alllow in the event a crime is committed against them?

are murderers who break that law punished?

Abortion of a viable fetus is murder as defined by the law, its just unenforced.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

jillian said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


I am not offended at all, I illustrate because I am a visual person.You sanction murder because you feel that other human beings can kill people, their own children to boot, ones who can not run nor fight back....pretty tyrannical.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)




----------



## jillian (Feb 9, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



if you weren't offended why comment?

i don't sanction murder, loon. no matter how many times you call it that.

since you claim to be pro-life and not pro-birth, can i take it that you are a believer in teaching kids about birth control and safe sex? or funding daycare, education and job training for unwed moms? 

how many unwanted children have you adopted?


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



What law is not being enforced?


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

jillian said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Have custody of one I have four of my own all boys,young MEN rather who respect women and do not see them as sexual playthings and revere sex as not only something to express love but an act that is open to life. And I help life choices and birthright both help moms before and after the birth and furthermore I welcome ANY child that is not wanted by their mother.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


maybe you should read the thread?  maybe even just the last couple pages?  You might actually get a clue as to what my position is if you bother reading it.  It's really not hard to understand.


----------



## jillian (Feb 9, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



that's good. i approve.

now answer my question about birth control and safe sex and education, daycare and job training for mothers.

see, my problem with people like you isn't your beliefs. you have every right to believe what you want.

what you don't have the right to do is impose those beliefs on me. my religion says that abortion is a matter of conscience.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Is there a legal definition of a foetus? If it says it is human, then you may be right.

That aside, I do not like abortion. I would advise anybody who wants to have one, not to. That aside, if they make that decision it is their choice, and I would not punish them for such a choice. It is none of my business. This planet has too many people on it any way.

It doesn't help when you have nutters from the Catholic Church who are against condoms, or teaching responsible sex. That just adds to the problem. If you look at the Philippines or Brazil or Mexico, you get a good idea what happens when the church dictates sexual behaviour. Abject poverty...but long as the church gets its tithe, everything is hunky dory...


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> maybe you should read the thread?  maybe even just the last couple pages?  You might actually get a clue as to what my position is if you bother reading it.  It's really not hard to understand.



Yes, where I come from, it's called spinning.....


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

jillian said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Birthcontrol, is called keeping it in your pants, safe sex... seriouslyDaycare I have cared for moms kids at my home, training moms for jobs,only 24 hours in a day, so to you I guess that means obviously more children need to be killed, right.


----------



## jillian (Feb 9, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



if you think abstinence is birth control we don't really have anything else to discuss.

have a good night. feel free to believe whatever you want.

stay out of other people's bodies.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Poverty is not from the Church look to the government for that one, it will soon be like that here. Responsible sex or do you mean self-control? Or does self-control exist in liberal realms?


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

jillian said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


And you stop dismembering other peoples bodies.


----------



## dilloduck (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Either human life is to be respected or not, I say it is at what ever stage of development the person is in.  Like I said here in the US slaves were considered the property of other people as well and it was perfectly legal to kill what you owned, it was wrong then and it is wrong now.



A foetus is not a human life. Don't believe me? Take a 3 month foetus out of a woman's body and watch it grow...oh, it won't. Why? Because it is not a human body.

Let us not forget, your _opinion _is coloured by your religion. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one if you get knocked up unexpectedly.[/QUOTE]

*Lame argument, Gump. If you take any life and put it in an environment that it can't adjust to, it will die.

Try a reasonable one.*


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Of course there is, that was what Roe determined





> If it says it is human, then you may be right.


aside from the fact that there is nothing else a human fetus can be, the law doesn't say anything about "humans", it says "person".  Given that Roe identifies a state interest in preserving the "life" of a viable fetus, is there something else it could be?  Is it a non-living person?  or a living non-person?  If its not a person what interest does the state have in any event?  It's certainly noit a pet or livestiock (which technically are not protected on there ownm but are protected as "property" owned by people.



> That aside, I do not like abortion. I would advise anybody who wants to have one, not to. That aside, if they make that decision it is their choice, and I would not punish them for such a choice.


Is it?  Can you choose to bash your kids in the head with a hammer?  Should you be unpunished if you make that choice?  Every crime is a choice, and equal protection is equal protection.





> It is none of my business. This planet has too many people on it any way.


so by this logic it should be OK to kill any of them as long as its "not my business".  Or better yet, we should make it our business and fix the population problem, why wait for the attrition of abortion?  Surely we can be more effecient than that. 



> It doesn't help when you have nutters from the Catholic Church who are against condoms, or teaching responsible sex.


Last i checked they were against robbery and assault too.  Its irrelevant, there is no requirement to be taught not to rob in school, or to teach people to be civil.  Should we just do away with those laws because we aren't training people properly? 





> That just adds to the problem.


how so?  If a devout catholic gets pregnant they have the baby, they raise the baby... I don't see a problem.  And the last I checked they have the same rights you do to oppose or propose laws... doesn't mean we have to pass them.





> If you look at the Philippines or Brazil or Mexico, you get a good idea what happens when the church dictates sexual behaviour. Abject poverty...but long as the church gets its tithe, everything is hunky dory...


yeah, it worked out so poorly for the church of England.  People live in abject poverty because they lack other liberties and the opportiunity that liberty brings, not because they screw without a condum.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



No, I mean responsible sex. Humans like sex and not just to create offspring. It's fun and a enjoyable. Why shouldn't you have sex for fun and condone condoms or the pill to avoid pregnancy if you don't want children? The Catholic church is run by men (some who prey on young children). Whoever decided way back when that priests should not marry should be shot IMO...

Poverty is not from the church? Really. I well remember a doco about 15 years ago (with 60 minutes or 20/20). It was about poverty in the Philippines. This woman lived in a shanty town. She had just had her seventh child at the age of 26. Asked if she would have more or take birth control she answered "No, my god does not allow birth control and every child is a gift from god". Is that responsible for you? Remember we are talking uneducated people who look for guidence from god's representatives.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

dilloduck said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Either human life is to be respected or not, I say it is at what ever stage of development the person is in.  Like I said here in the US slaves were considered the property of other people as well and it was perfectly legal to kill what you owned, it was wrong then and it is wrong now.
> ...



Lame argument, Gump. If you take any life and put it in an environment that it can't adjust to, it will die.

Try a reasonable one.[/QUOTE]Science disagrees with you, from conception a human life exist, your argument is personhood the same one used against slaves and that is an emotional argument not scientific.


----------



## Care4all (Feb 9, 2011)

to quote someone famous:

''let he/(she) who is without sin, cast the first stone''

I am pro life, but those sanctimonious on here who claim they are as well, while salivating by calling women who have had or have abortions murderers are doing Christianity an injustice....and certainly NOT helping the cause of reducing as many abortions as possible....nor are they helping their fellow Christian female who is having or has had an abortion, who has fallen short of the Glory of God, by this kind of talk.

I don't believe one female has ever been convicted of MURDER in the USA for having an abortion in this country, EVEN prior to roe v wade.  The girls/women were given compassion, because of the stress they were under for their unwanted pregnancy...because of the new hormones flying along with that stress that can make some not think straight as well....

Only the doctors/people who performed the abortion could be or were prosecuted, but not the mother who had the abortion.


btw...I wonder why Adam was NOT considered alive when he was being "formed" by God?  this has been perplexing for me....
Adam did not have LIFE when he was being formed by God,  he had life when he took his first breath...God breathed life in to him.  And it was good.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Of course there is, that was what Roe determinedaside from the fact that there is nothing else a human fetus can be, the law doesn't say anything about "humans", it says "person".  Given that Roe identifies a state interest in preserving the "life" of a viable fetus, is there something else it could be?  Is it a non-living person?  or a living non-person?  If its not a person what interest does the state have in any event?  It's certainly noit a pet or livestiock (which technically are not protected on there ownm but are protected as "property" owned by people.



If Roe decided it why aren't abortion doctors arrested every day?




BenNatuf said:


> Is it?  Can you choose to bash your kids in the head with a hammer?  Should you be unpunished if you make that choice?  Every crime is a choice, and equal protection is equal protection.so by this logic it should be OK to kill any of them as long as its "not my business".  Or better yet, we should make it our business and fix the population problem, why wait for the attrition of abortion?  Surely we can be more effecient than that.



But abortion is not a crime so your argument is a non-sequiter



BenNatuf said:


> Last i checked they were against robbery and assault too.  Its irrelevant, there is no requirement to be taught not to rob in school, or to teach people to be civil.  Should we just do away with those laws because we aren't training people properly?



That's fine, don't teach that robbery or assult is bed. But don't tell kids not to wear condoms either. That aside, you are really stretching your point here - comparing robbing to fucking....two different activities. One affects somebody in that harm is done to them against their will. The other is by two consenting adults. you heard the term comparing apples and oranges? Great example right there...




> how so?  If a devout catholic gets pregnant they have the baby, they raise the baby... I don't see a problem.  And the last I checked they have the same rights you do to oppose or propose laws... doesn't mean we have to pass them.



OK, but don't tell kids have sex except for procreation is a sin. 



> ]yeah, it worked out so poorly for the church of England.  People live in abject poverty because they lack other liberties and the opportiunity that liberty brings, not because they screw without a condum.



Church of England law is not British law unlike Ireland or Italy where condoms are/were outlawed. You are right about liberties, but see my last to Lisa sans the Philippines


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


I was raised protestant and some of the protestants do it too, seems to be a flaw in some humans the need to use people sexually, sadly some do it to children, even more sad most molesters are married and are not clergy members at all. Yes I agree with her Children are gifts from God. We have natural family planning and that can be taught, and is taught, it is just as effective as the pill, without the side effects. As horrible as you tried to describe her poverty, we are a nation that kills it own children, in her poverty she is rich.


----------



## jillian (Feb 9, 2011)

a flaw to "use people sexually"?

really? if G-d didn't want people to have sex, he wouldn't have made it feel good.

or do you not have sex unless it's to get pregnant?


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> *in her poverty she is rich*.



It's that kind of sanctimonious, arrogant, ignorant pap why I am an athiest. Do you think she thanks you for your words as she tries to feed her children? Works 18 hours a day just to feed them? Has open sewage running down her street? 

You don't have a clue, do you? And you're supposed to be the enlightened one here?


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

Care4all said:


> to quote someone famous:
> 
> ''let he/(she) who is without sin, cast the first stone''
> 
> ...


Absolutely not, Truth never does Christianity an injustice, as sinners we are supposed to repent and go and "sin no more". If you call evil good and good evil then in effect you have called truth a lie. We also have something called Rachels vineyard, these are women who have murdered their children by abortion, and they talk about that freely, you see they are able to heal when they face reality.In the Bible it said God knew you before you were in your mothers womb, and it also says he knitted you in your mothers womb. God is the God of life and the devil is a murderer from the very beginning, nothing has changed.


----------



## jillian (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > *in her poverty she is rich*.
> ...



she's a moralistic twit.


----------



## Care4all (Feb 9, 2011)

If God knows us, before we are formed in the womb like He tells Jeremiah, does this mean that if we were never born and aborted, He would not know us anymore....?  We would just disappear from God's presence?


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Absolutely not, Truth never does Christianity an injustice, as sinners we are supposed to repent and go and "sin no more". If you call evil good and good evil then in effect you have called truth a lie. We also have something called Rachels vineyard, these are women who have murdered their children by abortion, and they talk about that freely, you see they are able to heal when they face reality.In the Bible it said God knew you before you were in your mothers womb, and it also says he knitted you in your mothers womb. God is the God of life and the devil is a murderer from the very beginning, nothing has changed.



Oh brother, do we have a Holy Roller here. Over and out...

Lisa - God is a myth invented by man...you believe in something that doesn't exist. If you want to live your life that way, then have at it - but please, leave the rest of us alone...I won't try and write post after post explaining in simple, easy to under stand, factual terms why there is no god. You can do me the same courtesy....


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



I was giving her the benefit of the doubt - until her last post...

Funny thing is, she sounds more like a pentecostal baptist than a Catholic


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > *in her poverty she is rich*.
> ...


And you are stuck in materialistic elitists superiority and believe nobody can be happy unless they meet your standard, and you do not know what love is.


----------



## dilloduck (Feb 9, 2011)

jillian said:


> a flaw to "use people sexually"?
> 
> really? if G-d didn't want people to have sex, he wouldn't have made it feel good.
> 
> or do you not have sex unless it's to get pregnant?



Jesus Christ, Jillian ! You know full well what she meant by "use people sexually". It's this kind of intentional ignorance that runs rampant in the liberal tent. Get real. You're not that stupid.


----------



## jillian (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



whatever she is, she's pro birth and not pro life... 

and is the reason the rabid religious right should be kept as far from the halls of power as humanly possible.

thank G-d for the separation of church and state.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

Care4all said:


> If God knows us, before we are formed in the womb like He tells Jeremiah, does this mean that if we were never born and aborted, He would not know us anymore....?  We would just disappear from God's presence?


Nope.


----------



## dilloduck (Feb 9, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



Not all religions worship money, Jillian.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


I am pro-life from conception till natural death. LOL!!! You guys would not know what to do if you were unable to to kill the vulnerable and "unworthy", huh. Same song different year, most of my uncles family did not make it out of Poland they died in the camps, by people who did not think they were humans either, so regardless of what name you throw at me or insult you toss my way I will not relent nor back down 50 million so far since 73, Hitler would be jealous, you will not recognize until someone makes you their "choice". Sadly, when people take this road to dehumanization that is where we end up.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

dilloduck said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


----------



## jillian (Feb 9, 2011)

dilloduck said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



wow...finally coming out of the closet, eh?


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



1) I am anything but materialistic, trust me on that.
2) And yet your prothelysing isn't 'elitist superiority'?
3) I have two wonderful sons. Please, do not tell me I don't know what love is you arrogant twat...
4) I know enough about Christianity, that you fit that unflattering description of being anything but, going by your posts...


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

jillian said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Bloodmoney is about the Choicers and their alter of human sacrifice, not mine.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> I am pro-life from conception till natural death. LOL!!! You guys would not know what to do if you were unable to to kill the vulnerable and "unworthy", huh. Same song different year, most of my uncles family did not make it out of Poland they died in the camps, by people who did not think they were humans either, so regardless of what name you throw at me or insult you toss my way I will not relent nor back down 50 million so far since 73, Hitler would be jealous, you will not recognize until someone makes you their "choice". Sadly, when people take this road to dehumanization that is where we end up.



Don't you dare compare ALL victims of WWII with abortion. Don't even belong in the same paragraph. Unless you're a religous zealot..

...oh..

...that's right...

you are....


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


I am standing up for those who can't. I have not tried to convert anyone to Catholicism. Good for you, your sons made it into the world too many do not. I am not shy one bit about decrying the slaughter of those who can not defend themselves and make no apologies, you are here to argue some have been forever silenced.


----------



## The Infidel (Feb 9, 2011)

Care4all said:


> If God knows us, before we are formed in the womb like He tells Jeremiah, does this mean that if we were never born and aborted, He would not know us anymore....?  We would just disappear from God's presence?



My beliefs tell me that if that is the case, and he knows us before we are born....BTW, I do believe life begins at conception, then those aborted babies are at Gods side in Heaven. Never having been born, but still loved by God.
*
Abortion is a national tragedy.*


----------



## dilloduck (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > I am pro-life from conception till natural death. LOL!!! You guys would not know what to do if you were unable to to kill the vulnerable and "unworthy", huh. Same song different year, most of my uncles family did not make it out of Poland they died in the camps, by people who did not think they were humans either, so regardless of what name you throw at me or insult you toss my way I will not relent nor back down 50 million so far since 73, Hitler would be jealous, you will not recognize until someone makes you their "choice". Sadly, when people take this road to dehumanization that is where we end up.
> ...



oh my----faux outrage.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > I am pro-life from conception till natural death. LOL!!! You guys would not know what to do if you were unable to to kill the vulnerable and "unworthy", huh. Same song different year, most of my uncles family did not make it out of Poland they died in the camps, by people who did not think they were humans either, so regardless of what name you throw at me or insult you toss my way I will not relent nor back down 50 million so far since 73, Hitler would be jealous, you will not recognize until someone makes you their "choice". Sadly, when people take this road to dehumanization that is where we end up.
> ...


My uncles family on both sides were exterminated like pieces of trash, declared less than HUMAN!!! The same thing!!!!


----------



## Care4all (Feb 9, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > to quote someone famous:
> ...



The adulteress, who  according to the Law...was suppose to be killed for her sins, was FORGIVEN by Christ, before she was told to repent and sin no more....I repeat...she was forgiven BEFORE she was asked to repent....had you ever noticed that when reading this passage?  Gosh, I love Christ!  If all of us could only be more Christ like....

no one is calling evil good, at least not me, if that is what you are implying?

God formed Adam as well....but the Bible still says Adam did not have LIFE, until a breath was taken.

there is no arguing that a human's life begins at conception or pregnancy... according to all science...there is no question that this is a new baby to be, being formed, in its mother's womb imho...they just do not legally achieve person hood, with rights, until they are born according to our laws.

Truth is truth, yes it is....and what these women have done, is killed their unborn child....not murder....but carry on and say or act the way you do or want to....

I spoke out to you, as you say you are speaking out to those women who are aborting by calling them murderers and giving them no compassion....

btw what is the difference between you and those people who were getting ready to cast the first stone....?  Are you sinless?

I sure am glad you are not God or Christ!  

Now let me go count my blessings and give thanks to the Lord on that!


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > If God knows us, before we are formed in the womb like He tells Jeremiah, does this mean that if we were never born and aborted, He would not know us anymore....?  We would just disappear from God's presence?
> ...


Yes they are in Heaven.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

dilloduck said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



No, just find it irritating that a religious zealot takes a cheap shot to make a 'point'....

Something like a third of the world's population lives in abject poverty, and she's talking like the world needs more people. How about we get the current population up to a decent level of living first before we worry about 'people' that never existed in the first place.

How about ALL religions etc make a pact and tell people, that "Hey, condoms are good. Abstainance doesn't work. Sex can be fun if treateed with respect. You don't have to have sex JUST for procreation, but be careful when you become active.' Instead of this moral claptrap.

Where's Shoggie when you need him....


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Yes they are in Heaven.



Prove it.

And if so, which heaven? Christian? Jewish? Muslim?


----------



## jillian (Feb 9, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > If God knows us, before we are formed in the womb like He tells Jeremiah, does this mean that if we were never born and aborted, He would not know us anymore....?  We would just disappear from God's presence?
> ...



do you understand that other religions don't believe that and by trying to legislate it you're trying to legislate your religious beliefs?

no problem with your belief... as long as you don't impose it on others.


----------



## dilloduck (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



You have managed to create secular claptrap by responding with intentionally ignorant responses. Equally nauseating.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

Care4all said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


No I am not sinless, I call a spade a spade I do not white wash anything, Jeffery Dalmer dismembered human beings, he murdered them. The abortion doctor is paid by the mother to do the same thing. I am not PC, I wonder do you think there is any such thing as sin sin you do not have to say a sin is a sin or call it by another name?She was already sorry for her sins, Jesus did not say she did not have any sins. Which is what you seem to be doing, at a babies expense and womens expense.


----------



## dilloduck (Feb 9, 2011)

jillian said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Try again---laws are created out of belief sytems all the time. And those laws are imposed on everyone.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Yes they are in Heaven.
> ...


One Heaven, God chooses who goes and division is the devils realm not Gods. He chooses who goes and who does not.


----------



## jillian (Feb 9, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



i'm so glad my religion doesn't believe in hell... 

i bet you think you're going to heaven though.

you forget that whole judge not thing, eh?


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

dilloduck said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Oh, please, please, please. Point out the ignorance in my posts...take your time....


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



If I'm a Muslim am I going to heaven?


----------



## dilloduck (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



already did----take any living being out of it's environment and it will die. Using that as some kind of "proof" for abortion is absurd.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Gods call He knows your heart.


----------



## The Infidel (Feb 9, 2011)

jillian said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



You know.... now your just being silly.

I am not imposing crap on you or anyone else!

Give me a freeking break.... Hell, you cant even spell the word G-d 

Its OVERLY sensitive pussies that are so worried that someone may mention GOD.... holy shit.... is your skin burning or something?

I believe those little angels are in heaven at the side of God, Allah, or whatever else anyone may believe.

Oh, and you do realize in your acting as if I shouldnt mention my beliefs, you are in a way shoving yours on me as well...  ---- my skin is burning!!!!

Come on Jill, your better than that


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

jillian said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


I leave who is in heaven or hell up to God. I call an evil act an evil act, I never said the woman or anyone else is going to hell or is in hell.


----------



## The Infidel (Feb 9, 2011)

jillian said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...





 Stop imposing you religion on me


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> I am not PC, I wonder do you think there is any such thing as sin sin you do not have to say a sin is a sin or call it by another name?She was already sorry for her sins, Jesus did not say she did not have any sins. Which is what you seem to be doing, at a babies expense and womens expense.



Oh, please...hypocrisy abounds. Here are you, on this thread, going on and on about the innocents, yet have a religion that states people are born with sin. What sort of claptrap is that. From a book written by mean eons ago claiming to be writing the word of a god.

Tell me Lisa, when my two sons were one minute old, what sin had they committed? Greed? Gluttony? Adultory? Theft maybe? How about murder?

Your version of Christianity is one of the scourges of the Earth...probably caused more harm than good...probably...


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

dilloduck said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Is that all you an come up with? pppffffttt. I used it to illustrate how absurd HER argument was, not to reinforce mine...


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> Hell, you cant even spell the word G-d
> 
> Its OVERLY sensitive pussies that are so worried that someone may mention GOD.... holy shit.... is your skin burning or something?



I have not seen Jillian ridiculing your religion, stop ridiculing hers.

Jews never spell out the word god...it's part of their belief system.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > I am not PC, I wonder do you think there is any such thing as sin sin you do not have to say a sin is a sin or call it by another name?She was already sorry for her sins, Jesus did not say she did not have any sins. Which is what you seem to be doing, at a babies expense and womens expense.
> ...


The stain of origional sin is not the act of sinning, it is the propensity to do so in their human nature. You want to kick around Catholics take it to the Religion forum.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> The stain of origional sin is not the act of sinning, it is the propensity to do so in their human nature. You want to kick around Catholics take it to the Religion forum.



So, what sin did they commit

And Ill ask it in whatever forum I want to.....you're the one who started talking about sin....


----------



## The Infidel (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Hell, you cant even spell the word G-d
> ...




OK.... fair enough. I honestly didnt even know Jillian was Jewish.

Jillian... Im sorry. BTW, I really wasnt trying to make fun... just trying to make a point.

But, I didnt know that.

BTW, can I ask why that is (the spelling)


Oh, and Grump.... why is it that you will redicule Lisa, and not give a shit about her beliefs but you run to Jillians defense? Just asking.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > The stain of origional sin is not the act of sinning, it is the propensity to do so in their human nature. You want to kick around Catholics take it to the Religion forum.
> ...


THey inherited the sin of Adam, it is the predisposition towards sin, a flawed nature.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 9, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



Because Jillian isn't ridiculing her I am. If Jillian was ridiculing her, all bets are off and I would not have come to Jillian's defense.

Plus, even though Lisa hasn't come right out and said it - although she has definitely alluded to it - religion is one of her main planks with regard to being anti abortion. If that is on the table, then I'll use that in my argument....


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 9, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


I was pro-life before I was Catholic, it is because I believe that every humans life is precious due to their humanity not because of being wanted, convienient, rich or poor, black or white,disabled or "normal".


----------



## The Infidel (Feb 10, 2011)

Im outta here.... this debate is not fair because all ya want to is make us pro lifers seem intolerant  and silly.

There's no sense in continuing because we will just go away mad, and I don't want that.

We are'nt going to change eachothers minds nor our hearts... only God can do that.

Good night Grump, and thanks for enlightening me on the Jewish beliefs. For that I owe ya.


----------



## Care4all (Feb 10, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



nope, I am not...you can call abortion a sin, and to me, it is a sin, and a sad one at that....

but YOU throwing the murderer word around so freely is quite disturbing....do you do this so you can entice some loony toon to commit murder themselves by shooting the doctors or girls in the abortion clinics on the basis that they are justly killing/murdering... murderers?

I'll pass on that kinda stuff!

I am not certain she was already sorry for her sins....at least the Bible says no such thing....Perhaps we can presume she was but we do not know this....just as I think she was very grateful for Christ saving her life....and grateful for His forgiveness....we really can't prove that....but we can presume.....

I view it, that she had not felt sorry for the sin she had committed yet, when Christ intervened with the casting of stones....and maybe it took Him giving her forgiveness... before forgiveness was justly due... to change her, and deliver her unto repentance.  I like to think that this kind and compassionate action of Christ, giving her forgiveness before it was even due, that made her love Him so much, for Him loving her so much to give this forgiveness....which lead to her to repenting and changing her lifestyle.

you know, when King David had his affair with Bathsheba, a married woman, and she got pregnant....he did not have her get an abortion....which were medicinally available at that time through specific herbs....but instead, he killed her husband...yet God kept him as King, and God did not have him killed for being a murderer?  we all praise David as being the greatest King..... why?  I'd say because he had more good (god) than evil (Devil) in him and was sorry for his own shortcomings and loved the Lord.

I think what you are doing is wrong Lisa....not the speaking out against abortions, but with you loosely using the label of murderers....I could be wrong, and all of this sanctimonious finger pointing and casting stones from you is fine and dandy with God/Christ, but my gut is telling me....that it would not be....  

Care


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 10, 2011)

Care4all said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


TO be pro-life is to be against murder of any kind, I deal with doctors who used to murder unborn children everyday, they do not do so any more and they have no qualms about saying what they were engaging in, I am not PC, and I am not hateful for refusing to be so. Why? Because I believe in forgiveness as well. I do not use the term loosely I use it honestly, because that is what happens in abortion. And if you get a chance to work with women who have had them and had people minimize the guilt they feel over what they are living with further  alienating them from feeling that anyone understands, go to a couple of funerals of women who were told it was no big deal when they knew it was then you come back to me, with your comments, I will listen intently, the ones who have been freed from it know that they are worthy of Gods love despite the fact they murdered their child. The play with words is what has blinded so many girls and women into getting duped by abortion, and when they realize what has actually happened, what they deal with is much worse than the word to describe it.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 10, 2011)

I will see you guys tomorrow It is after 12 here, I am off to bed. God Bless,Lisa


----------



## Care4all (Feb 10, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



i am not saying it is not a big deal....i have consoled  a few girls that have had abortions, and councilled others contemplating it.

it is not as simple as you seem to think it is, and none of the girls were murderers....they terminated their unborn offspring.  Some, felt remorse after wards, some felt nothing at all....numb....some carried the baggage a few decades....it really is not some kind of thing that these girls/women were rubbing their hands together chanting goodie goodie goodie, i get to murder my child to be today.....most did not view it as a child, but as a potential child....  murder takes malice....there was no malice from these girls towards their own offspring....they were just scared by it all...at least that is what it seemed.

so, do you call these repentant women that you know.... murderers... to their face?  Do you rant in front of them about these other murderous women?  If you do, you should stop, imo.

The Lord works in mysterious ways....He lets humans make mistakes sometimes, so that He can bring the sorrowful to Him....imo.

Care


----------



## Care4all (Feb 10, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> I will see you guys tomorrow It is after 12 here, I am off to bed. God Bless,Lisa



goodnight lisa...and welcome to the site.


----------



## José (Feb 10, 2011)

Care4all...

I have a proposal that would prevent 99% of all abortions. Check it out:

When any clinic is contacted by a girl or woman wanting to abort they would get in touch with a government agency and social workers would have a long talk with her trying to change her mind and keep her baby.

If she simply does not want to raise the child as a last resort the social workers would ask her to give birth and immediately give the baby so that the state can raise him/her with a solemn promise that the child would never know who his/her mother was.

I'm sure this would prevent most abortions because no woman wants to kill her baby. If given any alternative they will accept it in a heartbeat.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 10, 2011)

Care4all said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



I guess it depends on if you think a certan emotional state is a requirement for the act to be defined as murder. Personally, I don't. The only two pre-requisites I think there are are pre-meditation and the actual taking of the innocent human life. Abortion certainly meets the first pre-requisite. The second one is harder. When can a baby be defined as a human life? The point is, whenever that may be biologically, killing it after that point pre-meditatedally, is murder.


----------



## Douger (Feb 10, 2011)

I've said it before, I'll say it again.
If abortion is murder...........fellatio is cannibalism ( provided she finishes the job)


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 10, 2011)

Douger said:


> I've said it before, I'll say it again.
> If abortion is murder...........fellatio is cannibalism ( provided she finishes the job)



Made me laugh. But no, it isn't.


----------



## jillian (Feb 10, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> I guess it depends on if you think a certan emotional state is a requirement for the act to be defined as murder. Personally, I don't. The only two pre-requisites I think there are are pre-meditation and the actual taking of the innocent human life. Abortion certainly meets the first pre-requisite. The second one is harder. When can a baby be defined as a human life? The point is, whenever that may be biologically, killing it after that point pre-meditatedally, is murder.



once again, "murder" is a specifically defined legal term. there are legitimate reasons to "kill" and we do so all the time... for food, for clothing, in self-defense, in defense of others and in defense of property. the same concept applies to saving a woman's life in the event she endures a pregnancy. if we can get that as an understanding, then we can move on.

i agree with you (bookmark this post, it may be a while before you see those words from me again  ) in that life does exist on a continuum from zygote through birth. that part of the basis for Roe v Wade which has so far been ignored  throughout this thread (although i may have missed it) is that the Court did a balancing test. It inquired, and rightfully so, as to when the government had the right to intervene in contravention of the wishes of the individual. It held that at a certain point in the pregnancy, the obligation of government to protect prospective life outweighed the woman's right to govern her own body. That is the ONLY holding of Roe v Wade. Everything else is dicta... a purely intellectual discussion to guide future generations, but not bind them. So, given that life exists on a contunuum, it appears to me that nothing has occurred to vitiate the Court's holding.

Life exists in many forms... human beings, not so much... just as an egg, even if it is fertilized, is not a chicken.

*edit* a murder conviction requires a finding of mens rea. even the original languate of the bible does not say "thou shalt not kill". it says "thou shalt not murder".


----------



## Sky Dancer (Feb 10, 2011)

Human tissue which contains DNA is not a human being, a human person with consciousness or sentience.

The morning after pill is not murder.


----------



## Jroc (Feb 10, 2011)

jillian said:


> what you don't have the right to do is impose those beliefs on me. my religion says that abortion is a matter of conscience.



That is not correct  abortion in Judaism is permitted only if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother by carrying the fetus to term. Were do you get this matter of conscience stuff?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Feb 10, 2011)

There is nothing measurable about a fetus' consciousness until the 22nd week.  Most abortions occur long before that.


----------



## jillian (Feb 10, 2011)

Jroc said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > what you don't have the right to do is impose those beliefs on me. my religion says that abortion is a matter of conscience.
> ...



your rendition is only true in orthodox judaism. i am not orthodox. in conservative and reform judaism it is a matter of conscience.

that's where i get that "stuff". and don't presume that the way you view it is the way others view it. 

have a problem with it? talk to my rabbi. 

and where do you get this "direct threat" nonsense? in the same place as where men and women are seated separately? or where you buy sheitls?

and a word to the wise, child, if you're going to discuss religion with me, you might want to be more respectful.


----------



## Jroc (Feb 10, 2011)

jillian said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Were do you get this disrespectful stuff? You want to point out were that was? I dismiss most of reform Judaism as being way too liberal, but if you want to point out to me were in Jewish Law it says "abortion is a matter" of conscience, I invite you to do so.


----------



## jillian (Feb 10, 2011)

Jroc said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



when you ask something as dismissively as "where do you get this stuff", it appeared disrespectful.

if you "dismiss most of judaism as being way too liberal", perhaps judaism isn't the religion for you except by birth. other beliefs might suit you better. i'm not saying that to be insulting. i'm saying that truthfully. because you can't really separate those "liberal" parts from the rest or you end up with a pretty unpleasant belief system, imo.

he things i love about judaism are the parts of it that believe in social justice, caring for others, and being tolerant.

interestingly, those are mostly the same things jesus preached that are mostly ignored by the radical right.

but in answer to your question:



> In fact, the prevailing position in halacha (Jewish law) today, though restrictive, is rather lenient. It is the position argued by former chief rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Ben Zion Uziel. He declared that abortion is permissible even for what he calls "a very thin reason," meaning that one should give broad latitude to how a woman interprets "difficulty" or "injury," or "life-threatening," and even allowing an abortion in certain circumstances of great emotional anguish where there is no physical danger to the mother. But how thin is "thin"? What about the case where the child is known to be physically or mentally defective? What about the regrets after consensual adultery? Does a woman&#8217;s shame or embarrassment at the consequences of her own actions justify the termination of a pregnancy? What about the woman whose education or career will be made difficult if she has a child to look after? Is the Jewish position simply abortion on demand?
> 
> Certainly Judaism never allows abortion for birth control purposes when having a child would be simply an inconvenience or embarrassment. But in practice there remains considerable disagreement among halachic authorities and among the various streams of Judaism concerning specific cases. For example, most Orthodox authorities do not permit abortion on the grounds that a fetus is severely defective. Conservative and Reform authorities would permit aborting a physically or mentally defective fetus.



Jewish views of abortion

the one thing my rabbi always said was there are different ways to study torah.. 

1. literally, like the orthodox/fundamentalists
2. metaphorically, where bible stories are essentially viewed as parables.

and 

3. whatever the rabbi says it means. 

you should also know, and i'm pretty sure you do, that the process of studying torah is one of questioning. pat answers rarely exist. it is always "well, on one hand"... "well on the other hand"... "but what if... ".


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 10, 2011)

Care4all said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


They call themselves that, they say I murdered my child, some do not realize it at the time because of the fluffy planned parenthood PC stuff and they deal with it later after reality sets in. I know how they viewed it and that is why I do not mince words, some do indeed think they have no "choice" the irony of it all, is they are prepared to kill their baby in hopes to solve a problem. Rant, I am being honest that is all. Which is more than what abortion advocates are, they set these women up for untold suffering and guilt and leave them to deal with it on their own.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Feb 10, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



I object to the term 'abortion advocates'.   No one advocates choosing abortion.  Abortion just happens to be a legal choice for women with unwanted pregnancies.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 10, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


Unwanted babies.Unwanted humans.


----------



## Jroc (Feb 10, 2011)

jillian said:


> when you ask something as dismissively as "where do you get this stuff", it appeared disrespectful.
> 
> if you "dismiss most of judaism as being way too liberal", perhaps judaism isn't the religion for you except by birth other beliefs might suit you better. i'm not saying that to be insulting. i'm saying that truthfully. because you can't really separate those "liberal" parts from the rest or you end up with a pretty unpleasant belief system, imo.




Disrespectful? Please don't presume to tell me what I should believe based on your opinion of Jewish law. You've got a lot of nerve to accuse someone of being disrespectful then make though a stupid comment like that 




> things i love about judaism are the parts of it that believe in social justice, caring for others, and being tolerant.
> 
> interestingly, those are mostly the same things jesus preached that are mostly ignored by the radical right.



Social justice? whos view of social justice yours? who decides what is Social justice? individule liberty is what this country was founded on not someone own personal view of social justice    

but in answer to your question:



> In fact, the prevailing position in halacha (Jewish law) today, though restrictive, is rather lenient. It is the position argued by former chief rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Ben Zion Uziel. He declared that abortion is permissible even for what he calls "a very thin reason," meaning that one should give broad latitude to how a woman interprets "difficulty" or "injury," or "life-threatening," and even allowing an abortion in certain circumstances of great emotional anguish where there is no physical danger to the mother. But how thin is "thin"? What about the case where the child is known to be physically or mentally defective? What about the regrets after consensual adultery? Does a woman&#8217;s shame or embarrassment at the consequences of her own actions justify the termination of a pregnancy? What about the woman whose education or career will be made difficult if she has a child to look after? Is the Jewish position simply abortion on demand?
> 
> Certainly Judaism never allows abortion for birth control purposes when having a child would be simply an inconvenience or embarrassment. But in practice there remains considerable disagreement among halachic authorities and among the various streams of Judaism concerning specific cases. For example, most Orthodox authorities do not permit abortion on the grounds that a fetus is severely defective. Conservative and Reform authorities would permit aborting a physically or mentally defective fetus.



Jewish views of abortion



> the one thing my rabbi always said was there are different ways to study torah..
> 
> 1. literally, like the orthodox/fundamentalists
> 2. metaphorically, where bible stories are essentially viewed as parables.
> ...



Exactly right, but you made the assertion that your religion says abortion is a "matter of conscience" So maybe you should have said in your opinion or in your Rabbi's opinion. Nothing in your post answered my question were in Jewish Law does it say abortion is a matter of conscience?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 10, 2011)

jillian said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess it depends on if you think a certan emotional state is a requirement for the act to be defined as murder. Personally, I don't. The only two pre-requisites I think there are are pre-meditation and the actual taking of the innocent human life. Abortion certainly meets the first pre-requisite. The second one is harder. When can a baby be defined as a human life? The point is, whenever that may be biologically, killing it after that point pre-meditatedally, is murder.
> ...



Which is why, when I actually understood Roe a little more and when my opinions of the issue became more....moderated, shall we say, it turned out I actually agree with that aspect of Roe. 

I know on these boards I am probably considered a member of the right, but I am not a member of the fanatical religous, no abortions EVER, right. I may find it immoral, but the biological facts are there are stages in a pregnancy where you're not killng what can biologically defined as a human being. It's a collection of cells. As irresponsible as one may consider it to terminate the pregnancy, there is no legal standing that I can see to punish a woman for an early term abortion.

I am interested than in punishing them for late term abortions, but only in cases where the abortion is being considered out of convenience. My curiosity is that if Roe essentially says abortions are legal prior to the fetus being viable, what legal action is taken against those that have one after viability. I can't believe it doesn't happen, but I can't say that I recall ever hearing of a woman being legally punished for it. Have you?


----------



## jillian (Feb 10, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Which is why, when I actually understood Roe a little more and when my opinions of the issue became more....moderated, shall we say, it turned out I actually agree with that aspect of Roe.
> 
> I know on these boards I am probably considered a member of the right, but I am not a member of the fanatical religous, no abortions EVER, right. I may find it immoral, but the biological facts are there are stages in a pregnancy where you're not killng what can biologically defined as a human being. It's a collection of cells. As irresponsible as one may consider it to terminate the pregnancy, there is no legal standing that I can see to punish a woman for an early term abortion.
> 
> I am interested than in punishing them for late term abortions, but only in cases where the abortion is being considered out of convenience. My curiosity is that if Roe essentially says abortions are legal prior to the fetus being viable, what legal action is taken against those that have one after viability. I can't believe it doesn't happen, but I can't say that I recall ever hearing of a woman being legally punished for it. Have you?



see, i have no problem with someone who doesn't believe in abortions... *for themselves*. I believe everyone has to live with whatever decisions they make either way. my problem is with people who, for whatever reason, want to impose their own moral judgments on others. as i said to one of the other posters on this thread, i've never met anyone i thought was better able to make moral choices for me.... than me. i'm pretty sure that everyone else feels the same.

as for late term abortion, the numbers on that are miniscule and my feeling is that it's a decision a woman makes with her doctor and politicians in washington shouldn't interfere in that relationship. though, i can't truly imagine how anyone could either perform or have that procedure "just because". 

and no... i've never heard of anyone being pushed INTO having an abortion. but there are a lot of stories about women being harassed out of having one whether that harassment was successful or not.

and cheers... i think this may be our first agreement ever.


----------



## jillian (Feb 10, 2011)

Jroc said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > when you ask something as dismissively as "where do you get this stuff", it appeared disrespectful.
> ...



really? and what do you think goes into making the decision?


----------



## GHook93 (Feb 10, 2011)

_Roe v. Wade_ held that you can't restrict a woman's right to an abortion prior to viability. Which means you can't make laws restricting abortion during the first trimester. HOWEVER, _Roe v. Wade_ didn't not protect a woman's right to an abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimester. That is why many states have outlawed late term abortions and those state laws have passed the constitutionalituy test!

Abortionist to the extremes say any time before the child walks you can abort and Pro-lifers to the extremes say protect every egg and sperm!

Less people to the extremes. Pro-abortion moderates, protect the first trimester only (with exceptions in the 2nd for woman's life in dangers, birth defects, rape or incest and VERY few exceptions if any in the 3rd), Pro-lifers moderates say no abortion unless mother's life in danger, rape or incest!

There is a difference of levels of people who are pro-abortion and pro-life! 



BenNatuf said:


> For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jillian (Feb 10, 2011)

GHook93 said:


> _Roe v. Wade_ held that you can't restrict a woman's right to an abortion prior to viability. Which means you can't make laws restricting abortion during the first trimester. HOWEVER, _Roe v. Wade_ didn't not protect a woman's right to an abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimester. That is why many states have outlawed late term abortions and those state laws have passed the constitutionalituy test!
> 
> Abortionist to the extremes say any time before the child walks you can abort and Pro-lifers to the extremes say protect every egg and sperm!
> 
> ...



you mean pro choice and anti-choice. language is important. 

i agree in part. but the "viability" argument was only a part of the decision and was badly written... horribly written actually.

the balancing test is far more important.

and the fact that there is a contiuum of belief on the issue, is settled by the determination of roe as a balancing of issues. and no one should be making those moral judgments for anyone else... much less the government.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 10, 2011)

jillian said:


> see, i have no problem with someone who doesn't believe in abortions... *for themselves*. I believe everyone has to live with whatever decisions they make either way. my problem is with people who, for whatever reason, want to impose their own moral judgments on others. as i said to one of the other posters on this thread, i've never met anyone i thought was better able to make moral choices for me.... than me. i'm pretty sure that everyone else feels the same.



I don't think imposing moral judgement on people is an all or nothing thing. We do it for some things and not for others. You don't have a problem imposing moral judgement on a rapist or actual murderer do you?



jillian said:


> as for late term abortion, the numbers on that are miniscule and my feeling is that it's a decision a woman makes with her doctor and politicians in washington shouldn't interfere in that relationship. though, i can't truly imagine how anyone could either perform or have that procedure "just because".



I guess the only reason I part ways on that one is that at some point in the pregnancy tha fetus does become a human being. Even if unborn, doesn't a human being deserve a legal advocate in its best interests if the mother won't?



jillian said:


> and no... i've never heard of anyone being pushed INTO having an abortion. but there are a lot of stories about women being harassed out of having one whether that harassment was successful or not.



Sorry, ddidn't mean pushed into, just anybody who has had a 3rd trimester abortion and been prosecuted for it.



jillian said:


> and cheers... i think this may be our first agreement ever.



Oh there are a few things you might a find a liberal and a libertarian would agree on.


----------



## JScott (Feb 10, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I dont care what you think.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Feb 10, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



Unwanted pregnancies.  A zygote is not a baby.  A fetus is not a baby.  A fetus doesn't even have sentience that is measurable until the 22nd week of pregnancy.  Pregnancy is not even considered to have started until the zygote attaches to the uterine wall.

Let me ask you a question.  Does the topic of abortion bring up hate in your heart?  

Do you hate people who have different spiritual views about when human life begins?


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 10, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


No I hate abortion and all acts of murder.You see I do not hate you because I disagree with you, that is something I do not understand, I do hate evil debase acts, of all kinds there is a difference in hating a horrible injustice and hating the perpetrator of it.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Feb 10, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



You hate.  Period.  I can relate.  I hate intolerance.  Bottom line.  I hate.  
Some people think hate is righteous.  I don't.

You don't even know my views about abortion.  I'm Buddhist.   That means no killing.  Period.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 10, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


I do not hate people I hate evil acts, apparently, you have either misread my post, I was not clear in my post or you want to intentionally mislead people about my heart and intentions,which is apparently quite common these days..


----------



## Sky Dancer (Feb 10, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



You hate 'evil acts'.  You consider abortion an 'evil act'.  I hate intolerance.  We both hate something.

Hate is the problem.

The solution to the hate problem?  For me, it's to not be intolerant.  For you, it's to not have an abortion.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 10, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


Tolerance is not to tolerate someone else infringement on the life of another.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Feb 10, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



Tolerance is not hating intolerance.  

One could view the pregnant woman's life as being infringed upon by fanatics who want to force her to host a fetus in her body against her will.

Here is where you and I can possibly find common ground.  You're a catholic.  Abortion is a sin to you.  I'm a Buddhist.  Abortion is killling, and killing is a grave non-virtue.  I would never advise anyone to have an abortion if asked my opinion.  You're likely the same.

The difference between us is that I've lived to see abortion criminalized and I remember it's ugliness.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 10, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


Did the baby just jump on in there by him or herself? BTW my husband was a "product" of rape, so according to alot of people he should have received the death penalty for the actions of his father.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Feb 10, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



Why are you getting angry with me?  I wouldn't have an abortion and I wouldn't counsel anyone to have an abortion.  I happen to think babies that are the product of rape are spiritually special beings.  

Abortion does not meet the definition of murder.  Murder is the illegal killing of a human being with malice aforethought.  Abortion is legalized termination of human tissue that has the potential to grow into a human being.

What anti-choice fanatics are about is demonizing people who don't favor re-criminalizing abortion.  Am I evil because I don't favor re-criminalizing abortion?

Do you really envision a future with Magdalene style prisons tieing women down for 9 months to make them give birth, imprisoning them for life or killing them outright for terminating their pregnancies?  Brr creepy.

Legal or illegal, women will choose abortions.  The question is whether we kill the women for choosing abortion or not.

I remember back alley abortions.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 10, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


I am not angry with you, at all. I am for life, choice is deceptive because you rob the unborn child of life and choice. Where in the world did you see me espouse killing women....or anyone for that matter, I am against the death penalty as well.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Feb 10, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



Women will die in illegal back alley abortions if abortion is criminalized.  
Are two deaths better than one?  IMO, criminalizing abortion is not pro-life.

Your argument is abortion is murder.  Murder receives the death penalty in many states.

I'm old enough to remember women dying from unsafe abortions.  Criminalizing abortion will not prevent abortion.

Fail safe contraception will.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 10, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


If womens hearts are changed they will not, if it is illegal alot of women and girls will look into why it is illegal and what happens to the children, as well when the scientific community says there is a human life present-conception.I am against the death penalty, as previously stated. So will self control.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Feb 10, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



Criminalizing abortion will not change any woman's heart.  Yelling and picketing in front of Planned Parenthood will not change anyone's heart. 

Having compassion will change women's hearts.  Scientific information currently does not support the view that human life, human beings begin at conception.  Sentience can be measured by recording higher brain wave function at 22 weeks.

You assume all unplanned pregancies are the result of a lack of self-control.  I submit they are a result of the failure of contraception.

We've had illegal abortions.  I remember them.  They did not prevent women from choosing abortions, they just made it more likely the women would  die from the unsafe procedures.

Legalized abortion has made the procedures safe.

If anti-choice advocates are serious about helping women they ought to be advocating for safe, affordable and effective contraception and planned parenthood.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 10, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


Science does indeed state human life begins at conception, the abortion debate like slavery is based not on human questions but personhood. I will not accept the argument that I should support abortion because women will do it anyway. People die from legal abortions all the time. Planned parenthood is evil through and through they are an organization that profits off of the blood of others as well as being eugenisists.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Feb 10, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



Human beings are endowed with sentience.  Sentience can be medically measured at 22 weeks, not before.

I support Planned Parenthood.  They are about contraception and medical safety.  I have friends who are nurses and nurse practitioners at Planned Parenthood.  They are kind and compassionate women.  You say you don't hate people, but clearly you do hate Planned Parenthood, the organization composed of people who work there, some of whom are my friends.

More women died of illegal unsafe procedures than they do now.  Re-criminalizing abortion will cost women lives.  I suppose it's only the fetal lives anti-choice fanatics care about.  

I don't care whether you accept my argument or not.  I have the right a different opinion from you.  I follow my spiritual guidelines just like you do, it's just that you want to make YOURS everyone's.

So easy for you to divide the world into those who are evil, (see things differently from you) and those who are holy, who think like you.

Honestly, considering how contentious this issue is, we'vedone pretty well expressing our different views.  We will never agree, and I support you in having your own views and voting your conscience.  I will do the same.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 10, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


Humans go through different stages of development your argument is personhood which is a relative one. I do not hate people planned parenthood is an organization whose ideology is pure unadulerated evil. Evil acts and ideologies ensnare people.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Feb 10, 2011)

It's interesting how this topic is such a passionate one.  It really cuts through to the meaning of human life.

The closest I personally came to this issue, is that I helped drive a college roommate to NY state for an abortion.  At the time, I was attending a Catholic college in KY.  The women in my dorm were incredibly mean to this girl, who'd gotten herself pregnant.  At that time, my spiritual beliefs were that the soul entered the fetus close to the time of birth.   I did not think life begins at conception, like I do now.

I regretted my decision later, after I became a Buddhist.   I too, believe life begins at conception, I just don't see that the medical information backs that view.

Take care Catholic.  I'm not going to argue anymore.

sky


----------



## Sky Dancer (Feb 10, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



Planned Parenthood's ideology is contraception and planned parenthood.  It is people who are service oriented nurse and nurse practitioners who work there.  They are not evil.  They are my friends.

When you demonize people who work at Planned Parenthood, you inadvertently flame hatred of the unbalanced mentally ill individuals in your camp who murder doctors and nurses.

Stop demonizing them please.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 10, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


I am not demonizing your friends I am demonizing the ideology of whom they work for.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Feb 10, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



This is what you actually said:

"Evil acts and ideologies ensnare people."  Giving women's annuals, screening for cancer, dispensing contraception, planning pregnancy is not evil ideology.  Offering people legal choices is not evil.

I pray my friends who are brave enough to work for Planned Parenthood do not meet with violence at the hands of some in your camp who do espouse violence.

Show me something written from Planned Parenthood that highlights this evil ideology you so HATE.  Here is their mission statement, it hardly seems evil to me.


"Planned Parenthood believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility, regardless of the individual's income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence. We believe that respect and value for diversity in all aspects of our organization are essential to our well-being. We believe that reproductive self-determination must be voluntary and preserve the individual's right to privacy. We further believe that such self-determination will contribute to an enhancement of the quality of life and strong family relationships."


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 10, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


I do not espouse violence and no true pro-lifer does, those people who espouse violence are pro-choice, they believe the answer is to kill or maime another human you deem the "problem." Planned Parenthood ideology is evil.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2011)

Sky

You must realise that Lisa is a sheeple to the Catholic way of life. No point in arguing. Her mind and heart are closed. Irony in that a lot of what she espouses is evil...yet she hates evil...shrug


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 10, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Sky
> 
> You must realise that Lisa is a sheeple to the Catholic way of life. No point in arguing. Her mind and heart are closed. Irony in that a lot of what she espouses is evil...yet she hates evil...shrug


What exactly is it that I espouse is evil?


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2011)

You call planned parenthood evil. You toss around that word like it doesn't have a meaning. That is terrible. Planned parenthood do a lot. They are also trying to clean up a lot of the mess caused by religion -your version of Christianity in particular. Mayhap if your guys were a little more circumspect and used common sense you might have a leg to stand on. But you don't, so your argument is just lip service....


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 10, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> You call planned parenthood evil. You toss around that word like it doesn't have a meaning. That is terrible. Planned parenthood do a lot. They are also trying to clean up a lot of the mess caused by religion -your version of Christianity in particular. Mayhap if your guys were a little more circumspect and used common sense you might have a leg to stand on. But you don't, so your argument is just lip service....


Margaret Sanger belonged to an organization called the American Eugenics Society, organized in the early 1900's. Members from the American Eugenics Society actually formed Sanger's original group whose name was changed to Planned Parenthood, but even the latter's first three presidents were officers or members in the AES, including Alan Guttmacher. Sanger is listed as a member in 1956 under her then-married name, Mrs. Noah Slee.

Later called social biology, genetics, and population control, eugenics was a "scientific" endeavor born from evolutionary biology. It was never confined to state-sponsorship under Communists and Socialist dictators. Eugenics operated quite openly in the United States, England and around the world. The efforts of the American Eugenics Society resulted in many states passing laws to sterilize more than 63,000 Americans. Several states passed official apologies in the 1990's. The eugenics movement, particularly Margaret Sanger, ranted against the Catholic Church for opposing eugenic legislation and ideology.

Read more: Margaret Sanger and the eugenics movement - The Denver Post Margaret Sanger and the eugenics movement - The Denver Post
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: Terms of Use - The Denver Post
Margaret Sanger and the eugenics movement - The Denver Post
Oh and this.
. They simply chose new words to describe eugenics. As recently as 1968, one of the leading evolutionary biologists and an officer in the American Eugenics Society, Theodosius Dobzhansky, said that the word "genetics" meant the same thing as "eugenics" and commended the goals of eugenics. The control of reproduction remained the primary goal of eugenics in order to improve the human gene pool. Throughout its existence Planned Parenthood has been a key tool to reduce or eliminate births among blacks, other minorities and the disabled.

Read more: Margaret Sanger and the eugenics movement - The Denver Post Margaret Sanger and the eugenics movement - The Denver Post
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: Terms of Use - The Denver Post


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2011)

Not that the author of those Denver Post articles has an agenda. Right?
Messall und "rebecca" - Person / Info zu Name - Personensuche Yasni.com

Rebecca R. Messall &mdash; Catholicism.org - Saint Benedict Center, The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary
Sophisticated marketing hides eugenics background of the Pill, writer says :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 10, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Not that the author of those Denver Post articles has an agenda. Right?
> Messall und "rebecca" - Person / Info zu Name - Personensuche Yasni.com
> 
> Rebecca R. Messall &mdash; Catholicism.org - Saint Benedict Center, The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary
> Sophisticated marketing hides eugenics background of the Pill, writer says :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)


Yeah, pointing out the truth and history of it, Sanger herself wrote about it.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2011)

"Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent "dysgenic" children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and dismissed "positive eugenics" (which promoted greater fertility for the "fitter" upper classes) as impractical. Though many leaders in the negative eugenics movement were calling for active euthanasia of the "unfit," Sanger spoke out against such methods. She believed that women with the power and knowledge of birth control were in the best position to produce "fit" children. She rejected any type of eugenics that would take control out of the hands of those actually giving birth."

Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 10, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> "Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent "dysgenic" children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and dismissed "positive eugenics" (which promoted greater fertility for the "fitter" upper classes) as impractical. Though many leaders in the negative eugenics movement were calling for active euthanasia of the "unfit," Sanger spoke out against such methods. She believed that women with the power and knowledge of birth control were in the best position to produce "fit" children. She rejected any type of eugenics that would take control out of the hands of those actually giving birth."
> 
> Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


     Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents.

 Margaret Sangers early writings. 
     It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant [emphasis added].

 Margaret Sanger on human waste 
     The most serious charge that can be brought against modern "benevolence" is that is encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression.

 Margaret Sangers conclusion upon human waste 
    In "A Plan for Peace," Sanger suggested Congress set up a special department to study population problems and appoint a "Parliament of Population." One of the main objectives of the "Population Congress" would be "to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population." This would be accomplished by applying a "stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation [ in addition to tightening immigration laws] to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."

 Margaret Sanger, 1932 
    "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."

 Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, on immigrants and the poor


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As near as I can figure, it's like real estate:  location, location, location.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



Ah, the ever-popular "morality follows legality" argument.  It should be the law, because it's the law!  When unable to think about the moral ramifications, hide behind legality.

Cowardice would be funny, if it weren't so damned pathetic.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2011)

Yeah, those women who have abortions are cowards. That's the one!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



Never mind the fact that the discussion was what SHOULD the law be from the beginning.  YOU were the one arguing morality based on legality, while everyone else was arguing legality based on morality.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Is everyone who doesn't support abortion ok with people dropping those babies off at their houses once their born? we will see how long they stay anti abortion when they have to come out of pocket to support those kids.



Yeah, THAT'S what it is.  We're only against slaughtering infants because we haven't considered the necessity of paying for their care afterward.  If we could just realize that the little ankle biters cost money, we'd switch right around and advocate infanticide in a heartbeat!

Methinks you should stop projecting your own coldbloodedness onto others.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Are you Bern's accountant?  Are you somehow privy to Bern's financial information, telling you that he/she does not contribute money to organizations devoted to the care of unwanted babies?  Because if you aren't, you need to shut the fuck up with your asinine assumptions that everyone is a heartless pisswad, just because that's the position YOU would take.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Have any of you anti abortion people even adopted an orphan? or even have a foster kid? I doubt it.



You doubt it based on what?  The assumption that you represent the median standard in morality for others?  Or just an overwhelming desire to believe that your position on the issue doesn't reek like month-old garbage?  It looks remarkably to me like you want to tear people who disagree with you down so that you don't have to deal with how bad they make you look in comparison.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Well, if killing people is an acceptable alternative to having to support them when you're too poor to have another baby ::sob, sob:: why don't we just let her off one of her older kids?  Maybe she's got a teenager who's being a bit mouthy.  And hell, everyone knows how much THOSE little bastards cost for food and clothes.  At least that way, you can say that EVERYONE got a turn at life before being flushed as an expensive nuisance to their slut mother who can't afford 'em but can't seem to stop fucking.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Wow, thanks for that psychic reading, Mss Cleo.  Always good to hear someone tell us definitively what another person on the fucking Internet has and has not done with their lives.

Do you even know FrazzledGear's real name?  No?  But you're going to tell us for a fact that he/she has never done anything regarding the care of unwanted infants?

Shut the fuck up yourself, because you're really starting to look desperately defensive now.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Seems a bit hypocritical to ME for you to advocate killing infants on the basis of cost effectiveness, and then actually try to claim the moral high ground and lecture other people for not being up to YOUR moral standards.

Could you please tell me what qualifies YOU to demand that anyone justify the morality of their position to YOU?  What is it that you have said in this thread that should make anyone WANT your good opinion?  Frankly, I've found your remarks rather repulsive.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2011)

now a zygote or foetus is an infant?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

TossObama said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



I do have to comment on one thing you said.  A lot of men would love a woman for a girlfriend who was all about fucking and aborting.  Those men used to be called "cads".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Okay, in the interests of balance and even-handedness, I have to correct this.

Cells are not organisms.  They are, as you said, UNITS of organisms.  They are not themselves organisms.  At least not in terms of human cells.

The problem with the "wad of cells" argument is that all organisms beyond single-celled ones are exactly that:  wads of cells.  So it's not mutually exclusive to being an organism.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



This is a fallacy.  If there were no legal abortion, there would be many, MANY fewer unwanted pregnancies.

Ask yourself this:  why weren't social services and orphanages flooded prior to Roe v. Wade?

And again, your "point" has nothing to do with what "anti-abortion goons" do or do not want and everything to do with what YOU want to BELIEVE they want so you don't have to feel like support for abortion makes a person a coldhearted piece of shit.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



No, that's the distinction they want to invent, now that all their previous arguments have been turned to shit by advancing medical science.  When in doubt, invent a bullshit nothing concept like "personhood" and try to make THAT the argument.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 10, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> now a zygote or foetus is an infant?


It is not a puppy.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Ooh, another Miss Cleo moment where you tell us all about the private life and actions of an anonymous poster on the Internet.

While you're at it, can you give me Saturday's Powerball numbers?


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 10, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > now a zygote or foetus is an infant?
> ...



It's not an infant either....


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> It didn't take HG long to melt down, did it?



No, but it sure is going on for a long time.

This is what usually happens when people know they've been shown for what they really are, rather than what they'd like to believe they are:  they start lashing out at everyone who makes them feel bad about themselves by being better people in comparison.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

jillian said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Yeah . . . in the Constitution you made up for yourself.  The one that actually governs the United States says no such thing.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 10, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Yes it is an unborn infant at a different stage of life, sort of like a preteen that develops into another stage.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Not quite.  The original Roe v. Wade decision allowed states to regulate or even ban it in the third trimester.  Of course, the companion decision of Doe v. Bolton essentially nullified this by imposing a vague "protection of the mother" loophole that could be interpreted however the doctor liked.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



Infant has a definition. Go look it up.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

jillian said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Because abortion zealots insist on slaughtering babies if we don't?


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



Non sequitur. There is no such thing as an abortion zealot....


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

jillian said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



You approve?  YOU APPROVE?!  Who the FUCK do you think you are, superciliously doling out approval to people, as though they're making life decisions in the desperate hope that you'll pat them on the head?  Jesus GOD, can you be any more arrogant and condescending?!

"I approve."  I don't know if Lisa is going to tell you to shove your approval where the sun don't shine, but I sure as hell think you ought to.  If I hadn't already neg repped you for your bullshit "How many babies have YOU adopted" argument, I'd do it for THIS conceited pile of steaming offal.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

jillian said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Whereas if you were willing to submit to the Lord High Inquisitor's interrogation as to your personal life, to determine whether or not you're allowed to hold your opinions according to her standards, THEN there'd be something to talk about.

Let's talk about who died and left you in charge, Jillian.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

jillian said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Do YOU understand that even if she wasn't religious, she could and probably would still oppose legalized abortion?  No, of course you don't, because it's too damned convenient for you to just lump two groups you hate into one big group, so that you can just dismiss them and never be forced to think about anything except how right and good and righteous you are.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

jillian said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



This from little Miss "I approve".  Better to think you're going to Heaven than to think you're God, in my opinion.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics (Feb 10, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


I stand corrected.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> You approve?  YOU APPROVE?!  Who the FUCK do you think you are, superciliously doling out approval to people, as though they're making life decisions in the desperate hope that you'll pat them on the head? .



Oh god, the irony of this post is..is...is...unbelievable....Just when the Cesspit can't get any more arrogant/ignorant <insert derogatory adjective here>, she posts the above drivel....


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



Good for you.  Too many people - especially the self-righteous atheists who try to teach Christianity to Christians - don't get the difference at all.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Human tissue which contains DNA is not a human being, a human person with consciousness or sentience.
> 
> The morning after pill is not murder.



Well, thank you for putting an end to any arguments that appendectomies aren't murder.  Should one of those ever start up, we will be well-armed to deal with it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



They've never been able to grasp that different names denote different stages of development in the SAME CREATURE, ie. a human being, rather than denoting DIFFERENT CREATURES.  I dunno why.  Either because they're too stupid to understand it, or admitting they understand it destroys their position.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Er, that's what I'm saying dumbarse....More irony - god I could write a book. So you agree that an infant is not a zygote or foetus, but a developmental stage of a human being? Than why did YOU (backed up by Lisa) say otherwise.

Talking of stupid...go look in one of your many mirrors in your dungeon. You'll see the epitome of the word....


----------



## Jroc (Feb 10, 2011)

The anti-Abortion people are always going to have the high moral ground. Doesn't matter what the pro-abortionist say they know who has the morally correct position, they can try to rationalize all they want, We know what is right, And so do they.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2011)

Jroc said:


> The anti-Abortion people are always going to have the high moral ground. Doesn't matter what the pro-abortionist say they know who has the morally correct position, they can try to rationalize all they want, We know what is right, And so do they.



I disagree. You think those people who kill doctors and bomb clinics are moral?


----------



## jillian (Feb 10, 2011)

Jroc said:


> The anti-Abortion people are always going to have the high moral ground. Doesn't matter what the pro-abortionist say they know who has the morally correct position, they can try to rationalize all they want, We know what is right, And so do they.



first of all, and you've been corrected on this before, no one is PRO-abortion. people are either pro or anti choice.

and thinking the anti-choice brigade always has the moral upper hand is an outright lie. it is not moral to give hospitals permission to let a woman die rather than perform an abortion that is necessary to save her life.

it is not moral to force a 10 year old who is a victim of incest to carry a child to term.

it is not moral to murder a doctor for performing a lawful procedure.

it is so easy to pretend to be moral when you've never had and never will have such choices to make.

but keep on feeling self-satisfied.


----------



## jillian (Feb 10, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



i'm not an atheist, wacko. and i have more morality and compassion in my little finger than you have in your entire body.

you think a pregnant woman is just another sub waiting to be lashed by you and your holier than thou brigade of doms, mistress cecile?


----------



## jillian (Feb 10, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



funny, i'm not the one trying to impose my will on others. seems to me the control fetish is on the other foot... not mine, mistress cecile.

thank you for illustrating that this issue is all about the rabid religious right's RELIGIOUS beliefs and hatred for anyone who doesn't view the world in the limited, hypocritical way that you do.

thank G-d for the first amendment's separation of church and state. 

and while you're at it, you might want to go give another read to jesus' actual words about not judging and how judgment is for G-d....


----------



## jillian (Feb 10, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



i bet you're stupid enough to think an egg is a chicken, too.


----------



## jillian (Feb 10, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



in YOUR religious belief system. not in mine.

yes, mistress cecile, only you know the truth about human development. only you and your self-important, self-righteous, holy-rolling, hypocritical rabid religious right know best how to make moral choices for everyone else.

alert the media.


----------



## jillian (Feb 10, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > You approve?  YOU APPROVE?!  Who the FUCK do you think you are, superciliously doling out approval to people, as though they're making life decisions in the desperate hope that you'll pat them on the head? .
> ...



yeah, self-righteous, ignorant arrogant twits are like that.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Well, I know she's a Dominatrix, but doesn't mean she has to bring her bitchy bossy self to these threads. 

She's one of the few people on these boards that shouts and hollers about others' behaviour, yet carries on exactly like what she is complaining about...


----------



## jillian (Feb 10, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



i have a better idea. let's talk about who died and left YOU in charge of what other people can and can't do with their own bodies?


----------



## jillian (Feb 10, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



yep. i think they call it projection.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I think, she thinks, we're all her clients....


----------



## jillian (Feb 10, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



i'd suggest not relying on misress cecile on that issue. there was ALWAYS an exception for the life of the mother.

how arrogant to think women should die because of your religious beliefs.


----------



## jillian (Feb 10, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



so i take it you believe jim crow laws are constitutional since the constitution doesn't specifically say the words that segregation is illegal.

as for the "constitution that _ made up for [my]self, i would never presume such a thing. rather, i'd defer to justices berger, douglas, brennan, stewart, white, marshall and brennan.

given a choice between accepting your pathetic and self-serving effort at constitutional construction and their educated, deliberate and well thought out determination on the issue, i think i'll go with them.

tell me, mistress cecile, do you have a right to privacy at your fetish parties? or can government come crashing in?_


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

jillian said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > The anti-Abortion people are always going to have the high moral ground. Doesn't matter what the pro-abortionist say they know who has the morally correct position, they can try to rationalize all they want, We know what is right, And so do they.
> ...



There you go with that "Arbiter of the Universe" thing.  You must think your twat is platinum-plated, the way you wander around, "approving" of people and designating titles for things.

If you can call us "anti-choice", then we sure the fuck can call you pro-abortion.  In fact, you can "correct" all you fucking like, and you're STILL pro-abortion.  Just as long as you're out there fanatically fighting against ANYTHING that might lower the abortion rate, you've earned it.

The trick to feeling proud of your position on an issue is not to relabel it; it's to choose a position that's actually worthy of pride.



jillian said:


> and thinking the anti-choice brigade always has the moral upper hand is an outright lie. it is not moral to give hospitals permission to let a woman die rather than perform an abortion that is necessary to save her life.



But somehow, it's moral to order a hospital to let a woman starve to death rather than providing the feeding tube necessary to save her life.  And unlike you, I can actually document MY examples, instead of just making shit up.



jillian said:


> it is not moral to force a 10 year old who is a victim of incest to carry a child to term.



But somehow, it's moral to give her a secret abortion without reporting her pregnancy to the police so her molester can be prosecuted.  Also documentable, as opposed to made up out of your own fevered imaginings of the "evils" that exist outside of a world where millions of babies are killed every year.



jillian said:


> it is not moral to murder a doctor for performing a lawful procedure.



It's also not moral to lie about people with no connection with that murderer being responsible for his actions.  The PRO-ABORTION side is outraged by even the implication that they're in favor of killing babies, despite their support for it out of their own mouths, but see no hypocrisy in screaming, "Doctor killer!" at people who actually condemn such acts.

That's why it's always such a joke being lectured on morality by Jillian, who wouldn't recognize a moral if it crawled in her panties with her.  It's like being lectured on how to make love to a woman by a pimply-faced 15-year-old virgin computer geek.



jillian said:


> it is so easy to pretend to be moral when you've never had and never will have such choices to make.
> 
> but keep on feeling self-satisfied.



It's so easy to pretend to be moral when you've never had a moral and will never have to figure out how to operate under such a burden.

But keep on feeling like a good person, despite all the evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

jillian said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



My, my.  I didn't name any names, and actually wasn't even thinking of you.  Are you paranoid, or just suffering under a guilty conscience?



jillian said:


> you think a pregnant woman is just another sub waiting to be lashed by you and your holier than thou brigade of doms, mistress cecile?



Why, Jillian, are you trying to make moral judgements about people's lifestyle choices?  How very conservative and hypocritical of you.

By all means, hold your putrid breath until I start giving a shit what you think.  

It amuses me, however, how much it bothers you that I think you're an immoral, baby-killing dumbass, though.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2011)

Cesspit -Go find me one woman, just one, who has had an abortion and is 'pro' the procedure. Take your time.....


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2011)

Cesspit - you calling Jillian dumb is akin to Hitler accusing Mother Theresa of genocide....


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

jillian said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



No, I'm bright enough to know the difference between birds and mammals, and not think there's any valid analogy between the way two completely separate and different lifeforms develop.

Why don't you go whole hog into irrelevancy and try to draw an analogy between humans and trees, while you're at it?  I'm getting so many laughs from your sad attempts at educated debate tonight, I may get a hernia.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Or whiplash....


----------



## jillian (Feb 10, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> My, my.  I didn't name any names, and actually wasn't even thinking of you.  Are you paranoid, or just suffering under a guilty conscience



i have no guilty conscience. your post got the response your ugliness deserved.



jillian said:


> Why, Jillian, are you trying to make moral judgements about people's lifestyle choices?  How very conservative and hypocritical of you.



nice spin, mistress cecile. i couldn't care less about your lifestyle. as long as you're only dealing with consenting adults and acting within the bounds of agreed upon behavior, more power to you. couldn't care less. i am pointing out, however, since comprehension seems to be difficult for you, that you don't have any standing to judge anyone else. see how that works?



> By all means, hold your putrid breath until I start giving a shit what you think.
> 
> It amuses me, however, how much it bothers you that I think you're an immoral, baby-killing dumbass, though.



i assume you care what i think of you about as much i care what you think of me.

but then again, i'm also not the one running around pretending i'm a good christian.

i do believe there's a word for your type of behavior and attitude... 

oh yeah, 


hypocrite. that's it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 10, 2011)

jillian said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



No, you stupid twat, stages of development aren't found in a religious belief system.  They're found in biology.

And no, I'm not the only one who knows the truth about human development.  Anyone who's taken a biology course ALSO knows that truth.

I'm just the only one IN THIS CONVERSATION who knows it, apparently.

I realize it's deeply disappointing to you that science just refuses to support your desire to commit infanticide AND to encourage your frothing, rabid hatred of Christians.  Fortunately for you, you've never let little things like facts affect your positions, anyway.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2011)

J

I think the Cesspit is drinking. What, it must be about 10ish over there now? Well, I hope she's been drinking - i'd hate to think that's how she usually speaks to people. Then again, she has always been an ignorant, arrogant dumbarse....hhhhmmm


----------



## jillian (Feb 10, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> J
> 
> I think the Cesspit is drinking. What, it must be about 10ish over there now? Well, I hope she's been drinking - i'd hate to think that's how she usually speaks to people. Then again, she has always been an ignorant, arrogant dumbarse....hhhhmmm



well, i don't know what timezone she's in. but it's 11:45 here. i dunno.. i think she might well usually speak to people like that. the spittle at the sides of her mouth becomes her.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > J
> ...



Could be spittle. I thought it was foam...I know I posted this before, but I can't help myself. This is who I think is typing those posts when I read her moronic drivel...


----------



## jillian (Feb 10, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...




foam works. lol.. 

i see a resemblance.


----------



## The Infidel (Feb 10, 2011)

DING DING....

Round two.....




​


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> DING DING....
> 
> Round two.....
> 
> ...



I can vouch that the chick on the left looks a little like J....add about 150 pounds to the one of the right and you might have Cesspit......but uglier....


----------



## dilloduck (Feb 10, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Warning-----this could be construed as a  "fat ass bitch" thread and the gang bangers will git ya.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2011)

dilloduck said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Are there any gang bangers on this board? Gunny??


----------



## The Infidel (Feb 10, 2011)




----------



## Jroc (Feb 11, 2011)

jillian said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > The anti-Abortion people are always going to have the high moral ground. Doesn't matter what the pro-abortionist say they know who has the morally correct position, they can try to rationalize all they want, We know what is right, And so do they.
> ...



Rationalizing again either you push Abortion or you don't. Seems to me you're pushing it, and if you support Planned parenthood you're pushing profit from it. You do support abortion on demand right?



> and thinking the anti-choice brigade always has the moral upper hand is an outright lie. it is not moral to give hospitals permission to let a woman die rather than perform an abortion that is necessary to save her life.



Still reaching.. I never said that, you said it was a "matter of conscience" I said only if the mothers life is in danger Reread my posts.



> it is not moral to force a 10 year old who is a victim of incest to carry a child to term.
> 
> it is not moral to murder a doctor for performing a lawful procedure.
> 
> ...




You continue to reach, rationalizing your position to make yourself feel better about your position. First of all, how often is your ten old scenario actually in play? 1% of all abortions are performed because of rape or incest. Today abortion is mainly used as a form of birth control and  Who advocated murder here? That&#8217;s a stupid comment on its face, this whole thread is about saving life try again.

 Let me clarify the conservative position for you. While I believe that abortion is wrong in most cases and will speak out and work for the preservation of human life, my position is there is no right to abortion in the Constitution, and any law concerning abortion should be left to each individual state. No federal funding should be allowed, If you want to send some money to support abortion that is your right, but don't force me to do the same.


----------



## midcan5 (Feb 11, 2011)

I heard not a word out of the pro life people over the invasion of Iraq, I hear nothing from them on poverty and the child who dies every few seconds in the world, I hear nothing from them on supporting prenatal care for the poor or sharing the wealth, I hear nothing from them on education or prevention of pregnancy, they are the biggest hypocrites in modern society as all they want to do is control another while they moralize and feel holy. Fakes all of them. 

"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

"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time." HISTORY OF ABORTION


"It seems to me that a case can be made for taking a human life statute that dates the origin of personhood at conception to be an "establishment" of religious doctrine. The argument runs as follows. For reasons given above, it is quite contrary to common sense to claim that a newly fertilized human ovum is already an actual person. Employing the term 'person' in the normal fashion, no one thinks of a fertilized egg in that way. The only arguments that have been advanced to the conclusion that fertilized eggs are people, common sense notwithstanding, are arguments with theological premises. These premises are part of large theological and philosophical systems that are very much worthy of respect indeed, but they can neither be established nor refuted without critical discussion of the whole systems of which they form a part. In fact, many conscientious persons reject them, often in favor of doctrines stemming from rival theological systems; so for the state to endorse the personhood of newly fertilized ova would be for the state to embrace one set of controversial theological tenets rather than others, in effect to enforce the teaching of some churches against those of other churches (and nonchurches), and to back up this enforcement with severe criminal penalties. The state plays this constitutionally prohibited role when it officially affirms a doctrine that is opposed to common sense and understanding and whose only proposed arguments proceed from theological premises. This case, it seems to me, is a good one even if there is reason, as there might be, for affirming the personhood of fetuses in the second or third trimester of pregnancy."  Joel Feinberg  Joel Feinberg, Abortion


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 11, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> It's interesting how this topic is such a passionate one.  It really cuts through to the meaning of human life.
> 
> The closest I personally came to this issue, is that I helped drive a college roommate to NY state for an abortion.  At the time, I was attending a Catholic college in KY.  The women in my dorm were incredibly mean to this girl, who'd gotten herself pregnant.  At that time, my spiritual beliefs were that the soul entered the fetus close to the time of birth.   I did not think life begins at conception, like I do now.
> 
> ...




And that is a positin I've always find rather illogical. That life begins at conception isa  rather arbitrary point in time. True, conception is the beginning of creating a human life. But a feralized egg is not a human life. To argue that life begins at conception one would need to argue against things like contraception. You would need to argue that life really begins at adolescense when women start producing eggs and men, sperm. You would be required to argue that using condom or birth control is also abortion. Whether you take the morning after pill after an egg has been fertilized or you use birth control, in either case you are aborting the process of starting a human life.


----------



## Care4all (Feb 11, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting how this topic is such a passionate one.  It really cuts through to the meaning of human life.
> ...



that is the position of the Catholic Church....no BC pills, no rubbers, no morning after pill....only abstaining from sex or the rhythmic method is permitted for birth control.


----------



## High_Gravity (Feb 11, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



You can eat shit and die you big mouth stupid fucking XXXX

Unless in the flame zone, please refrain from using THAT X'd word....thanks...Care


----------



## chikenwing (Feb 11, 2011)

> And that is a positin I've always find rather illogical. That life begins at conception isa rather arbitrary point in time. True, conception is the beginning of creating a human life. But a feralized egg is not a human life. To argue that life begins at conception one would need to argue against things like contraception. You would need to argue that life really begins at adolescense when women start producing eggs and men, sperm. You would be required to argue that using condom or birth control is also abortion. Whether you take the morning after pill after an egg has been fertilized or you use birth control, in either case you are aborting the process of starting a human life.


 
LOL

What?? talk about illogical

To say life dosn't start at conception is the epitome of illogical thought,how could it be anything else,look at yourself,yu were once just what you deny

Argue life begins at adolescents because of a pro life position???really???!!!!


----------



## High_Gravity (Feb 11, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > It didn't take HG long to melt down, did it?
> ...



You wanna talk about Miss Cleo look at yourself bitch, your making this assumption based off of what some internet posts? go fuck yourself you worthless cow.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 11, 2011)

chikenwing said:


> > And that is a positin I've always find rather illogical. That life begins at conception isa rather arbitrary point in time. True, conception is the beginning of creating a human life. But a feralized egg is not a human life. To argue that life begins at conception one would need to argue against things like contraception. You would need to argue that life really begins at adolescense when women start producing eggs and men, sperm. You would be required to argue that using condom or birth control is also abortion. Whether you take the morning after pill after an egg has been fertilized or you use birth control, in either case you are aborting the process of starting a human life.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think you're misunderstanding and jumping to conclusions. If you read some of this thread you would see I'm pro-choice.......to a point. 

It isn't a question of started or not started at conception. The point is sperm, eggs, zygotes, they are all building blocks of a human being, but they aren't a human being. They are stages in a process to becoming one. A fertilzed egg is just as important to that process as the sperm that fertilzed it, therefore aborting the sperm from reaching the egg through contraception has the same consequence as taking a morining after pill to abort the fertilized egg. Life does NOT begin at conception because you can't create something from nothing.

My point was simply to show the flaw in the uber pro-life argument that any abortion after conception should be illegal. I believe such a position requires them to actualy argue that contraception be illegal.


----------



## Care4all (Feb 11, 2011)

Pregnancy occurs a few days to a week AFTER conception, after the egg is fertilized.  Many fertilized eggs die a natural death, when they fail to attach themselves to the mother's uterus....and then when they do attach to the uterus, a healthy percentage naturally abort, spontaneous abortion.

It's not as easy as one may think, to get pregnant, at least for some gals....


----------



## chikenwing (Feb 11, 2011)

Life does NOT begin at conception because you can't create something from nothing.

When does it then?? eggs and sperm are nothing?? it will always develop into a human and here is the kicker a recognizable human even if to the average person it is not at the very first points in a persons development.never a goldfish or Labrador retriever. At the very point of conception cell development starts,it is NOT inanimate.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 11, 2011)

I got this charming neg rep message from High Gravity:

"Fuck you you stupid ignorant *XXXX* , I said that shit weeks ago and I stand by everything that I said, go take your useless bullshit rhetoric and shove it up your shithole and your *XXXX* you stupid bitch."

Just thought I'd share that for anyone who still thought HG had any moral authority to judge ANYONE else for their opinions, motivations, or real-life actions.

Clearly, HG hates women and deep down, hates himself for his position on abortion.  I now suspect that he has paid for someone to have an abortion, probably just to protect himself from the expense of child support, and now feels that he must tear down, abuse, and denigrate anyone who disagrees with him in order to run from the knowledge that he's a heartless, self-centered baby murderer.

Personally, I intend to let him rot in the self-imposed hell of his own lack of character, decency, or morality by putting him on ignore from this moment forward.  Spew all the hatred and vitriol and abuse of women that you like, HG.  It's just you listening now, and I hope it doesn't help soothe your guilt one iota, because you deserve to hate yourself.

FLUSH!


----------



## High_Gravity (Feb 11, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I got this charming neg rep message from High Gravity:
> 
> "Fuck you you stupid ignorant *XXXX* , I said that shit weeks ago and I stand by everything that I said, go take your useless bullshit rhetoric and shove it up your shithole and your  *XXXX*  you stupid bitch."
> 
> ...



Yes I sent that message to you and I stand by everything that I said, I don't hate women but I hate spiteful useless cows such as yourself. You are dismissed.


----------



## jillian (Feb 11, 2011)

Jroc said:


> Rationalizing again either you push Abortion or you don't. Seems to me you're pushing it, and if you support Planned parenthood you're pushing profit from it. You do support abortion on demand right?



I suppose you can give simplistic responses to complex problems. I support the decision in Roe v Wade which keeps the G-d squad out of women's bodies. I don't think you have the life experience or wisdom to make those decisions for others.



> Still reaching.. I never said that, you said it was a "matter of conscience" I said only if the mothers life is in danger Reread my posts.



i don't need to re-read your posts. you seem to refuse to analyze and extrapolate. you have a very literal way of looking at things which isn't consistent with the world as I see it and isn't consistent with my view of religion.



> You continue to reach, rationalizing your position to make yourself feel better about your position. First of all, how often is your ten old scenario actually in play? 1% of all abortions are performed because of rape or incest. Today abortion is mainly used as a form of birth control and  Who advocated murder here? That&#8217;s a stupid comment on its face, this whole thread is about saving life try again.
> 
> Let me clarify the conservative position for you. While I believe that abortion is wrong in most cases and will speak out and work for the preservation of human life, my position is there is no right to abortion in the Constitution, and any law concerning abortion should be left to each individual state. No federal funding should be allowed, If you want to send some money to support abortion that is your right, but don't force me to do the same.



I know what the "conservative" position is. That is fine... for a conservative. But how pathetic that you think you need to ram that down people's throats who don't agree with you. Stay out of other people's moral judgment.

Conservatives pretend to want "small government"... except they want it to extend into a woman's uterus.

now respond to what i said instead of obfuscating and hiding behind platitudes...



			
				jillian said:
			
		

> it is not moral to force a 10 year old who is a victim of incest to carry a child to term.
> 
> it is not moral to murder a doctor for performing a lawful procedure.
> 
> ...



And for the record, there is a reason i can't stand orthodoxy of any stripe... holy rollers have this perverse idea that they have the only answers.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 11, 2011)

Nothing like the A word to get everyone going.

Me?  The fetus does not out weight the mental or physical well being of the mother if a choice becomes necesary between the two.  The mother wins out every time.


----------



## chikenwing (Feb 11, 2011)

Me? The fetus does not out weight the mental or physical well being of the mother if a choice becomes necesary between the two. The mother wins out every time.


Here is another angle,the choice between you or your child,who would win???

There is no difference between the two situations,an unborn child,is still just as human as the mother,just not shaped the same,a kid born missing limbs is any less a human?? not shaped the same as most but still just as human.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 11, 2011)

chikenwing said:


> Me? The fetus does not out weight the mental or physical well being of the mother if a choice becomes necesary between the two. The mother wins out every time.
> 
> 
> Here is another angle,the choice between you or your child,who would win???
> ...



thank you for making it very clear that choice is not yours, only mine.  Thus, the choice is only that of the mother, and you don't have a fricking thing morally to say about it.


----------



## Jroc (Feb 11, 2011)

jillian said:


> I suppose you can give simplistic responses to complex problems



A simple view of the world is sometimes the best. The problem with liberals is they make everything much more complicated then they have to be.  





> I support the decision in Roe v Wade which keeps the G-d squad out of women's bodies. I don't think you have the life experience or wisdom to make those decisions for others.



Whats wrong with letting the states pass their own laws regarding abortion? The problem with liberals is they know whats right, and they want to make everybody conform to their view of right and wrong. Roe V Wade is unconstitutional ruling and should have never been ruled as it was, and I would argue if we had the technology we have now and been able to see the baby in the womb, as we can today, the ruling might have been different.  



> I don't need to re-read your posts. You seem to refuse to analyze and extrapolate. You have a very literal way of looking at things which isn't consistent with the world as I see it and isn't consistent with my view of religion.




Refuse to analzy? As I said liberals always make things way too complicated, I think it makes them believe they are smarter or more enlightened. As far as Religion, your view is fine for you. I just wanted people to know that all Jews don't have the same view as you on the abortion issue    



> I know what the "conservative" position is. That is fine... for a conservative. But how pathetic that you think you need to ram that down people's throats who don't agree with you. Stay out of other people's moral judgment.





> Conservatives pretend to want "small government"... except they want it to extend into a woman's uterus.
> 
> now respond to what I said instead of obfuscating and hiding behind platitudes...



Small federal Government with limited powers, which is one of the principles, this country was founded on. Some people want a big Federal government so as to push and enforce their view of "social justice" that&#8217;s not what we are about. 



> And for the record, there is a reason i can't stand orthodoxy of any stripe... holy rollers have this perverse idea that they have the only answers.



I'm a conservative ,Conservative Jew. I don&#8217;t believe women should be wearing traditionally men&#8217;s garb, just as Tallit or Kipot, and I&#8217;m not crazy about women Rabbis either. Does not mean they are not equals? of course they are. I just like to stick to more of the Jewish tradition in regards my religion.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 11, 2011)

jroc is describing the thinking fallacies of far lefties and far righties.

The solid majority of centrist America firmly believes in federally regulated and limited abortions.  Don't like it?  Take it up with the Roman Catholic SCOTUS majority, who will turn the naysayer's collective ass out into the alley through the back door.


----------



## Anguille (Feb 11, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I got this charming neg rep message from High Gravity:
> 
> "Fuck you you stupid ignorant *XXXX*  , I said that shit weeks ago and I stand by everything that I said, go take your useless bullshit rhetoric and shove it up your shithole and your  *XXXX*  you stupid bitch."
> 
> ...


 Thank you for sharing.


----------



## shintao (Feb 11, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, if you can flop that fetus on the table and it survives on it's own, it sounds viable to me.

Women should be encouraged to adopt out unwanted babies, maybe we would have less abortions. How many here will take a deformed drug baby and raise it?


----------



## Jroc (Feb 11, 2011)

shintao said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.
> ...



You praise China  You have no credibility on this issue.


----------



## Jroc (Feb 11, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> jroc is describing the thinking fallacies of far lefties and far righties.



Wrong Jake, I am an originalist.. Not quite as enlightened as you. Sorry buddy.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 11, 2011)

Jroc said:


> Wrong Jake, I am an originalist.. Not quite as enlightened as you. Sorry buddy.



The solid majority of centrist America firmly believes in federally regulated and limited abortions. Don't like it? Take it up with the Roman Catholic SCOTUS majority, who will turn the naysayer's collective ass out into the alley through the back door.

The mother's life takes priority when it comes to an either or situation.  That's the law.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

shintao said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.
> ...






finally..some sense out of you. I agree.


----------



## Jroc (Feb 11, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> The solid majority of centrist America



You are probably right with that statement..."centrists"



> believes in federally regulated and limited abortions.



Limited? I don't see it  



> Don't like it? Take it up with the Roman Catholic SCOTUS majority, who will turn the naysayer's collective ass out into the alley through the back door.



I'm not Catholic



> The mother's life takes priority when it comes to an either or situation.  That's the law.



I agree, read the whole thread and you would have known I agree with that.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 11, 2011)

The big problem with this issue is that people who are uneducated on the biology and embryology need to draw their lines in the sand at extreme points that are over simplified, regardless of actual processes.  As someone else mentioned, a very large percentage of conceptions are naturally aborted, and no one even realized the woman is pregnant.  To claim the destruction of any conception is murder denies our very biology.  

The other issue is that the term "murder" is always reduced to a black and white issue by most people, instead of analyzed in an ethical perspective.  What does "murder" mean and imply exactly?  Does it apply in self-defense?  Neglect?  Does it apply to animals?  Plants? Bacteria?  Does intention matter?  Does it apply if it allows for release from pain?  ETHICS are generally not considered by people who discuss abortion in terms of "murder," as that term tells me the person is just jumping on a loaded word instead of making strong arguments on the actual topic.


----------



## Jroc (Feb 11, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> The big problem with this issue is that people who are uneducated on the biology and embryology need to draw their lines in the sand at extreme points that are over simplified, regardless of actual processes.  As someone else mentioned, a very large percentage of conceptions are *naturally aborted*, and no one even realized the woman is pregnant.  To claim the destruction of any conception is murder denies our very biology.



That&#8217;s the key word isn't it...a women probably wont know she is pregnant till after four weeks, So I don't see were "at conception" really matters. unless you have a problem with birth control pills, I have no problem with them. Even morning after pills, but that&#8217;s just me others do.  





> The other issue is that the term "murder" is always reduced to a black and white issue by most people, instead of analyzed in an ethical perspective.  What does "murder" mean and imply exactly?  Does it apply in self-defense?  Neglect?  Does it apply to animals?  Plants? Bacteria?  Does intention matter?  Does it apply if it allows for release from pain?  ETHICS are generally not considered by people who discuss abortion in terms of "murder," as that term tells me the person is just jumping on a loaded word instead of making strong arguments on the actual topic.



It might have been her intent when she put the "loaded" word murder in the title, Sure the hell gets people's blood boiling doesn't it.


----------



## Jroc (Feb 11, 2011)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkDiIdPq2Dw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkDiIdPq2Dw[/ame]


----------



## Cervantes22 (Feb 12, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I got this charming neg rep message from High Gravity:
> 
> "Fuck you you stupid ignorant *XXXX*  , I said that shit weeks ago and I stand by everything that I said, go take your useless bullshit rhetoric and shove it up your shithole and your *XXXX*   you stupid bitch."
> 
> ...






Cecilie1200 said:


> Ooh, another Miss Cleo moment where you tell us all about the private life and actions of an anonymous poster on the Internet.
> 
> While you're at it, can you give me Saturday's Powerball numbers?


----------



## BrianH (Feb 12, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> The big problem with this issue is that people who are uneducated on the biology and embryology need to draw their lines in the sand at extreme points that are over simplified, regardless of actual processes.  As someone else mentioned, a very large percentage of conceptions are naturally aborted, and no one even realized the woman is pregnant.  To claim the destruction of any conception is murder denies our very biology.
> 
> The other issue is that the term "murder" is always reduced to a black and white issue by most people, instead of analyzed in an ethical perspective.  What does "murder" mean and imply exactly?  Does it apply in self-defense?  Neglect?  Does it apply to animals?  Plants? Bacteria?  Does intention matter?  Does it apply if it allows for release from pain?  ETHICS are generally not considered by people who discuss abortion in terms of "murder," as that term tells me the person is just jumping on a loaded word instead of making strong arguments on the actual topic.



People die naturally also...By this example it's ok to "abort" people as well.


----------



## Intense (Feb 12, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> The big problem with this issue is that people who are uneducated on the biology and embryology need to draw their lines in the sand at extreme points that are over simplified, regardless of actual processes.  As someone else mentioned, a very large percentage of conceptions are naturally aborted, and no one even realized the woman is pregnant.  To claim the destruction of any conception is murder denies our very biology.
> 
> The other issue is that the term "murder" is always reduced to a black and white issue by most people, instead of analyzed in an ethical perspective.  What does "murder" mean and imply exactly?  Does it apply in self-defense?  Neglect?  Does it apply to animals?  Plants? Bacteria?  Does intention matter?  Does it apply if it allows for release from pain?  ETHICS are generally not considered by people who discuss abortion in terms of "murder," as that term tells me the person is just jumping on a loaded word instead of making strong arguments on the actual topic.



You seem to be going way out on a limb equating the unintentional loss of a Pregnancy, to the Intentional Abortion. Lets distinguish between what is beyond our control from that which we have total control of. Abortion is the Intentional taking of a Life, Nothing less.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 12, 2011)

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The solid majority of centrist America
> ...


 *Then you are a person of common sense and balance
*


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 12, 2011)

Jroc said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkDiIdPq2Dw


yeah those types of videos are always ridiculous.  anthropomorphizing a fetus and saying it is "crying" with "mommy" is just sad.  If we want to discuss this topic in a rational manner, we need to step past such emotional gags and anecdotal exaggerations.  I am interested how the author thought a fetus cries though.



BrianH said:


> People die naturally also...By this example it's ok to "abort" people as well.


You completely missed the point, being that conception cannot be considered a definitive line in the sand based on our very biology.  Sperm, egg, and embryo are all created and destroyed without any outside interference.  Claiming any one of those three is somehow a no-turning-back point just lacks insight. That point alone says nothing about the right and wrong of abortion whatsoever.

Again, the policy makers and judges who make decisions on these matters do so in a reasonable manner and have the capacity to analyze individual aspects of the issue.  I recommend you attempt the same.



Intense said:


> You seem to be going way out on a limb equating the unintentional loss of a Pregnancy, to the Intentional Abortion. Lets distinguish between what is beyond our control from that which we have total control of.


Oh?  Where did I state that?  I must have missed myself equating those two.  I made two points in the previous post:
1) Our biology does not definitively establish life with creation of sperm, egg, or embryo.
2) People reduce this topic to knee jerk reactions and keywords instead of discussing the ethics.



Intense said:


> Abortion is the Intentional taking of a Life, Nothing less.





			
				Smarterthanhick said:
			
		

> ETHICS are generally not considered by people who discuss abortion in terms of "murder," as that term tells me the person is just jumping on a loaded word instead of making strong arguments on the actual topic.


You can replace "murder" with "taking of a life" in my above quote.


----------



## BrianH (Feb 12, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> The big problem with this issue is that people who are uneducated on the biology and embryology need to draw their lines in the sand at extreme points that are over simplified, regardless of actual processes.  *As someone else mentioned, a very large percentage of conceptions are naturally aborted, and no one even realized the woman is pregnant.*  To claim the destruction of any conception is murder denies our very biology.
> 
> The other issue is that the term "murder" is always reduced to a black and white issue by most people, instead of analyzed in an ethical perspective.  What does "murder" mean and imply exactly?  Does it apply in self-defense?  Neglect?  Does it apply to animals?  Plants? Bacteria?  Does intention matter?  Does it apply if it allows for release from pain?  ETHICS are generally not considered by people who discuss abortion in terms of "murder," as that term tells me the person is just jumping on a loaded word instead of making strong arguments on the actual topic.



There's a big difference between things "naturally" happenning and intentional things.   If a fetus naturally aborts, then that's one thing, but someone ending a viable pregnancy is another.  People die of natural causes all of the time, but if it comes to be that grandma was given a highly toxic substance to speed up her death, then it's homicide.


----------



## Father Time (Feb 12, 2011)

Jroc said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkDiIdPq2Dw



That is so cheesy it makes me want to throw up.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 12, 2011)

An abortion is a homicide, yes; a murder _ipso facto_, no.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 12, 2011)

BrianH said:


> People die of natural causes all of the time, but if it comes to be that grandma was given a highly toxic substance to speed up her death, then it's homicide.


Or it's called the double effect, and it is done by healthcare providers in specific situations, and it is legal.

Again this is a perfect example of people reducing all the complexity of a topic into these black and white issues instead of analyzing the ethics of the matter.  



JakeStarkey said:


> An abortion is a homicide, yes; a murder _ipso facto_, no.


same point as before.  we can analyze the ethical issue, or we can throw some term that may or may not apply at it and call it a day.  Do you want to be lay person who will never understand why policy disagrees with you?  Or are you ready to delve into ethical reasoning?

To both of the above people I quoted, let's start with this: is ALL murder unethical without any exception?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 12, 2011)

STH, murder is a legal term.  Abortion is not, _ipso facto_, murder.  If the choice becomes either or in terms of health and life, mother or fetus, than the mother, as the wellspring of life, becomes paramount.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 12, 2011)

so while you haven't quite answered the question, I take it your answer is no.  You gave one good example of where it doesn't apply.  Let's look into that more.  Should a mother be given the choice to save the fetus instead of herself if desired?  Can you elaborate more as to your reasoning why the mother would have priority?  A fetus can grow to be a wellspring of life as well, after all.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 12, 2011)

Do not expect to answer for me, STH, when you can't answer for yourself.  The mother is more important than fetus if the mother's health or life is endangered.  If it comes to a choice, mom wins out every time.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 12, 2011)

I'm trying to find your reasoning, not put words in your mouth.  Correct me if I interpret you incorrectly.  So you stated "the mother is more important." Can I take it to mean that you do not believe her life is equal to that of the fetus?  Why is that?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 12, 2011)

I have explained above.  Look it up.  When a mother's health and or life is endangered, the mother's life is more important than that of the fetus is it becomes a choice of one or the other.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 12, 2011)

I am very Torn on the issue of Abortion.

It makes me sick to know that many times it is abused and used as belated Birth Control, but I also recognize it has a place, and there are times it is the best option.

As far as it being murder or not. I will say only this. There have been cases where someone killed a woman who was pregnant, and the person was charged with 2 counts of Murder. I have always found it strange. If you can get another count of murder for killing a woman who is pregnant. Then how is Abortion legal?


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 12, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> I have explained above.  Look it up.  When a mother's health and or life is endangered, the mother's life is more important than that of the fetus is it becomes a choice of one or the other.



One could actually argue, strictly from a logic stand point. That the unborn child has it's whole life to live, and contribute, and therefor is the more valuable life.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 12, 2011)

One could argue that, I agree, Charles.  I would disagree.  However, if a mother made the choice to give up her life for the unborn child to live, I would not interfere with that.


----------



## Jroc (Feb 12, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkDiIdPq2Dw
> ...



Well... that video does two things, Drives home this point I made.  



> That&#8217;s the key word isn't it...*a women probably wont know she is pregnant till after four weeks, *So I don't see were "at conception" really matters. unless you have a problem with birth control pills, I have no problem with them. Even morning after pills, but that&#8217;s just me others do.



And it pisses people off as evident here..



Father Time said:


> That is so cheesy it makes me want to throw up.



Plus I like the song.. I could have used a video of the fetus itself, but I've had good luck with that one .


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 13, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> I have explained above.  Look it up.  When a mother's health and or life is endangered, the mother's life is more important than that of the fetus is it becomes a choice of one or the other.


OK so we've established that you have some belief that a fetus's life is of lesser value than a living person.  



JakeStarkey said:


> However, if a mother made the choice to give up her life for the unborn child to live, I would not interfere with that.


And here we've established that you believe it should  be the woman's CHOICE to decide for herself, free from outside interference and restriction from other people.  

Interesting to see both of the above two conclusions were made by you.  You see pro-choice proponents believe the exact same thing, to differing degrees regarding the life value of a fetus.  Same idea though.  The only question is where you draw the line in the sand, and why.  



Jroc said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...


The point that pro-life groups are ridiculous and need to resort in misleading or false propaganda?


----------



## jillian (Feb 13, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> The point that pro-life groups are ridiculous and need to resort in misleading or false propaganda?



maybe part of the problem is that we humor them by calling them "pro life". they aren't pro life, they're pro birth. if they were pro life, they'd never allow a woman to die for a potential life. they'd never try to pass laws to give hospitals permission to allow living women to die for a potential life. (which would die when the woman dies anyway). they would never try to force a child to carry a pregnancy to term. they would force government to teach safe sex and would fund jobs/education programs and daycare for women who do choose to have children. and they sure as hell wouldn't defund WIC the second the rightwingnuts get into office.

so i think allowing them to feel self-satisifed by humoring them calling themselves pro life is just encouraging them. 

they are anti-choice and pro birth... nothing more.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 13, 2011)

SmartherThanHick is correct when he notes that I agree that the mother's life is more important if the fetus puts the mother's health or life in danger.  He also notes that I said the mother has the choice to make as she wishes.

If STH believes that a fetus always should prevail even if the mother dies than STH is a person who follows the devil.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 13, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> One could argue that, I agree, Charles.  I would disagree.  However, if a mother made the choice to give up her life for the unborn child to live, I would not interfere with that.



I agree, However this is a mute point to me. As danger to the life of the Mother is one of the Reasons for Abortion that I support. 

It is just skanks like my wifes little sister that I think should be forcibly Fixed.

She is 21 years old and has had 2 Abortions already. 

This actually has caused much trouble in my Marriage as I told my sister in law off after the last one. 

Because she is an irresponsible little whore who sleeps around then uses abortion to "fix" the problem.

And there are many many more like her.

I have no numbers but I would bet more than half of Abortions are carried out on women who just were not careful and just do not want to be troubled with a kid right now.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 13, 2011)

My personal opinion is that using abortion as after-the-fact birth control is awful.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 13, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> SmartherThanHick is correct when he notes that I agree that the mother's life is more important if the fetus puts the mother's health or life in danger.  He also notes that I said the mother has the choice to make as she wishes.
> 
> If STH believes that a fetus always should prevail even if the mother dies than STH is a person who follows the devil.


I am happy to report then that I do not follow whatever demons your religion proposes exist in the world.  The point always returns to choice of the mother to make the decision for herself.  It should be no surprise the term is called "pro-choice."



JakeStarkey said:


> My personal opinion is that using abortion as after-the-fact birth control is awful.


I doubt you can find many policy makers or health care providers who believe abortion is an acceptable form of birth control.  It is however necessary for the public health and ethical considerations of our population.


----------



## Intense (Feb 13, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> I'm trying to find your reasoning, not put words in your mouth.  Correct me if I interpret you incorrectly.  So you stated "the mother is more important." Can I take it to mean that you do not believe her life is equal to that of the fetus?  Why is that?



From a different angle, if God Forbid Someone was out Boating with Their Wife and Small Child, and there was an accident, The Person could only save one from drowning, Who should the Person save? I believe most Fathers would choose the Wife, at the same time I believe most Mothers would want the Husband to choose the Child. I think it is a Personal Choice with no Right or Wrong. There are of course other mitigating Factors. In a Pregnancy where one or the Other must die, the Term For Better or Worse comes to mind, I would Choose for my Wife to be Saved. Which Ever way You would choose, I would respect that.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


And Casey put an end to that.  Under Casey the states interest is enshrined as viability and the trimester system is scrapped due to the fact that those machanics no longer fit the viability standard.  The states can either paqss laws or enforce current statutes which shine light on the "vagueness" as they see fit.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Odd that you have no argument ther than your own opinion, the facts are what they are.  Roe and Casey can be interpretted to allow states to prosecute abortionists and aborting women for murder if they choose to.  No prosecutor has tried it yet, and until one does and either succeeds or fails the possibility stands.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Of course there is, that was what Roe determinedaside from the fact that there is nothing else a human fetus can be, the law doesn't say anything about "humans", it says "person".  Given that Roe identifies a state interest in preserving the "life" of a viable fetus, is there something else it could be?  Is it a non-living person?  or a living non-person?  If its not a person what interest does the state have in any event?  It's certainly noit a pet or livestiock (which technically are not protected on there ownm but are protected as "property" owned by people.
> ...


because the laws are unenforced... did you miss that the first several dozen times I said it?  A prosecutor could chhose to charge murder for the intentional death of a viable fetus.  None so far have.




BenNatuf said:


> Is it?  Can you choose to bash your kids in the head with a hammer?  Should you be unpunished if you make that choice?  Every crime is a choice, and equal protection is equal protection.so by this logic it should be OK to kill any of them as long as its "not my business".  Or better yet, we should make it our business and fix the population problem, why wait for the attrition of abortion?  Surely we can be more effecient than that.



But abortion is not a crime so your argument is a non-sequiter[/quote]Abortion of a viable fetus is a crime, it's murder. it's just not enforced.  The fact that its not enforced does not make it any less a crime and your assertion of it not beinf a crime is irrelevant.  Abortion of an unviable fetus of course is legal under roe.





> That's fine, don't teach that robbery or assult is bed. But don't tell kids not to wear condoms either. That aside, you are really stretching your point here - comparing robbing to fucking....two different activities. One affects somebody in that harm is done to them against their will. The other is by two consenting adults. you heard the term comparing apples and oranges? Great example right there...


you are the one who bought a comparison in that has no value, I merely illustrated it.  "Choice" is a matter in EVERY crime and the perpetrators are of course free to choose to commit them, they are NOT free of the responsibility for their acts though, whether or not they've had good "home training".




> how so?  If a devout catholic gets pregnant they have the baby, they raise the baby... I don't see a problem.  And the last I checked they have the same rights you do to oppose or propose laws... doesn't mean we have to pass them.





> OK, but don't tell kids have sex except for procreation is a sin.


What does that have to do with the law?  cathol;ics are free to teach and preach whaatever they wish, they are also free to advocate whatever laws and policies they wish... so are you.  And I don't see anyone telling you to shut up because they don't agree with whatever reasoning you use to support whatever you support. 



> yeah, it worked out so poorly for the church of England.  People live in abject poverty because they lack other liberties and the opportiunity that liberty brings, not because they screw without a condum.





> Church of England law is not British law unlike Ireland or Italy where condoms are/were outlawed. You are right about liberties, but see my last to Lisa sans the Philippines


Poverty has not a damned thing to do with religion, it is caused by and perpetuated by the lack of opportunity that is engendered by the lack of other liberties and or the total and complete lack of any motivation on the part of the impoverished to take advantage of the opportunities the liberties they have present them.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 13, 2011)

Murder is a legal term, not a personal definition, BenNatuf.  If you can get a law passed to make abortion an act of murder, go for it.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > I am pro-life from conception till natural death. LOL!!! You guys would not know what to do if you were unable to to kill the vulnerable and "unworthy", huh. Same song different year, most of my uncles family did not make it out of Poland they died in the camps, by people who did not think they were humans either, so regardless of what name you throw at me or insult you toss my way I will not relent nor back down 50 million so far since 73, Hitler would be jealous, you will not recognize until someone makes you their "choice". Sadly, when people take this road to dehumanization that is where we end up.
> ...


By what deserved arrogance do you claim the right to tell anyone what comparisons they can make?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 13, 2011)

Anyone who compares abortion to the WWII holocaust would make a great Nazi.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



By what deserved arrogance do you claim the right to tell me that I can't?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Care4all said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


Not true.  They achieve all of that according to Roe and casey (which are the "laws") at fetal viability, they are just not afforded the protections that every other person is because the states so far have chosen not to enforce those protections for them.



> Truth is truth, yes it is....and what these women have done, is killed their unborn child....not murder....but carry on and say or act the way you do or want to....


yes, murder.  The taking of the life of another person without due process of law is murder.



> I spoke out to you, as you say you are speaking out to those women who are aborting by calling them murderers and giving them no compassion....


I give no murderers compassion.



> btw what is the difference between you and those people who were getting ready to cast the first stone....?  Are you sinless?
> 
> I sure am glad you are not God or Christ!
> 
> Now let me go count my blessings and give thanks to the Lord on that!


who cares about sin?  This is about the law and how it can be interpretted if a state chooses to do so... so far, none have.  They haven't for a reason... political expedience.  No prosecutor wants to get hoisted on the petard of being a heartless bastard for prosecuting a woman for the murder of her viable fetus (even though they could).  As if there were no murders where the person who commits the crime doesn't have emotional turmoil.  They choose to kill, and they do so AFTER considering the implications, they are the MOST vile of murderers.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 13, 2011)

No, the law defines what is murder, not you.  When the law is passed that makes abortion murder, you can crow.  

Right now you get to eat it.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

jillian said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


aside from the fact that legislation against abortion would be based on biology and medical science... who cares what any religion thinks?  Your trying to justify abortion for the same reason your arguing against it.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



A large majority of anti-abortionists think the way they do because of their religion. To say otherwise is not only disingenuous, but wrong.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


So the best you can do to counter the point is to ignore it... 

got it!


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > The stain of origional sin is not the act of sinning, it is the propensity to do so in their human nature. You want to kick around Catholics take it to the Religion forum.
> ...


No she's not.  That was bought up long before she posted in the thread by some other anti religious nut who has no ability to discern what it is the threads about... which has nothing to do with sin.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



She starting rabbiting on about it, so I ran with it...


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



If you're gonna be in the peanut gallery, at least read posts for comprehension and context before opening your trap...


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Care4all said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


The subject of the thread is about defining the killing of a viable fetus as murder due to their status under Roe and Casey.  A discussion that has come about due to botched abortions that have resulted in murders that no-one in their right mind will attempt to define as anything but murder.  And here's the rub, these fetus' were viable IN THE WOMB just a few short moments before they were murdered out of the womb.  Had the procedures not been botched they would have been no less viable, and the law according to roe should protect them.  Thats what Roe determined the state can do.  Thats what the thread is about... so yeah, a woman who aborts a viable fetus as determined under roe and casey could be called (and charged) as a muderer.

The politicizing a tragedy thread is -------> that way.  Not saying that to be flippant, but thats kind of the logic isn't it?  People are not driven to murder by the rhetoric of others, they are driven to murder for whatever reasons they use to justify it in their own mind.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



What do you mean by 'botched abortion' as opposed to an 'abortion'...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 13, 2011)

Sell it to the legislatures, Ben.  Nobody here is buying your crap.  The mother decides when it is the matter of her life or health, not you and not Joe the Rabbit.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Human tissue which contains DNA is not a human being, a human person with consciousness or sentience.
> 
> The morning after pill is not murder.


Given that the morning after pill prevents conception I would tend to agree.  Also I'm not entirely sold that conception is the point so much as implantation.  persons cannot be held in stasis, embryo's can.  Once implanted they cannot... just like any other person.  That however is neither here nor there in the topic of this thread which has more to do with the states interest in preserving the lives of "viable" fetus' and why they don't do so with the same laws they do for any other class of person.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Human tissue which contains DNA is not a human being, a human person with consciousness or sentience.
> ...



Um, because Roe vs Wade outstrips any state law. That is the way your country works...


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


That is absolutely false.  From the moment of conception it is biologically a human being.





> It's a collection of cells.


so are you.





> As irresponsible as one may consider it to terminate the pregnancy, there is no legal standing that I can see to punish a woman for an early term abortion.


And legally you are correct.  Vibility is a fickle standard that changes with medical science (which seems a rather arbitrary thing to bas law on, but its what we got).



> I am interested than in punishing them for late term abortions, but only in cases where the abortion is being considered out of convenience.


Unless the mother life is at risk and its a matter of self defence, they are all out of convenience.





> My curiosity is that if Roe essentially says abortions are legal prior to the fetus being viable, what legal action is taken against those that have one after viability.


none. prosecutors won't touch it, to radio active.  They should, and they could, but they don't





> I can't believe it doesn't happen, but I can't say that I recall ever hearing of a woman being legally punished for it. Have you?


no, its never happenned, the states are derilict in there responsibility to provide all persons with due process and equal protection.  And sadly, will remain so.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 13, 2011)

No, ben, your reasoning is false.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

jillian said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Which is why, when I actually understood Roe a little more and when my opinions of the issue became more....moderated, shall we say, it turned out I actually agree with that aspect of Roe.
> ...


people who decide to bash their kids in the head with a hammer have to live with that to... from inside a prison.





> my problem is with people who, for whatever reason, want to impose their own moral judgments on others.


thats what every law does





> as i said to one of the other posters on this thread, i've never met anyone i thought was better able to make moral choices for me.... than me. i'm pretty sure that everyone else feels the same.


until your moral decisions allow you to bring harm to others... then itsd not so much you.



> as for late term abortion, the numbers on that are miniscule and my feeling is that it's a decision a woman makes with her doctor


and hiring a hit man to kill her husband is a choice between her and her hitman.  So what?





> and politicians in washington shouldn't interfere in that relationship.


yes, they should, but even more so, the states should.





> though, i can't truly imagine how anyone could either perform or have that procedure "just because".


happens every day


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

jillian said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > _Roe v. Wade_ held that you can't restrict a woman's right to an abortion prior to viability. Which means you can't make laws restricting abortion during the first trimester. HOWEVER, _Roe v. Wade_ didn't not protect a woman's right to an abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimester. That is why many states have outlawed late term abortions and those state laws have passed the constitutionalituy test!
> ...


The ONLY part of roe that has any applicability in the law is the "viability" argument.  The rest of it is meaningless tripe.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf

Your whole argument is based on treating an abortion like a murder (hiring a hitman, or hitting a child with a hammer). There is a reason the courts, and politicians, and most normal folk treat abortion as a separate entity than religious whackjobs do. They realise that it isn't like hitting your kid with a hammer or hiring a hitman, because it isn't. Any other asinine argument doesn't warrant discussion until your realise the difference between the two. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but a foetus at 2-3 months old is not a viable human - no matter how much you wish it so..


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

JScott said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.
> ...


So?  Do you always make completely useless and irrelevant posts that say nothing for no reason?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


Is this posting your idea of being tollerant of someone elses views?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


The only ugliness in abortion being illegal is the ugliness perptrator by those who break the law.  If the idea behind your post here is that we should not have laws people would break... well, sorry, can't go with that.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


do we tie people down to keep them from robbing?



> Legal or illegal, women will choose abortions.  The question is whether we kill the women for choosing abortion or not.


so is there a question as to whether we should punish a person who decides to commit and armed robbery?  Ya know, they're gonna happen whether there against the law or not.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 13, 2011)

armed robbery is armed robbery, abortion is abortion, one is a crime and one is not.

false analogy, ben


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Abortion of a viable fetus is a crime, it's murder. it's just not enforced.  The fact that its not enforced does not make it any less a crime


Really?  What's the practical difference then?  If jay-walking is technically a crime, but in a small podunk town it is perfectly acceptable and everyone knows it is never enforced, is it still a crime?  If your answer is yes because there is still technically a law for it, then I must ask what you think laws actually are. 
Law | Define Law at Dictionary.com

So again I ask: what's the difference between a law which is never enforced, and a law which doesn't exist?  Let's call this what it is: you're using this as an excuse because you don't have any other reasoning to stand on.  If new policy was passed that definitively stated that abortion was not considered murder, you'd just be complaining about something else, when the practical applications and outcomes have not actually changed. 



BenNatuf said:


> Given that the morning after pill prevents conception I would tend to agree.  Also I'm not entirely sold that conception is the point so much as implantation.  persons cannot be held in stasis, embryo's can.  Once implanted they cannot... just like any other person.


That's actually not true at all.  If an embryo implants, and it is removed soon thereafter, it can still be held in status.  As I stated earlier, people who don't really understand the biology always tend to draw these arbitrary lines in the sand, when no such differentiation exists. 



BenNatuf said:


> That is absolutely false.  From the moment of conception it is biologically a human being.


And what comprises "human being?"

Before you responded to someone by saying they were a clump of cells just as embryos are.  So are dogs.  What you missed was that the person was insinuating there was no higher order to that clump of cells, where there are in humans.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> "Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent "dysgenic" children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and dismissed "positive eugenics" (which promoted greater fertility for the "fitter" upper classes) as impractical. Though many leaders in the negative eugenics movement were calling for active euthanasia of the "unfit," Sanger spoke out against such methods. She believed that women with the power and knowledge of birth control were in the best position to produce "fit" children. She rejected any type of eugenics that would take control out of the hands of those actually giving birth."
> 
> Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


did you write that on wiki yourself?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


neither is a toddler


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > You approve?  YOU APPROVE?!  Who the FUCK do you think you are, superciliously doling out approval to people, as though they're making life decisions in the desperate hope that you'll pat them on the head? .
> ...


Given the nature of your postings in this thread i'd be a little careful throwing around the "irony" word as some sort of insult.


----------



## jillian (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...



ooh... almost a response.

an egg isn't a chicken.


----------



## Missourian (Feb 13, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> No, the law defines what is murder, not you.  When the law is passed that makes abortion murder, you can crow.
> 
> Right now you get to eat it.


 
Yep,  like when the law held that slavery was legal.  Blacks were property not people cuz the law is what matter,  so those who called blacks equal should have STFU,  the Supreme Court ruled Blacks were property and slavery was Constitutional and if you didn't like it,  you got to eat it.   

Thank God folks didn't all believe that nonsense that just because it was the law,  it was right...someday in the future,  folks will look back at the tragedy of the murder of 50 million unborn children in abortion factories the way we look back on the atrocity of slavery today. 

Roe v. Wade will be the Dred Scott of the 20th Century.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > The anti-Abortion people are always going to have the high moral ground. Doesn't matter what the pro-abortionist say they know who has the morally correct position, they can try to rationalize all they want, We know what is right, And so do they.
> ...


When did anyone make that claim?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 13, 2011)

Abortion is not the equivalent of slavery and not the equivalent of the Holocaust.

False analogy.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

Missourian said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No, the law defines what is murder, not you.  When the law is passed that makes abortion murder, you can crow.
> ...



Yeah, because the world needs 50 million more people, right?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

jillian said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...


no, an egg is an egg... until it fertilized.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

jillian said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Lisa4Catholics said:
> ...


what does a human being being a human being have to do with any "belief system"?  It's biology honey.



> yes, mistress cecile, only you know the truth about human development. only you and your self-important, self-righteous, holy-rolling, hypocritical rabid religious right know best how to make moral choices for everyone else.
> 
> alert the media.


er... biology.  Not religion.


----------



## Missourian (Feb 13, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


 
Think you have control of you body medically? 

Go to the Doctor and demand a voluntary amputation or a frontal lobotomy.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 13, 2011)

er . . . conception is not the start of a person. You know that as well as any of us.  Why are you lying?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

jillian said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


You can use your body for anything you'd like... of course many of the things you choose to do aren't legal.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 13, 2011)

Abortion is not illegal.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Why would a doctor chop off a perfectly good appendage? Under the hypocratic oath he or she wouldn't be allowed to, so you analogy doesn't fit.


----------



## Missourian (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 
The answer to that depends greatly on which subset of the world you belong...the 350 million  that were born in the US and can speak for themselves,  or the 50 million that were aborted and have no voice.


----------



## Missourian (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


 
Why would a doctor chop up a baby and vacuum a baby out of the womb,  that also violates the hypocratic oath...my analogy fits perfectly.  A babies heart is beating at 8 weeks.  An abortion stops a beating heart.  If that's not "doing harm",  Nothing is.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Fair enough.

I believe that a woman should not abort, but also it is their choice (and their partners).

In saying that, I do have a problem with people trying to sell me that something that is only 2 months gestation is a viable anything, let alone a human.

Then there is the other aspect, that a lot of anti-abortionists see this as "god's childen" being punished by selfish people. I just see it as humans making a choice - one that most don't want to make BTW - but is there right to make.

Where anti-aboritionists lose me (to any valid aspect of their argument), is when they start sprouting out words like "abortion factories" like you just did. Like there's this group of woman lining up like it's the Macy day sales. Please, Missourian, you're better than that.

I have said this once, and I'll say it again. I have seen the human face of abortion on three occasions. All three of them found it a traumatic experience and hated every moment of it.

Anti-abortionists also take things to the nth degree. They act like late term abortions are:
1) The norm (they are not)
2) Are carried out in a care-free, "who gives a shit" manner (theyr'e not)
3) the doctors performing them are sitting there with a big smile on their face going "yippee!" (they're not)
4) That on the rare occasion when a mother, having not gotten an abortion in the first two trimesters, then wants to abort a perfectly healthy foetus near the end of the third, people should be looking into the mental state/well being of the mother as opposed to ostricising her because something has gone terribly wrong in her thought processes.

Until anti-abortionists get rid of the vitriolic rhetoric, and stop using extreme examples as the norm, most (but not all) will get treated with the ridicule they deserve.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Nothing like the A word to get everyone going.
> 
> Me?  The fetus does not out weight the mental or physical well being of the mother if a choice becomes necesary between the two.  The mother wins out every time.


Wellbeing?  

So if you have the flu anyone should be able to bash you in the heaqd with a hammer to protect their "wellbeing"?

I'm not so sure the concept of killing in defence of self or others quite stretches that far.


----------



## Missourian (Feb 13, 2011)

Missourian said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No, the law defines what is murder, not you.  When the law is passed that makes abortion murder, you can crow.
> ...


 
For Jake:  Read it again,  for comprehension this time,  there is no analogy.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > Me? The fetus does not out weight the mental or physical well being of the mother if a choice becomes necesary between the two. The mother wins out every time.
> ...


Choice is a weak argument.  People choose to do lots of things their in jail for.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

shintao said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.
> ...


people adopt every day.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...



That is one of your weaker comments.  Please do better.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> The big problem with this issue is that people who are uneducated on the biology and embryology need to draw their lines in the sand at extreme points that are over simplified, regardless of actual processes.  As someone else mentioned, a very large percentage of conceptions are naturally aborted, and no one even realized the woman is pregnant.  To claim the destruction of any conception is murder denies our very biology.


logical falacy.  Everyone dies, not everyone is killed.  



> The other issue is that the term "murder" is always reduced to a black and white issue by most people, instead of analyzed in an ethical perspective.  What does "murder" mean and imply exactly?


Intentionally and illegally taking the life of another person without due process of law.





> Does it apply in self-defense?


of course not, thats called justifiable homicide and its not illegal





> Neglect?


negligent homicide is manslaughter, not murder





> Does it apply to animals?  Plants? Bacteria?


of course not, why would it apply to food?  You cannot murder an animal, a plant or bacteria





> Does intention matter?


of course it does, you cannot murder without intent, thats part of the definition of the crime.





> Does it apply if it allows for release from pain?


Who's pain?





> ETHICS are generally not considered by people who discuss abortion in terms of "murder," as that term tells me the person is just jumping on a loaded word instead of making strong arguments on the actual topic.


you mean like the rather weak and specious arguments you just attempted to make?  What you've posted here has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with justifications... otherwise known as excuses.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Jroc said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > The big problem with this issue is that people who are uneducated on the biology and embryology need to draw their lines in the sand at extreme points that are over simplified, regardless of actual processes.  As someone else mentioned, a very large percentage of conceptions are *naturally aborted*, and no one even realized the woman is pregnant.  To claim the destruction of any conception is murder denies our very biology.
> ...


Her?

I put the wrod in the title because the entire thread was bought about by the muders in the philly abortion clinic.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> An abortion is a homicide, yes; a murder _ipso facto_, no.


Claiming abortion is not murder simply because it goes unprosecuted is ipso facto falacious.  Lots of crimes go unprosecuted... they are no less crimes.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > An abortion is a homicide, yes; a murder _ipso facto_, no.
> ...



But who gets decide what a crime is?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Murder is a legal term, not a personal definition, BenNatuf.  If you can get a law passed to make abortion an act of murder, go for it.


Yes it is a legal term, and under Roe and Casey the state has an interest in preserving the LIFE of a viable fetus.  That interest is drawn from the states DUTY to not deprive persons of life, liberty or property without due process of law.  If the viable fetus is not a person, what interest does the state have?  What other persons are exempt as a class from protections?  This is not a "personal deffinition" it's a LEGAL deffinition.  To claim the state has an interest in preserving these lives and claim they're not persons... that is a personal deffinition not supported by the law.  Are not all persons required to be afforded the same protections?  Are there any other persons not protected by the statutes against murder?  There doen't need to be any "other" laws passed, they merely have to choose to enforce the ones we have equally.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


I didn't tell you you couldn't.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> No, the law defines what is murder, not you.  When the law is passed that makes abortion murder, you can crow.
> 
> Right now you get to eat it.


still false and constantly repeating it won't change that.  Murder is defined and aborting a viable fetus can be construed to fit the statutes.  It's not, but thats not because it doesn't fit the definition.  It is a logical falacy to assume that because a law is not enforced it is not the law.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


so what?  You think the way you do for your own reasons too.  Why is irrelevant.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



You absolutely did...


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


no, you ran with it before she ever said a word about it.

Why?

Because the pro abortion croud ALWAYS wants to make any discussion of abortion about the religion of those who oppose it... so they can falaciously argue freedom FROM religion... which isn't found in the constitution anywhere.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


if you attempt an abortion and end up with a live baby is it successful?


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Because abortion is a personal matter. And please, don't give me this crap about hitting kids on the head with a hammer BS either. The only country in the western world that gets its knickers in a knot over this is the US, and mainly due to uber religious folk. Folk of your ilk in other western countries are either religiou fanatics, or so far on the peripheral of society that they are thought of as the fringe. The only countries in the Western World where it is illegal are - surprisingly (NOT!) - those where Catholicism is the majority religion such as Ireland and Italy.

Many jurists and scholars - a lot more intelligent than me, and certainly a lot more intelligent than you - have debated on the case. In the case of the US Roe vs Wade was the deciding factor, whether you like it or not. In most other countries where it is legal, it is not even an issue.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Go back and re read the thread for comprehension. She absolutely brought it up before "I ran with it". Where you are right, is that she wasn't the first on the thread.

As for the religious aspect, well that has a massive influence of the mindset of most anti-abortionists. BTW, I have never met a pro-abortionist, including on this thread....


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sell it to the legislatures, Ben.  Nobody here is buying your crap.  The mother decides when it is the matter of her life or health, not you and not Joe the Rabbit.


I could give a shit what your buying.  There is no need for any legislature to do anything.  Any prosecutor who chose to could charge any woman and doctor with murder under current statutes given Roe and Casey.  The theory is untested because no prosecutor has.  That they have not has no bearing on whether they could.  Would they be successful?  Possibly, but that is likely to never be known since no prosecutor will likely ever do it.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Ok, so now you are going around in circles with a superfluous argument....Time to bow out. When reasonable debate becomes unreasonable, then there is no point continuing..


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


Are you always this obtuse?  It is under Roe and Casey that they could be protected as persons, thats what "viability" does.  So yeahs, federal law does outstrip state law, and its federal law that permits states to protect viable fetus'


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> No, ben, your reasoning is false.



No its not.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf
> 
> Your whole argument is based on treating an abortion like a murder (hiring a hitman, or hitting a child with a hammer). There is a reason the courts, and politicians, and most normal folk treat abortion as a separate entity than religious whackjobs do. They realise that it isn't like hitting your kid with a hammer or hiring a hitman, because it isn't. Any other asinine argument doesn't warrant discussion until your realise the difference between the two. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but a foetus at 2-3 months old is not a viable human - no matter how much you wish it so..


I see you always are this obtuse... where did I say anywhere that an unviable fetus should be treated as a person under the law?

oh wait... I didn't.

Killing a viable fetus is killing a person that the states have an interst in protecting, thats what roe says.  So if they have an interest why shouldn't they allow those persons equal protection with any other person?  And if they shouldn't, what other classes of persons are not deserving of equal protection?  Which other classes of persons should we have seperate laws for?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> armed robbery is armed robbery, abortion is abortion, one is a crime and one is not.
> 
> false analogy, ben


the argument waqs that it shouldn't be against the law because people are going to choose to do it...

same logic chief.


----------



## Missourian (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


 
They are abortion factories Doc. 

I heard that the Republican controlled House is working to end Title X (ten) payments to Planned Parenthood,  because of the profits they make from abortions...and it's astronomical. 

Planned Parenthood 800 clinics preform 300,000 abortions per year...fully one quarter of the 1.2 million annual abortions in the US. 



I'm not a fanatic...use condoms,  use the pill,  use RU486,  use the morning after pill,  but once a baby forms,  once it's heart starts beating,  once it's brain begins forming,  it's too late for birth control.  Period. 

If the mother is going to die,  I understand having an abortion...that's triage.  Sometimes you have to make a decision between two tragic outcomes,  it sucks but I understand. 

Rape and incest...I understand. 

Health of the mother...as long as it is not used as an excuse for abortion as birth control,  I understand...but today, abortion providers continue to use "health of the mother" as a catch all excuse for abortion-on-demand,  and that is why pro-lifers oppose it. 

I can tell you not even ten percent of the 1.2 million abortions annually in the US are due to rape,  incest,  life or legitimate health concerns combined.  The number of US live births is 4.1 million. 

We are aborting 20 percent of the babies conceived!!! 


That's not just a travesty,  or a tragedy...that's a nightmare. 


Here are some links to back up my numbers: 

National News 

Live Births and Birth Rates, by Year &mdash; Infoplease.com


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Abortion of a viable fetus is a crime, it's murder. it's just not enforced.  The fact that its not enforced does not make it any less a crime
> ...


statutes mostly



> So again I ask: what's the difference between a law which is never enforced, and a law which doesn't exist?


one is a law and one is not a law... really, it shouldn't be that difficult.





> Let's call this what it is: you're using this as an excuse because you don't have any other reasoning to stand on.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

you have the audacity to claim a law which is a law but is not enforced is not the law and than accuse me of making up excuses?

too funny.





> If new policy was passed that definitively stated that abortion was not considered murder, you'd just be complaining about something else, when the practical applications and outcomes have not actually changed.


the congress can at its whim define a person as a person at any arbitrary point of developement they wish, when they do that will be the law.  My argument is not based on what the law "might be if it were changed", its based on what the law is, though its not enforced properly. 



BenNatuf said:


> Given that the morning after pill prevents conception I would tend to agree.  Also I'm not entirely sold that conception is the point so much as implantation.  persons cannot be held in stasis, embryo's can.  Once implanted they cannot... just like any other person.





> That's actually not true at all.  If an embryo implants, and it is removed soon thereafter, it can still be held in status.  As I stated earlier, people who don't really understand the biology always tend to draw these arbitrary lines in the sand, when no such differentiation exists.


no, thats not true and you making shit up won't change that.  Once implantation occurs the fetus embryo cannot be removed without killing it.



BenNatuf said:


> That is absolutely false.  From the moment of conception it is biologically a human being.





> And what comprises "human being?"


science



> Before you responded to someone by saying they were a clump of cells just as embryos are.  So are dogs.  What you missed was that the person was insinuating there was no higher order to that clump of cells, where there are in humans.


That cl;ump of cells is no different than any other human clump of cells... just in a different stage of developement.  Dogs on the other hand are pets, or in some parts food.  They are not covered by the equal protection clause and are not entitled to due process


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


she can choose to murder all she wants, and she should be punished accordingly.


----------



## jillian (Feb 13, 2011)

ah.. judge, jury and executioner. 

it must be so nice to think one's so much more moral than others.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



And I see it, in the main, as nature taking its course. I don't have a problem with abortion in the first trimester at all (although, almost contradictory, I would still recommend the mother keep the foetus). There are already too many unwanted kids in the world....


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Abortion is not the equivalent of slavery and not the equivalent of the Holocaust.
> 
> False analogy.


false denial of an analogy


boy, this debatin' thing is easy!

Let us know when you actually form an argument.

I won't hold my breath


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


I think I answered this befor, if the problem is overpopulation certainly we can do better than the attrition of abortion.  Where do you propose we start?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Abortion is not illegal.


still stuck on the falacious argument of nonenforcement?

abortion of unviable fetus' is not illegal.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


so its your contention that the people in prison didn't choose to break the law?

yeah, you should try harder.


----------



## Missourian (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


 
Nature neither uses nor requires a knife and a vacuum.


----------



## jillian (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Abortion is not illegal.
> ...



it's not nonenforcement. it's nonenforcement if there is a law making it illegal that the police don't enforce.

words have meaning. you don't get to make up your own.


----------



## jillian (Feb 13, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Nature neither uses nor requires a knife and a vacuum.



i've never known anyone who had a knife used on them during an abortion. does it make you feel like your argument is better if you keep tossing out that imagery? imagery doesn't make a bit of difference, it's just a way of propagandizing and inflaming.

i have more respect for you than that...

and no matter how many times you say it, a zygote is not a baby any more than an egg is a chicken.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 13, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> er . . . conception is not the start of a person. You know that as well as any of us.  Why are you lying?



New tech has lead to detecting a heart beat as early as 18 days after conception. So when would you say that stops being a mass of meat, and starts being a person.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 13, 2011)

You people keep bringing up Cases where the life of the mother is at risk.

The fact is those cases are about 2% of all abortions.

The Vast majority of Abortions are performed on Younger girls, and the poor. They are carried out for convenience, not because of a risk to the life of the mother.

That is what you call a straw man Argument.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 13, 2011)

That's the issue, isn't it,Charles, but we are still back to primacy.  In battle our medics triage, and those wounded that were not going to make it were shot up full of dope and placed to the side to die, while the medics worked on those who could be saved.  A birth is battle in the sense that causalities and moralities occur all to often.  The triage protocol mother first, then baby.  That is moral, ethical, legal, and absolutely correct.  That actions preserves the race.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 13, 2011)

jillian said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Nature neither uses nor requires a knife and a vacuum.
> ...



Wtf are you talking about. Unless they are performed very early almost every Abortion involves the use of a Knife.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 13, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> You people keep bringing up Cases where the life of the mother is at risk.
> 
> The fact is those cases are about 2% of all abortions.
> 
> ...



Then get your state legislature to tighten the law on open elective abortion.  Nobody is saying that Sleazy Suzy Slut should get a free ride on the gubmint.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 13, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> That's the issue, isn't it,Charles, but we are still back to primacy.  In battle our medics triage, and those wounded that were not going to make it were shot up full of dope and placed to the side to die, while the medics worked on those who could be saved.  A birth is battle in the sense that causalities and moralities occur all to often.  The triage protocol mother first, then baby.  That is moral, ethical, legal, and absolutely correct.  That actions preserves the race.



Of course, and I agree. My point was only that Pro Abortion people use cases where the mother life is at risk, as justification for all the abortions that happen in this country. When the truth is the Vast majority of Abortions are nothing more than Birth Control, and have nothing to do with the life of the mother.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Nobody gets to "decide" what a crime is except the legislature, the prosecutors do get to decide which ones they'll prosecute though, and they get to decide how they choose to interpret the law in doing so... and until a court tells them otherwise their interpretation is considered the proper application of the law.

So in answer to your question the law is whats written, and intentionally taking the life of another person without due process of law is defined as murder.  So whether or not aborting a viable fetus can be defined as murder or not depends entirely on whether a viable fetus is defined as a person.  

To discover whether it is you have to understand Roe and later Casey wherein the courts said the states have an interest in protecting the LIFE of a viable fetus.  If it is a life what other "life' could it be other than a person?  The courts have clearly said it is a "life", it is not a dog, it is not a cow, it is not a chicken or a duck.  Is it a legally living "non-person" as slaves once were?  If not, what is it?  There is only one thing this "life" can represent... a person.  As such this person is entitled to the same protections as any other person and if it's life is taken intentionally without due process then it deserves to have its murderers bought to justice just as much as any other person.  That would be what "equal protection under the law" means.

What we have now are a class of persons who are not afforded equal protection.  That is anathema to the constitution.  But it is what we have, it is the reality.  Will any prosecutor ever fully enforce the law and by doing protect this class of person equally?  Not very likely.  That is a political football no-one will touch.  They could, they should, but they won't.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> The Vast majority of Abortions are performed on Younger girls, and the poor. They are carried out for convenience, not because of a risk to the life of the mother.



You mean the poor, uneducated mother who has six kids she can't feed already, but should have 'another' just to make YOU feel better? That kind of convenience?

Or the working class high school girl whose not the brightest spark in the world, and will have trouble getting a decent job, but being 15 and having a child just gives her that much 'better' chance at life? That kind of convenience?

Oh, but that's right being ignorant/stupid/too young is no excuse, right?


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 13, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > You people keep bringing up Cases where the life of the mother is at risk.
> ...



How? Roe V wade says we can not take that choice away from a women. Even if she is making the choice simply because she does not want to be bothered with a child.

Besides when ever anyone talks about putting limits on abortion. The Left attacks them as backwards idiots who want to take away a womens control over her Body.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > The Vast majority of Abortions are performed on Younger girls, and the poor. They are carried out for convenience, not because of a risk to the life of the mother.
> ...



So It's have the kid or kill it eh. No other options at all.

I see.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 13, 2011)

Nebraska and Kansas do a pretty good job at, and Dan Patrick out of Texas is giving the state senate fits on his latest bill about it.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


uh.... no

Reading Comprehension - Free Worksheets

might help.  I think there's probobly something in there to help you discern the difference between a statement and a question.

here's a hint---- ?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


so is bashing your kids in the head with a hammer... personal choice.  Doesn't mean it should be legal.





> And please, don't give me this crap about hitting kids on the head with a hammer BS either.


no.  and its not BS





> The only country in the western world that gets its knickers in a knot over this is the US,


so what?





> and mainly due to uber religious folk. Folk of your ilk in other western countries are either religiou fanatics, or so far on the peripheral of society that they are thought of as the fringe.


again, so fucking what?





> The only countries in the Western World where it is illegal are - surprisingly (NOT!) - those where Catholicism is the majority religion such as Ireland and Italy.


do i have to ask again?  So fucking what?



> Many jurists and scholars - a lot more intelligent than me, and certainly a lot more intelligent than you - have debated on the case.


so?





> In the case of the US Roe vs Wade was the deciding factor, whether you like it or not. In most other countries where it is legal, it is not even an issue.


When have I said it wasn't?  And again, what the fuck do i care what other countries do?  Sorry chief, appeals to percieved authority just ain't gonna cut it.  I think for myself, I read, I understand, I form an opinion and I don't need anyone else to tell me what it should be.  That said all opinions are not equal, some of them (like mine) are actually right.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Oh, so you weren't implying anything then? Righteo...IOW, you were trolling??


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


And I should give a shit about your objection to terminology... why?  seriously for the same crowd who calls pro life people "anti choice" to complain about the characterization of their position as "pro abortion" is just some thin skinned BS.  You favor abortion rights, you are therfore pro-legal-abortion.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


huh?  are you drinking?

seriously dude, are ytou claiming the philly things were 'successful abortions"?  Of course they were not, they were botched, and led to murders prosecutors will prosecute for.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



It's not a kid. There are many options, abortion being one of them.

I reckon, we should outlaw abortions. All women who no longer have the option are allowed to drop their offspring at Cesspit, Lisa, Ben, Allie, Charlie's place and they can look after them.

And please, none of this 'Oh what about personal responsibility'. They had the option of abortion and were taking personal responsibility until you took that choice away from them. Now, it's your problem...


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



See the bolded part? Key word. Note you admit yours is an opinion, not fact. Tell me something I don't know.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



I favour abortion rights, but not abortion. There is a difference......


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

jillian said:


> ah.. judge, jury and executioner.
> 
> it must be so nice to think one's so much more moral than others.


silliness.  I support the prosecution of all murderers.  By a court, with a judge and a jury.  maybe you'll notice I said they should be PROSECUTED.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > ah.. judge, jury and executioner.
> ...



And yet abortion, under your law, doesn't meet the criteria. Case dismissed....


----------



## jillian (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > ah.. judge, jury and executioner.
> ...



and you've been repeatedly told that there is no "murder" unless a statute defines it as murder.

you can't be taken seriously if you keep on saying ridiculous things like that.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


no, you would have to remain willfully ignorant of the point to not see it... but then we are talking about you.


----------



## jillian (Feb 13, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



if they are within the first trimester, there shouldn't be any need for a knife. and repeating that over and over is simply being done for effect.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

jillian said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



You see, if Benny had stuck to the first sentence in the op-ed, he might have a point. The doctor in the op-ed is in a lot of trouble. But like a lot of right-wing, Christian whackjobs (of which he might be one), he is treating this bloke as the norm. That is what people who take extreme views do - they take the most extreme example of a situation and treat it as the norm. They think they are 'right'...


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

jillian said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


false.  There is a law on the books.  Its called murder, and its unenforced when a viable fetus is killed.  There just is simply no way you can interpret the statutes that does no include a viable fetus if we are to give Roe and Casey's viability argument any weight.  The states do not have any interest in protecting the lives of non entity, non-persons.


----------



## jillian (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



drinking?

what a little pissant you are. what are you, twelve?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

jillian said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Nature neither uses nor requires a knife and a vacuum.
> ...


scissors?  It's not imagary, its factual.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > The Vast majority of Abortions are performed on Younger girls, and the poor. They are carried out for convenience, not because of a risk to the life of the mother.
> ...


why stop with the unborn?  Hammers are cheap and she'll be much better of financuially with one or two.  Sorry chief, the financial argument doesn't really "work".



> Or the working class high school girl whose not the brightest spark in the world, and will have trouble getting a decent job, but being 15 and having a child just gives her that much 'better' chance at life? That kind of convenience?
> 
> Oh, but that's right being ignorant/stupid/too young is no excuse, right?


no, its not.


----------



## Missourian (Feb 13, 2011)

jillian said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Nature neither uses nor requires a knife and a vacuum.
> ...


No imagery,  15% of abortions are D&E's which require dismemberment, IOW,  cutting the baby limb from limb, in order to extract it from the womb.  Approx. 150,000 per year.

I'm sorry that calling a baby a baby disturbs you. 

I have yet to hear a pregnant woman say "I'm with fetus",  or "I'm having a zygote". 

In fact,  the only folks who call in a fetus are pro-choicers,  in an attempt to deny that it is a baby. 

Here's a test,  go up to a pregnant woman and ask her what gender her fetus is.   Take a picture of the "you're completely out of your mind,  aren't you" look she gives you,  and post it here.


That's imagery .


----------



## jillian (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Abortion is not the equivalent of slavery and not the equivalent of the Holocaust.
> ...



actually, no it's not easy. and you're not very good at it. 

it isn't either a false analogy or a "false denial" simply because you say it is.

truly unimpressive. and more than a little juvenile.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


no, I was asking a question that might perhaps make you think about your words.  

I implied nothing and have no control over what you chose to infer.  But just for kicks why did you infer it?  Guilty concience?

Yeah... see, that time it was an implication cause the second question is rhetorical.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Having an abortion is not an exercize of personal responsibilkity, its the avoidance of any.


----------



## jillian (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Murder is a legal term, not a personal definition, BenNatuf.  If you can get a law passed to make abortion an act of murder, go for it.
> ...



have you actually read either Roe or Casey? Just wondering, because viability was only a part of Roe, not all of it. Roe was also based on a balancing of interests between a woman's right to dominion over her own body and when the state interest in protecting prospective life kicks in.

life exists on a continuum... as does the governmental interest. this is not about *your* personal morality, which you have neither right nor wisdom to impose on anyone else, but WHEN government may act.

and, frankly, i'm getting a little bored of people trying to impose their will in circumstances that a) do not affect them; and b) will never affect them; and c) aren't choices they will ever be faced with.

nothing in your "arguments" has convinced me that anti-choice activists aren't *predominantly* religious zealots, who are predominantly male, who believe in retribution and not rationality. 

it's nothing more than the modern day scarlet letter...


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Mine is an opinion based on the law as its written and interpreting it strictly.  Yours is based on the law not being a law because it's not enforced.

Now, if you'd like to make an argument on why in the law a viable fetus is not a person, and if its not what interest the state would have in its non entity, non-person life... feel free.  Because if its not a person then the states have no interest in preserving its life.  The states interest in preserving its life growe out of the due process clause, sans that, they have no interest. 

But here's a fact for you... if it is a person, which an apllication of Roe and Casey dictate, then that person is entitled to the same protections as every other person, including having thier murderers bought to justice.  Otherwise, we have a class of persons for whom the constituions due process and equal treatment clauses do not apply.  Guess when the last time we had that was!

All opinions on law are opinions, that would be why they call them that when the courts hand them down.  Some of them are even right.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


There is no difference in the result.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


It doies, and I've shown how.  Simple denial will not suffice.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Oh, so you were trolling.
Thought so....


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



And...?


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



In your opinion....


----------



## Shogun (Feb 13, 2011)

Instead of bitching about roe maybe its time to either introduce a constitutional amendment banning abortion or footing the bill for free birth control... Or both.   what is michelle bachman's email address again?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

jillian said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


the statutes do define murder.



> you can't be taken seriously if you keep on saying ridiculous things like that.


why would anyone take you seriously in the first place?  You've made no cogent argument.  Simply repeating "it's not murder, its not murder, its not murder...." over and over again and justifying your opinion with the fact of its non enforcement is not an argument.... its and excuse.  

I have quite clearly pointed out why it could be construed as murder and the legal and constitutional grounds for doing so.  Your whole argument against it being so boils down to "it can't be murder because they don't prosecute it".  Which is essentisally a logical falacy and circular non argument.  It is a weak appeal to authority based on inactivity and nothing more.  If a prosecutor ever does charge a woman with murder for killing a viable fetus and if she's found guilty, and if the SCOTUS reverses based on no person being killed... then your argument is solid, but until then, its meaningless.

Other than that you can tell me what interest the state would have in preserving the life of a non entity and under what federal constitutional grant the SCOTUS would reccognize an interest in the grant of authority to preserve the life of non-entity non-persons.  If you can come up with something cogent for that, maybe you'll have a point.  Hell, I'll even listen.  If you can't, then you must admit that under Roe and Casey viable fetus' are in fact persons and as persons they are protected under the 14th amendments due process and equal treatment clauses.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


no, thats just fact.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Shogun said:


> Instead of bitching about roe maybe its time to either introduce a constitutional amendment banning abortion or footing the bill for free birth control... Or both.   what is michelle bachman's email address again?


Therer is only one thing that needs to be done.  The congress needs to either define a person by law or pass a law allowing the states to define a person for themselves (which shouldn't be neccessary but the SCOTUS unconstitutionally userped that power from them)


----------



## Shogun (Feb 13, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Instead of bitching about roe maybe its time to either introduce a constitutional amendment banning abortion or footing the billo for free birth control... Or both.   what is michelle bachman's email address again?
> ...



There is no concensus regarding the criteria of the definition of personhood and your simple solution invites nothing more than fifty more years of a quagmire debate of opinions.  If you cant provide a proactive solution then you might as well stop posting in this thread.


----------



## Missourian (Feb 13, 2011)

If I intentionally crush a condor egg,  I have broken the law and face prison.  Why,  because the condor is protected by law and an egg becomes a condor. 

The law puts more value on a human life than it does a condor's,  the law makes the connection between egg and condor.  So who in their right mind thinks a crushing condor egg is worthy of jail but murdering an unborn baby isn't.


----------



## dilloduck (Feb 13, 2011)

Missourian said:


> If I intentionally crush a condor egg,  I have broken the law and face prison.  Why,  because the condor is protected by law and an egg becomes a condor.
> 
> The law puts more value on a human life than it does a condor's,  the law makes the connection between egg and condor.  So who in their right mind thinks a crushing condor egg is worthy of jail but murdering an unborn baby isn't.



I assume the claim would be that humans are a dime a dozen. Not endangered.


----------



## Missourian (Feb 13, 2011)

Shogun said:


> Instead of bitching about roe maybe its time to either introduce a constitutional amendment banning abortion or footing the bill for free birth control... Or both.   what is michelle bachman's email address again?


 
Hey Shogun...missed ya man...where've ya been? 

Aren't we already footing the bill for birth control via Title X (ten) funding?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

jillian said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


you've attempted this stupid canard before.  The only part of Roe with any application is viability, the rest is useless dictum.  The state has ABSOLUTE authority to act to protect the life of a viable fetus except in the case of the mothers life.



> life exists on a continuum... as does the governmental interest. this is not about *your* personal morality, which you have neither right nor wisdom to impose on anyone else, but WHEN government may act.


I haven't posed any moral arguments, you may however keep trying to argue against what has not been argued if it justifies your opinion for you though.



> and, frankly, i'm getting a little bored of people trying to impose their will in circumstances that a) do not affect them; and b) will never affect them; and c) aren't choices they will ever be faced with.


Why would I give a fuck what your tired of?



> nothing in your "arguments" has convinced me that anti-choice activists aren't *predominantly* religious zealots, who are predominantly male, who believe in retribution and not rationality.
> 
> it's nothing more than the modern day scarlet letter...


and nothing in yours has convinced me that you do not advocate the murder of innocents.  See how that works?  I can just pick an argument and argue it instead of anything you've said just like you did.  You are probobly more religious than I am, so you can take your canned and prefabbed argument  based on anti religious bigotry and stick it.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


oh, so you got nothin'...

thought so.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 13, 2011)

Shogun said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...


The congress passing either of thiose is proactive, and what the fuck do i care whether the controversy continues?  Its going to continue whether congress does that or not.


----------



## jillian (Feb 14, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



cause *you* say so?

more of that top notch 'debatin'' there, eh?


----------



## GHook93 (Feb 14, 2011)

jillian said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Jillian what would you call this scenario (this was an actual case in the late 1800s, can't remember the case though)?

A man beats the crap out of an 8 month pregnant woman. The woman lives with no long term injures. However, the unborn babies dies. The DA charged him with murder, the jury came back and he was only charged with battery. 

The reasoning, the fetus was not a person, so no murder charges. If you were on the jury would you hold a similar verdict or would you call it murder?  

In the abortion debate there are no easy answers!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 14, 2011)

I don't think any one believes the answers about abortion are easy, but I do think that BenNatauf is mindless parroting nonsense here.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 14, 2011)

GHook93 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Shouldn't this post be aimed at Benny Boy?


----------



## bikercat (Feb 14, 2011)

on this topic I always find it amusing how passionate men are about this topic. It's the woman that has to deal with all the discomfort and changes of carrying and birthing the baby. men shouldn't even have any input in this. the only thing I can say about this is either push for more contraceptive use or someone's going to have to step up to the plate and start adopting all those orphans.


----------



## GHook93 (Feb 14, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Benny boy would answer that question easily. He would say, yes that is murder he killed a unborn person. 

It's a tougher question for someone like myself (or Jillian) who supports abortion.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Feb 14, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Sky
> 
> You must realise that Lisa is a sheeple to the Catholic way of life. No point in arguing. Her mind and heart are closed. Irony in that a lot of what she espouses is evil...yet she hates evil...shrug



I wouldn't call her a sheeple nor do I consider her heart closed.  I think Lisa is sincere.
I was raised in a Catholic family.  There is no arguing to be done with Catholics.  As soon as someone starts to demonize their opponents and call them evil, I know the conversation has reached an impasse.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Feb 14, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> now a zygote or foetus is an infant?



Don't you know?  Sperm are people too!


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 14, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


Evading the question does not support your misguided reasoning.  A law, as defined in most modern dictionaries, is a statute that is ENFORCED, APPLIED, or OBSERVED in some capacity.  Do you know what you call a law that doesn't meet those qualifications?  Irrelevant. 



BenNatuf said:


> > So again I ask: what's the difference between a law which is never enforced, and a law which doesn't exist?
> 
> 
> one is a law and one is not a law... really, it shouldn't be that difficult.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Again, evading the question to further misguided beliefs serves you no purpose.  What is the practical difference between the two?  Can you actually answer?



BenNatuf said:


> no, thats not true and you making shit up won't change that.  Once implantation occurs the fetus embryo cannot be removed without killing it.


Really now?  So you're saying that the moment before it makes stable content with the uterine lining it can be preserved, but the moment after it touches, being the start of implantation, it can't?  That's interesting, because biology would show that the stage at which it begins implantation, the blastocyst, can still be frozen and produce viability later.  But in your mind, the moment that blastocyst touches uterus and begins the implantation process, it is somehow different.  Interesting. 




BenNatuf said:


> > And what comprises "human being?"
> 
> 
> science


Supporting evidence?




BenNatuf said:


> > Before you responded to someone by saying they were a clump of cells just as embryos are.  So are dogs.  What you missed was that the person was insinuating there was no higher order to that clump of cells, where there are in humans.
> 
> 
> That cl;ump of cells is no different than any other human clump of cells... just in a different stage of developement.  Dogs on the other hand are pets, or in some parts food.  They are not covered by the equal protection clause and are not entitled to due process


Once again I see you avoiding the question with these hand-waiving responses instead of investigating the ethics.  So what's the difference between a dog embryo and a human embryo?  Because the fully developed versions of each have different protection clauses makes you think the unformed undifferentiated versions also fall under that differentiation?  Ridiculous.  A 2 celled embryo is not a human being.  It may be comprised of human DNA, but it is not a human being.  

So again I ask, hoping you can provide an actual answer this time: what comprises a human being?  What qualities and attributes does a human being possess that would show an undeveloped embryo is such a creature?

Is it that you don't want to actually answer the question?  Or you can't?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Feb 14, 2011)

Lisa4Catholics said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > "Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent "dysgenic" children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and dismissed "positive eugenics" (which promoted greater fertility for the "fitter" upper classes) as impractical. Though many leaders in the negative eugenics movement were calling for active euthanasia of the "unfit," Sanger spoke out against such methods. She believed that women with the power and knowledge of birth control were in the best position to produce "fit" children. She rejected any type of eugenics that would take control out of the hands of those actually giving birth."
> ...



Let's see if I get this.  Margaret Sanger is a demon for supporting population control?  Should population run completely rampant?

Is contraception a good thing or not?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Feb 14, 2011)

bikercat said:


> on this topic I always find it amusing how passionate men are about this topic. It's the woman that has to deal with all the discomfort and changes of carrying and birthing the baby. men shouldn't even have any input in this. the only thing I can say about this is either push for more contraceptive use or someone's going to have to step up to the plate and start adopting all those orphans.



Good luck getting those male anti-choice fanatics to even put on a condom.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 14, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> New tech has lead to detecting a heart beat as early as 18 days after conception. So when would you say that stops being a mass of meat, and starts being a person.


Don't confuse "heart" with "primitive loop of blood vessel that moves a bit of blood."  It's not a heart at 18 days.  No where close. This is where lay people don't understand the embryology and just project the closest thing in their vocabulary onto it. 



Charles_Main said:


> Wtf are you talking about. Unless they are performed very early almost every Abortion involves the use of a Knife.


The majority are done in the US by taking a pill.  



Missourian said:


> In fact,  the only folks who call in a fetus are pro-choicers,  in an attempt to deny that it is a baby.


Yeah!  Oh, and you forgot THE ENTIRE MEDICAL WORLD.  But they don't know what they're talking about, so they don't count. 



BenNatuf said:


> the statutes do define murder.


Could you cite them, please?



BenNatuf said:


> Therer is only one thing that needs to be done.  The congress needs to either define a person by law or pass a law allowing the states to define a person for themselves (which shouldn't be neccessary but the SCOTUS unconstitutionally userped that power from them)


Oh good.  So if they do define a person by law, and fetus does not meet that definition, you'd stop complaining?  As I said earlier, you're just using it as an excuse.  If that were the case, there's just be some other garbage argument you'd make, as it's clear NO STATE has tried a murder case under that idea. 



Missourian said:


> If I intentionally crush a condor egg,  I have broken the law and face prison.  Why,  because the condor is protected by law and an egg becomes a condor.


It's funny what lengths anti-abortion people need to go to weasel in a point. You just compared a woman's right to choose the fate of a fetus to demolishing an endangered species' reproduction.  Perhaps if the condor wanted it, you'd have a point.


----------



## Jroc (Feb 14, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> [
> Let's see if I get this.  Margaret Sanger is a demon for supporting population control?  Should population run completely rampant?
> 
> Is contraception a good thing or not?




Why don't you do a little research on Sanger before you post you're ignorance 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CteMmvLv0fg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CteMmvLv0fg[/ame]


----------



## Care4all (Feb 15, 2011)

much propaganda has been said about sanger....not everything you read or see from a site with a prolife agenda is telling the truth, regarding her....and certainly not every prochoice site is either but i would suggest everyone on both sides take a breather and truly try to find the facts on her, instead of half truths....


----------



## Care4all (Feb 15, 2011)

was there even federally legal abortions when Sanger was alive?


----------



## xsited1 (Feb 15, 2011)

Care4all said:


> much propaganda has been said about sanger....not everything you read or see from a site with a prolife agenda is telling the truth, regarding her....and certainly not every prochoice site is either but i would suggest everyone on both sides take a breather and truly try to find the facts on her, instead of half truths....



She was a monster.  

"The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."
Margaret Sanger


----------



## Care4all (Feb 15, 2011)

xsited1 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > much propaganda has been said about sanger....not everything you read or see from a site with a prolife agenda is telling the truth, regarding her....and certainly not every prochoice site is either but i would suggest everyone on both sides take a breather and truly try to find the facts on her, instead of half truths....
> ...



link?  

are you sure that was not a quote from senator Prescott Bush....nicknamed 'Rubbers', for short?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 15, 2011)

killing off people deemed to be less fit for any reason is unethical.  That has nothing to do with modern day abortion except as a desperate stretch of a misleading point.


----------



## JScott (Feb 15, 2011)

xsited1 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > much propaganda has been said about sanger....not everything you read or see from a site with a prolife agenda is telling the truth, regarding her....and certainly not every prochoice site is either but i would suggest everyone on both sides take a breather and truly try to find the facts on her, instead of half truths....
> ...



She wasnt a monster. Ive researched everything quoted about her and its usually been taken out of context.


----------



## JScott (Feb 15, 2011)

Jroc said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I did do research and if you were astute enough to *read* about her you would find she was trying to do the best she could for people that needed help. She spent her life trying to help better other peoples lives.

This video you linked and this movement has distorted everything possible about a human being that cant defend herself. How despicable.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Lisa4Catholics said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


I believe the point is that the government should have no part in the decision of those who wish to have children having them.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2011)

Nor should the government interfere with a person's right to make a choice about the viability of a fetus.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Could you cite them, please?


You are free to link to any one of the 50 states statutes on the subjecvt and read until you drop.  They all pretty much follow the same template though and involve the intentional taking of another persons life without due process of law, and not a single one of them says "except for viable fetus'"



> Oh good.  So if they do define a person by law, and fetus does not meet that definition, you'd stop complaining?  As I said earlier, you're just using it as an excuse.  If that were the case, there's just be some other garbage argument you'd make, as it's clear NO STATE has tried a murder case under that idea.


When you know me well enough to speak my opinions for me (which will be never) you'll be free to do so.  Until then I'll speak for myself.

The congress could by virtue of the neccessary and proper clause in conjunction with the 14th amendment define a person for 14th amendment purposes.  It could even define it differently for different reasons and toward different ends.  Until they do the authority to do so, by virtue of the 10th amendment does not belong to federal courts first who's authority on the matter is limitted to the text of the amendment and whatever laws the congress does pass in furtherance of it.  It belongs to the states first and the courts be they state or federal should be bound by whatever the states decide for themselves sans any congressional determination (within a given state).  Nowhere in the constituion are the courts granted authority to make policy or law where the congress has not acted.  

Thats whats wrong with Roe, they userped that power for themselves, they have no such authority.  That however is neither here nor there, because whether they in truth have the authority of not, they took it and the rest of the government let them.  There is the way things should be according to the constitution and there is the way things are despite it.  We live in a world where they are what they are, and not what they should be.

Given all of that my argument is premissed entirely on constitutional protections and what they mean to the law, yes, if the congress made a determination of when life begins it would settle the matter legally.  My argument is a legal argument, not a moral one.  Would I neccessarily agree with that determination?  Well, that would depend on what the law said, but if it excluded a fetus I most certainly would disagree with that law as I do many other laws... it would however negate any legal argument and then the argument would be strictly scientific/moral/ethical.  The argument I'll never make is any religious argument... I'm not now and have not been for many years any kind of religious.

So, all that said, since the states do have an interest in preserving the "life" of viable feus', and since that interest can only be borne of their constitutional duty to not allow a person to be deprived of life without due process of law, and since all persons are constitutionally required to benefit from equal treatment under the law, how is it that we have a class of persons who are left unprotected by the same laws that protect every other person in any state from being murdered?  The only way that can happen constituionally is if we say they are not persons, in which case Roe is flawed since the state has no interest in preserving the life of persons who do not yet exist.  

Either a viable fetus is a person or its not.  If it is then it has the same constitutional protections as the rest of us, meaning the state can't stop it from being murdered (just as they can't stop a murderer from murdering you unless they catch him in the act or in the planning of the act before its completed), but they can offer the same protections you have, which is knowledge on the part of the perpetrator that they will be bought to justice.  If its not a person, then abortion should be available all the way up to the point of birth with no restrictions.  You can no more be a little bit of a person than you can be a little bit pregnant.  Either you are, or you're not.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

Care4all said:


> was there even federally legal abortions when Sanger was alive?


to my knowledge there has never been any time in this country when abortion was outlawed federally.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

JScott said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


Other than in quoting someone else to display their depravity in what context could the above quote EVER be uttered by anyone other than one evil monstrous ______________.(fill in the blank)


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Nor should the government interfere with a person's right to make a choice about the viability of a fetus.


Viability is not a choice, its a medical status.  A mother has just as much choice in determining whether or not her fetus is viable as she does in choosing whether or not her other children catch a cold.  None.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


It just is.  Any person with a modecum of reason reccognizes that.  Having an abortion is not an act of responsibility, it is an act to avoid the consequences for your previous irresponsibility.  One cannot responsibly avoid consequences for acts one has already performed.  You can take responsiblity for your actions, which in no way involves taking further actions to avoid doing just that.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> I don't think any one believes the answers about abortion are easy, but I do think that BenNatauf is mindless parroting nonsense here.


While every post you've made involves the rewording of some progressive talking point...

too funny.

I have parrotted nothing, my arguments are mine, I formed them, I looked at the facts on my own, I did not seek out other opinions to aid me.  They are mine and mine alone.

But go ahead and parrot some nonsence talking point in a lame and failing attempt to negate them though... its partially amuzing.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Nor should the government interfere with a person's right to make a choice about the viability of a fetus.
> ...



Your kind would have done very well in Nazi Germany.

You are flatly wrong.  A medical choice is always inherently that of the patient, in this case the mother.  The fetus does not have such status and is a dependent on the mother's decision.  The state has no place in that decision.

I had a doctor once who insisted on "shared" decision making.  I made it very clear that her duty was to advise then either follow my decision or quit.  There is no shared decision making in the case of the mother's choice.  It's hers, and hers alone.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


certainly is, its just not enforced. 


> so unless you change the laws, its never going to be brought up as murder


no laqw has to be changed, the ones on the books now would cover it, and you're likely right, as i've said many times before, it likely will never be enforced or prosecuted.  Which of course has not a damned thing to do with whether it could. 


> You used this same argument over at the other place and it didnt  exactly work either. The only people who agreed with you happened to have moved over as well, and are agreeing here.
> i mean you would think that if you had a valid point, a state like South Dakota which wants to ban it period, would have tried this already...They havent because they need to change the damn laws by voting...


laws are neither changed nor enforced by voting.  And the mere fact that a law has never been enforced under this interpretation does not make it not the law.  It could be, and since it hasn't been legally shot down, it in fact is the law... though unenforced.  As i've said, if a prosecutor charged someone wityh this interpretation, and if they were found guilty, and if the case was appealled and went to the SCOTUS, and if they overturned the conviction based on a status of non-personhood, then it would not be the law.  Until then it is every bit as much the law as any other law is.  It will never happen though, cause no prosecutor is ever going to do it.



> go move to Iran, you would fit in better with this fucks.


go move under a rock, you'd fit in well with a worm.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 15, 2011)

xsited1 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > much propaganda has been said about sanger....not everything you read or see from a site with a prolife agenda is telling the truth, regarding her....and certainly not every prochoice site is either but i would suggest everyone on both sides take a breather and truly try to find the facts on her, instead of half truths....
> ...



If she was talking about mentally disabled people, she would be right. Note, she is not talking about those with low IQs or stupid, dumb people, but feeble-minded.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...


I don't care what excuse you use to attempt to call the law not the law.  If its on the books its the law.  The Logan act is the law, it was updated in the 90's, and yet in its 200 year history there has never been one prosecution under it.  yet, its still the law.  The canard you're throwing out there is that when the congress (or any legislature) creates a law, that law is not "the law" untill its enforced... thats simply dumb.  It is the law as soon as its passed.




> Again, evading the question to further misguided beliefs serves you no purpose.  What is the practical difference between the two?  Can you actually answer?


Why the hell would I answer an irrelevant question built on a flawed premise?  The law is what the law is, it is not restrictied in being the law until its enforced, if it were no President would ever have to enforce any law the congress passed and they signed, because according to this dumbass reasoning its not the law until its enforced.  I could give a shit about your completely irrelevant and weak appeal to the authority of a selected definition from a dictionary that you chose because it fits what you want it to.  I could find a thousand other deffinitions that don't.



> An act of a legislature that declares, proscribes, or commands something; a specific law, expressed in writing.


statute legal definition of statute. statute synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Oh look... a deffinition that doesn't include enforcement.






> Really now?  So you're saying that the moment before it makes stable content with the uterine lining it can be preserved, but the moment after it touches, being the start of implantation, it can't?  That's interesting, because biology would show that the stage at which it begins implantation, the blastocyst, can still be frozen and produce viability later.  But in your mind, the moment that blastocyst touches uterus and begins the implantation process, it is somehow different.  Interesting.


reading a bit in to that aren't you?  I did not and never have said "the moment it touches the uterin wall", I said AFTER IMPLANTATION, which for those with a moderate level of reading conprehension would imply the process was COMPLETE.

Though you've shown no actual proclivities leading me to believe this will help... what the hell, I'll give it a shot

Reading Comprehension



BenNatuf said:


> > Before you responded to someone by saying they were a clump of cells just as embryos are.  So are dogs.  What you missed was that the person was insinuating there was no higher order to that clump of cells, where there are in humans.
> 
> 
> That cl;ump of cells is no different than any other human clump of cells... just in a different stage of developement.  Dogs on the other hand are pets, or in some parts food.  They are not covered by the equal protection clause and are not entitled to due process





> Once again I see you avoiding the question with these hand-waiving responses instead of investigating the ethics.  So what's the difference between a dog embryo and a human embryo?


ones a human being, and the other isn't... I would think that pretty self apparent.  There is nothing "complex" about it and the assinine claim that there is is just plain dumb.





> Because the fully developed versions of each have different protection clauses makes you think the unformed undifferentiated versions also fall under that differentiation?  Ridiculous.  A 2 celled embryo is not a human being.  It may be comprised of human DNA, but it is not a human being.


yes in fact, it is a human being, in a very early stage of development.  There is absolutely nothing else it can be.  You saying its not is irrelevant, biology says it is.  Embryos are differentiated, they are differentiated by their DNA, claiming that they are undeifferentiated is just a silly denial of the facts you yourself reccognize since you've already admitted (in the next sentence no less) that DNA does differentiate them.  



> So again I ask, hoping you can provide an actual answer this time: what comprises a human being?  What qualities and attributes does a human being possess that would show an undeveloped embryo is such a creature?
> 
> Is it that you don't want to actually answer the question?  Or you can't?


laughable, a human being is a life form of the genus homo sapiens sapiens which is differentiated from other life forms not by its appearance or state of development but by its DNA.  That is quantifiable biological fact, and no denial will change that, no "spin" will negate it, no presumed "knowledge" will make it not so.  You're pretentious and quite frankly arrogant attempt aside, you have no point that stands up to scrutiny.

here, since you're so fond of appeals to authority



> human being
> n
> a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child


and before you go off on some wild tangent about what a "child is"

another appeal to authority (since you seem to need authorities to tell you what your opinion should be)



> child&#8194; &#8194;/t&#643;a&#618;ld/  Show Spelled
> [chahyld]  Show IPA
> 
> noun, plural chil·dren.
> ...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 15, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > was there even federally legal abortions when Sanger was alive?
> ...



Quite true.  Until Roe v. Wade, it was considered strictly a state-level issue, much the same (incidentally) as nearly every other law involving doing harm to another individual is.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


tell it to the courts, they have said the state has an interest in preserving the "life" of viable fetus'. (that would be the other person in the decission... you know, the one with no choice)



> I had a doctor once who insisted on "shared" decision making.  I made it very clear that her duty was to advise then either follow my decision or quit.  There is no shared decision making in the case of the mother's choice.  It's hers, and hers alone.


so is the chois to bash a kid in the head with a haammer... but the consequences of the act are hers too.  And they're not up to her.


----------



## jillian (Feb 15, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



and that worked out sooooo well. 


Loving v Virginia
Griswold v Connecticut
Roe v Wade
Brown v Board of Ed

Because the states can't be trusted to protect federal constitutional rights. 

which is why the anti-choicers want it to be a "state issue".

hint: if there weren't supposed to be a strong central government, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.

and any remaining questions about "states' rights" were resolved with the civil war. get over it.


----------



## jillian (Feb 15, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> tell it to the courts, they have said the state has an interest in preserving the "life" of viable fetus'. (that would be the other person in the decission... you know, the one with no choice)



still ignoring the balancing test of Roe?

i love pretend constitutionalists.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


IMO it should have stayed that way, however since it didn't what we have is Roe and Casey, and under Roe and Casey a viable fetus for any pracicle purpose must needs be a person, otherwise the state has no interest in preserving their lives.  Since it is each and every time an abortion of a viable fetus takes place in any state and the perpetrators go unprosecuted, those states are failing to provide a class of persons with the equal protection the constitution mandates they should recieve under the law.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 15, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



This is fascinating.  Apparently the left, as exemplified by Jake (and any group that can be exemplified by Jake should probably be rethinking itself), cannot differentiate between making a medical choice based on the facts and making a medical choice about what the facts are.  (For those on the left, the first is actually possible, and the second is not.)

I must tell you, Ben, that I am filled with admiration for your determined attempt to impose logical, informed thinking over the fuzzy "I'm sure I was told that things worked THIS way" crap that usually masquerades as thinking around here.



BenNatuf said:


> > I had a doctor once who insisted on "shared" decision making.  I made it very clear that her duty was to advise then either follow my decision or quit.  There is no shared decision making in the case of the mother's choice.  It's hers, and hers alone.
> 
> 
> so is the chois to bash a kid in the head with a haammer... but the consequences of the act are hers too.  And they're not up to her.



Again, you are fighting against the left's apparent inability to differentiate between making choices on the facts, and making choices about what the facts are.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


There is no such thing as states "rights", states do not have rights, they have authority.  People have rights.  Some states would perform their constitutional duty and protect the lives of persons of every class within the state if it weren't for Roe, thats why the pro-baby-killing abortionists don't want the states to decide for themselves.  They are quite happy with a class of persons having no protections.  Roe does not protect anyones constitionally granted rights, it deprives an entire class of person from the most fundamental of rights in order to extend a somewhat lesser fundamental right to another class of person.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Depends on what you consider "working out very well".  Since we both know that YOU define that as "forcing my values onto society via judicial fiat instead of letting society decide for itself through duly passed laws", I guess it didn't work out well.  It would also depend on how one defines "federal constitutional rights".  Again, we both know that YOU define that as "anything I decide that I want to impose through judicial fiat, whether it appears in the written law anywhere or not".

This is why anti-lifers want it to be a federal matter:  because when you give people the freedom to shape society for themselves, they often have the supreme nerve to reject leftist ideas.  Better to just slam what's good for them down their throats until they choke.

Hint:  If you're going to depend on scaring people with the "horrors" of the Articles of Confederation, you might want to be sure first that everyone agrees with your opinion thereof.  I realize that it's extremely hard for you to EVER consider that your opinion isn't the universally-accepted standard of right and moral, but you could at least try once in a while.

And you don't get to decide when questions can't be asked any more.  DAMN that whole freedom thing that allows people to continue questioning and arguing long after the point where YOU have decided that they should just shut up and accept what you've decided is good and proper for them.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > tell it to the courts, they have said the state has an interest in preserving the "life" of viable fetus'. (that would be the other person in the decission... you know, the one with no choice)
> ...


laughably, you acuse me of ignoring dictum in favor of your ignoring application.

too funny.

There is no "balancing" in the applicartion of Roe, a viable fetus is a life the state has a fundamental interest in preserving.  There are no "rights" which trump or ballance the fundamental right to not be deprived of life without due process of law.  Which is why in its application, if the life of the mother is endangered she has a fundamental right to defend herself by aborting.  There is no right to kill simply because you don't like the consequence of not doing so.  The right to privacy can not extend so far as to allow one person to kill another and keep it secret and/or not be punished for it.  There are no rights that go that far.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 15, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



I think the "balancing" she's referring to is Roe saying that early in the pregnancy, the state's interest in preserving fetal life does not outweigh the "right" of the mother to an abortion, and that the state's interest in preserving fetal life grows stronger as the pregnancy progresses.

It's hard to tell, though, since Jillian's ideas about what the laws are so rarely match what the laws actually say.


----------



## jillian (Feb 15, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



dictum? oooh cool.. you learned a word.

actually, the only holding of that case was that the decision of the woman is protected in the first trimester.

EVERYTHING else is dicta. 

capish?

the rest of what you said is


----------



## jillian (Feb 15, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



interestingly, that hasn't been my experience during the last 20 years. 

so there ya go.

what i think you mean to say is that it rarely matches what the pretend constitutionalists say it does.

as well it should


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Then she needs a course in reading comprehension as the only point of made is in the application of the law regarding the life of VIABLE fetus' which would not be "early stage".


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 15, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Just when you think the Cesspit couldn't get any more arrogant or ignorant....up comes this doozy.

...because we know that the Cesspit has a law degree, right? Oh, that's right she doesn't, but being a keyboard warrior, she somehow thinks if she types 'shit' it must be true.... 

Memo to the Cesspit: No, Cess Baby, it's just shit.....


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 15, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> There is no "balancing" in the applicartion of Roe, a viable fetus is a life the state has a fundamental interest in preserving.  There are no "rights" which trump or ballance the fundamental right to not be deprived of life without due process of law.  Which is why in its application, if the life of the mother is endangered she has a fundamental right to defend herself by aborting.  There is no right to kill simply because you don't like the consequence of not doing so.  The right to privacy can not extend so far as to allow one person to kill another and keep it secret and/or not be punished for it.  There are no rights that go that far.



Ok, Sparkie. I'm calling you out. Enough of this shit with your opinion. This thread started out about a doctor who looks like he might have been performing illegal late term abortions.

Now it is descended into the states rights to protect foetus (you don't seem to be stating in the above at what stage the feotus is at). So, if you are so right about where 'privacy' does extend insofar as a feotus is a 'person', why are abortions carried out every day without people being prosecuted for murder?

Oh, that's right, legal minds - A LOT more intelligent than you and your laptop lapdog the Cesspit - have decided otherwise.

If you want to talk _morals_, then have at it. If you want to talk the law, then STFU until you know what you are talking about....


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


the trimester system is scrapped in Casey, the "holding" or applicable part is the sates interest upon "viability".  The finding in the case was that the state DOES have an interest in a viable fetus and that the state can limit abortions according to a certain mechanical contrivance of the law which attempted to serve "viability" with a made up trimester system... since scrapped.  There is and always was but one test to determine the states interest... viability.



> EVERYTHING else is dicta.


gee, thanks for the datum. 



> capish?


more than you are capable of apparently.  Capiche?



> the rest of what you said is


new word?  Laughably the good little lib retreats behind the "i'm smarter than you" BS arrogance of self agrandizement.  Dictum has no bearing on application of the law, it is not a nholding of precedent.  It is non-binding an explanatory of the legal finding, but not a finding itself.  You ignore a lot for someone who likes to complain about things being ignored...

bit of irony there


----------



## jillian (Feb 15, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Laughably the good little lib retreats behind the "i'm smarter than you" BS arrogance of self agrandizement.  Dictum has no bearing on application of the law, it is not a nholding of precedent.  It is non-binding an explanatory of the legal finding, but not a finding itself.



little lib? what an arrogant little pissant you are.

i don't bother with your arguments because they're stupid. and i don't argue with the idiocy spewed by arrogant imbeciles.

as for being smarter? well, yes, i am. i'm also not insane like you apparently are. 

i'm also not a rabid rightwingnut trying to interfere in other people's moral choices.

so stop pretending its about law.

and please stop talking about caselaw when you haven't a clue what it says or means. if what you were saying about Casey were accurate, abortion would be illegal. it's not.

now run along, skippy.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



I agree that we don't want harm to the mother.  She always comes before the fetus when her health is endangered.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2011)

In either North or South Dakota a state senator supposedly is getting ready to sponsor a bill that will making killing abortion industry personnel a justifiable homicide.  I understand the state police commissioner (or whoever holds the equivalent of that office) has informed the senator's office that the senator will be immediately arrested for a terroristic threat if he so enters the bill.

I can't find much on this.  Who has more, please?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > There is no "balancing" in the applicartion of Roe, a viable fetus is a life the state has a fundamental interest in preserving.  There are no "rights" which trump or ballance the fundamental right to not be deprived of life without due process of law.  Which is why in its application, if the life of the mother is endangered she has a fundamental right to defend herself by aborting.  There is no right to kill simply because you don't like the consequence of not doing so.  The right to privacy can not extend so far as to allow one person to kill another and keep it secret and/or not be punished for it.  There are no rights that go that far.
> ...


OK Chiefy, you obviously have no concept of why i started the thread.  It started out (and is in the OP if you read it) as a thread to discuss the law and its application with regard to Roe, personhood and the states duty to apply the law equally in light of the botched abortions and what they imply about "viability".



> Now it is descended into the states rights to protect foetus (you don't seem to be stating in the above at what stage the feotus is at). So, if you are so right about where 'privacy' does extend insofar as a feotus is a 'person', why are abortions carried out every day without people being prosecuted for murder?


the stage would be at whatever point medical science determines it to be viable.  In case you hadn't noticed, didn't bother to read, or are just flat out incapable of understanding that, I've stated previously that with current medical science and proper medical care I believe that to be about 4 1/2 months.  And again, people have rights, states have authority.  Perhaps its just a pet pieve of mine but I really can't stand it when people talk about "states rights", thats not what states have, they have authority.

As to why they're not prosecuted, the answer is quite simple.  Although by application of Roe and Casey these persons (viable fetus') must needs be persons, as there is no other entity the sate would have any "interest" in preserving the life of, there is currently no state, no AG, no DA, no prosecutor who is willing to apply the law fully.  By not doing so they are complicit in denying a class of what can only be persons the most fundamental of rights, the right to not be deprived of life without due process of law.  It is merely a matter of will, and the political will is not there.  I'm not stupid, I know what a shit storm it would brew if one did.  Personally, they're cowards for not doing it, but that does not negate the argument, the law, or the fact that the crime fits the deffinition.



> Oh, that's right, legal minds - A LOT more intelligent than you and your laptop the Cesspit - have decided otherwise.
> 
> If you want to talk _morals_, then have at it. If you want to talk the law, then STFU until you know what you are talking about....


You want the argument to be about "morals" so you can pretend some moral ground built on the illusion of some person supposed liberty to kill.  You don't like the legal argument?  Oh well, you don't have to.  You don't agree with it?  Oh well you don't have to.  You don't want to discuss it?  Well, you don't have to do that either, but I will, I will continue to do so, and I will once again point out the rather weak appeal to authority that you're using once again because you just can't form an argument of your own.

insulting a posters inteligence and telling them to STFU is just so conducive to debate.

What an ass.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2011)

Ben is a poseur and can posit no viable argument here.  He is laughable.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> little lib? what an arrogant little pissant you are.



laughable coming from someone who spent several posts trying to make a point of the part of the law that was overturned in Casey, and was not a holding in the law to begin with.  It was mechanics designed to serve the finding.



> i don't bother with your arguments because they're stupid. and i don't argue with the idiocy spewed by arrogant imbeciles.



laughable yet again, and just so you know... kinda sounds like an arrogant little pissant.  You don't arguie them because you're incapable of it.  You tried, and I give you credit for that, but you tried to argue based the part of the opinion that is no longer meaningful since Casey.



> as for being smarter? well, yes, i am. i'm also not insane like you apparently are.



unfortunately all you've demonstarted is the opposite.



> i'm also not a rabid rightwingnut trying to interfere in other people's moral choices.



Nothing in any argument I've made about any moral anything.



> so stop pretending its about law.



stop pretending its not.  I know you have to pretend its not so you can make your little grandstanding freedom from religion postings, but it's realy not.



> and please stop talking about caselaw when you haven't a clue what it says or means. if what you were saying about Casey were accurate, abortion would be illegal. it's not.
> 
> now run along, skippy.



I will talk about whatever i want to talk about and I don't need either your permission or approval.  

casey scrapped the trimester system in favor of strict "viability".  Thats what it did.  Roes declared the states interest inpreserving the "life" of a viable fetus, thats what it did.  Therefore before viability the state has no authority and abortion is unrestricted, but after viability the state can limit, ban or do whatever it likes so long as provision is made for the life of the mother (self defense is a right).  

The states could use the viability test in Roe (enshrined and strengthenned in Casey) as legal justification for considering a viable fetus to be a person.  And as a person they could, if they chose, extend all the legal protections to them that any other person recieves.  In fact, according to the constitutional right to equal protection under the law, they really have no option constitutionally, and yet, they don't.  Not because they shouldn't, not because its not a valid legal position, but because of the politics of it.  

Every person in a state has a right to be treated equally with every other person under the law, and if the law dictates that justice be administered in the name of the dead upon their murderers, then it should apply equally to all those who are murdered.  It is not, because we currently have a class of persons who are held outside of the law.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> In either North or South Dakota a state senator supposedly is getting ready to sponsor a bill that will making killing abortion industry personnel a justifiable homicide.  I understand the state police commissioner (or whoever holds the equivalent of that office) has informed the senator's office that the senator will be immediately arrested for a terroristic threat if he so enters the bill.
> 
> I can't find much on this.  Who has more, please?


The guy is an ass and the people should find another rep.  

I don't see where a legislator in the course of legislating could possibly be charged with anything due to the wording of his proposed legislation though... thats just dumb.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2011)

The mother's life and health comes before a fetus.  Your position, Ben, is indefensible morally, legally, or religiously.  You have made no viable argument.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Ben is a poseur and can posit no viable argument here.  He is laughable.


^^^that, is about the only thing laughable here,  It does however kinda fit the rest of your "arguments".^^^

If its all you got, maybe you should just quit and let the adults discuss things.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2011)

You have no viable legal, moral, or religious arguments, Ben, that means a mother must be dealt death in order to save a child that threatens her health and or life.  She can make that choice.  Neither you nor the state can make such a choice.  We don't live in Hitler's Germany.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> You have no viable legal, moral, or religious arguments, Ben, that means a mother must be dealt death in order to save a child that threatens her health and or life.  She can make that choice.  Neither you nor the state can make such a choice.  We don't live in Hitler's Germany.


BWAHAHAHAHHAAHAHA

I have made no moral or religious argument, so of course I have none.  You and others have spent a good part of the thread trying to make it about that though... probobly feel like the ground is a little more solid for you there.  

As to the legal, you once again prove your complete lack or refusal to even acknowledge the arguments that are made.  Nowhere, in any post or thread have I ever stated that a mother does not have the absolute right to seek an abortion if carrying to term will endanger her life.  The right to kill in defence of the life of self or others is equally sacrosanct in law... it is an application of the right to life itself.  There however is no such thing as the right to kill to keep from getting a cold, in fact, you don't even have the right to kill to keep from getting a desease that will kill you someday if you get it.  I believe that ones been tried with a person with aids and the murderer was justly punished.

As to your opinion about the viability of my argument... why would I give a shit?

BTW, yet more Nazi refferences?  Now I know what the tripple negging was about, you're a petulant child who feels the need to lash out when someone critiques you for acting with incivility.  Make sure you get the chetoh crust off your fingers before you run upstairs for dinner.  Also, resorting to the nazi refference and all the nya, nya nya BS is more or less an admission that you got nuthin'.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2011)

You give these long nonsensical posts, Ben, that no one is bothering to read.

You have given no moral, legal, or religious justification for killing a mother in order to preserve the fetus.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> You give these long nonsensical posts, Ben, that no one is bothering to read.
> 
> You have given no moral, legal, or religious justification for killing a mother in order to preserve the fetus.


You keep trying to argue this stupid and nonsensicle point.  When did i ever say the mother should be killed to preserve anyones life?  maybe if you actually read the posts you'd actually see that I've stated many times rather emphatically that the mother has the right to defend her life and if she must abort to do so she has that right.

Kudo's on one thing though, you did actually make me think about one thing... health.  And yeah, if carrying to term could cause some sort of permanent physical disability or cause her to become sterile, then she has a right there also.  Like i said in the PM though, temporary malady does not apply.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 15, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> there is currently no state, no AG, no DA, no prosecutor who is willing to apply the law fully.



Really? Why is that?. Your _*opinion *_is noted...



BenNatuf said:


> You want the argument to be about "morals" so you can pretend some moral ground built on the illusion of some person supposed liberty to kill.  You don't like the legal argument?  Oh well, you don't have to.  You don't agree with it?  Oh well you don't have to.  You don't want to discuss it?  Well, you don't have to do that either, but I will, I will continue to do so, and I will once again point out the rather weak appeal to authority that you're using once again because you just can't form an argument of your own.



The problem is, and has been tried to be explained to you, you don't have a legal arguement.

And please stop using the "appeal to authority" claptrap. You are using the term in the wrong context, which does nothing to enhance your crappy analogy.



BenNatuf said:


> insulting a posters inteligence and telling them to STFU is just so conducive to debate.
> 
> What an ass.



Because there are literally 100s of posts on this thread where you've had your arse handed to you on a plate and you still rabbit on...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2011)

He has no "appeal to authority" at all.  I wonder if Ben does have some limitations to his position.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > there is currently no state, no AG, no DA, no prosecutor who is willing to apply the law fully.
> ...


point being?  Of course its an opinion, thats what legal arguments are, and that would be why they call court decissions "opinions".



> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > You want the argument to be about "morals" so you can pretend some moral ground built on the illusion of some person supposed liberty to kill.  You don't like the legal argument?  Oh well, you don't have to.  You don't agree with it?  Oh well you don't have to.  You don't want to discuss it?  Well, you don't have to do that either, but I will, I will continue to do so, and I will once again point out the rather weak appeal to authority that you're using once again because you just can't form an argument of your own.
> ...


Once again your point seems to be that you have no point.  No-onme, and that includes you chiefy, has even attempted to argue the legal points. (Except Jillian, but she based it on the part of the law that was struck).  Simply stating "you have no argument" is not an argument.  Stating "its not the law" is not an argument.  For them to be arguments you actually have to back them up with... something, hell, at this point I'd say anything. 



> And please stop using the "appeal to authority" claptrap. You are using the term in the wrong context, which does nothing to enhance your crappy analogy.


That you don't comprehend things is not a problem for me, its a problem for you.  Stop with the dumbass appeals to authority which do not in any way forward or support your non argument and I'll stop pointing out that thats what you're doing.  I don't care what some third party has to say.



> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > insulting a posters inteligence and telling them to STFU is just so conducive to debate.
> ...


not really there cheify.  If you think declarative statements with no dicta in explanation of the thesis is "getting your ass handed to you", then you don't think much.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2011)

We are not arguing the legal points.  Those are clear.  If you disagree with some of them, cool.  Talk to your legislator.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> He has no "appeal to authority" at all.  I wonder if Ben does have some limitations to his position.


of course i do.

The right to kill in defense of your own life or the lives of others is an exercize of the right to life, ergo, abortion to save the life of the mother is justified.

Allthough I would severly restrict any provision regarding health, I agree, that if carrying to term would result in permanent physical disability or in the mother becoming sterile, then she has the right to protect her person by aborting.

rape and incest are harder questions.  My personal opinion is that allowing abortion in these circunstances is corruption of blood and I just don't agree in punishiung children for the sins of the father.  On the other hand I completely respect the opinion of those who say it should be allowed and thank gods that it represents so comparatively few abortions.  In these instances I believe it could be considered "justifiable homicide".  Not that I would, but it could be.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 15, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> That you don't comprehend things is not a problem for me, its a problem for you.  Stop with the dumbass appeals to authority which do not in any way forward or support your non argument and I'll stop pointing out that thats what you're doing.  I don't care what some third party has to say.



There have been no appeals to authority and that is my point. If you think there has, you are either 1) Wrong 2) Don't know the meaning of the term. Take your pick...



BenNatuf said:


> not really there cheify.  If you think declarative statements with no dicta in explanation of the thesis is "getting your ass handed to you", then you don't think much.



No, what I see is somebody with an agenda. Somebody who thinks they are an expert on law, but are not. That is what I think.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> He has no "appeal to authority" at all.  I wonder if Ben does have some limitations to his position.





> Oh, that's right, legal minds - A LOT more intelligent than you and your laptop the Cesspit - have decided otherwise.


^^^that would be called an appeal to authority^^^

instead of actually making an argument he attempt to negate by appealing to "legal minds more intelligent than you", which of course is meaningless drivel devoid of any substance.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> We are not arguing the legal points.  Those are clear.  If you disagree with some of them, cool.  Talk to your legislator.


Once again you miss the entire point, there is no need for any legislative action (not that I don't think there should be).  The laws are already in place it is merely a matter of the will to apply them.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2011)

That is certainly your opinion, if not the law.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 15, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > He has no "appeal to authority" at all.  I wonder if Ben does have some limitations to his position.
> ...



IYO it might be 'meaningless drivel devoid of any substance'. But I can tell what it isn't - appealing to authority. As I suspected you have no idea what the term means.

Carry on....


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > That you don't comprehend things is not a problem for me, its a problem for you.  Stop with the dumbass appeals to authority which do not in any way forward or support your non argument and I'll stop pointing out that thats what you're doing.  I don't care what some third party has to say.
> ...


there have been many and the thread is replete with them.  that you don't even reccognize them when you make them yourself doesn't say a lot for you

once again



> Oh, that's right, legal minds - A LOT more intelligent than you and your laptop the Cesspit - have decided otherwise.


^^^an appeal to authority^^^^



BenNatuf said:


> not really there cheify.  If you think declarative statements with no dicta in explanation of the thesis is "getting your ass handed to you", then you don't think much.





> No, what I see is somebody with an agenda. Somebody who thinks they are an expert on law, but are not. That is what I think.


Odd, what i see is someone who can't negate an argument simply refusing to acknowledge it. (its not the law--- great sparky, maybe you could explain now why its not, as I have explained why iot should be)  making unsupported declaratives (thew law is not the law unless its enforced---wasn't you, but someone actually tried that tripe), positing logical falacies (a fetus is not a human being), circular arguments (it can't be the law, they don't enforce it therefore its not the law) 

I've explained at length and in detail refferencing generally; statutes, case law and constitutional provisions and their applications to support my argument as well as biology and the current state of medical science.  I have explained ad infenitum exactly how I see these things interacting to form the basis of a legal opinion.

What have you contributed?

oh yeah, that right



> Oh, that's right, legal minds - A LOT more intelligent than you and your laptop the Cesspit - have decided otherwise.


appeals to authority


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 15, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > In either North or South Dakota a state senator supposedly is getting ready to sponsor a bill that will making killing abortion industry personnel a justifiable homicide.  I understand the state police commissioner (or whoever holds the equivalent of that office) has informed the senator's office that the senator will be immediately arrested for a terroristic threat if he so enters the bill.
> ...



IF true - and around here, that's a mighty big IF - then the guy's a jackass.  And it sounds like the state police commissioner decided to be one, as well.

They both need to get a serious grip on reality.  IF, of course, one can believe anything one is told by Jake.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 15, 2011)

Jake (I am doing the third person reference!) is far more reputable and fair than CeCelie1200 by fair.

I said it was a rumor I heard and I can't find anything on it. Must be rural rumor instead of urban rumor.

I agree with Ben and 1200 that if it is true the rep and the commissioner have lost their marble.


----------



## jillian (Feb 15, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> once again
> 
> ^^^an appeal to authority^^^^



do you know what that term means? on whom shouild one rely for constitutional construction and discussion about decided cases?  someone who knows nothing about anything and who's clearly never so much as taken a law class and who appears to be about 18 and totally ignorant?


----------



## jillian (Feb 15, 2011)

the little pissant can't tell the difference between his (uneducated) opinion and fact.

what a maroon...


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


your denial of the tactic you used and I displayed doesn't say much for your integrity.



> Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:
> 
> 1.Source A says that p is true. ( legal minds... have decided otherwise)
> 2.Source A is authoritative. (legal minds more intelligent than you<<< the source of their authority )
> ...


Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

maybe I need to paste this again

Reading Comprehension


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > once again
> ...



He has no idea what it means...obviously...


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 15, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...




You really need to read further on that explanation within your link...there are two types. Neither of which are covered by you so far...

You might want to read your own comprehension link. You clearly have none...


----------



## jillian (Feb 15, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



I know.

I'm still wondering why he keeps talking about Planned Parenthood v Casey since it specificaly upheld Roe v Wade. But he's going to thrash about telling everyone else what the supreme court said.

i think there's a word for that sort of thing....


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > once again
> ...


yeah, and i've pretty much displayed it... do you?





> on whom shouild one rely for constitutional construction


how about the constituion and reading comprehension?  yes the courts are the arbiters leagally and how they decide to apply the law is the law, but that does not mean they're always right, and certainly does not mean they can't be argued to be wrong, the simple fact that they are the court does not make them "right", it just makes their opinions authoritative





> and discussion about decided cases?


how about the cases, the laws and how they are applied constituionally?  Do you need someone else to tell you wht to think for everyhting or just what you shoulod think about the law?





> someone who knows nothing about anything and who's clearly never so much as taken a law class and who appears to be about 18 and totally ignorant?


Why would you be so hard on yourself?

laws are written, they are in english for the most part, they have application which can be discovered in case law, they relate to specific authorities granted government in constitutions.  They are generally logical (not to be confused with neccessary or even smart).  Any person with good comprehensive ability and decent logical reasoning ability and a basic understanding of legal terminology can form a opinion on them and their application without needing the "advice" of a lawyer (which incidently is only as good as the lawyer) or anyone else to tell them what they "mean".


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> the little pissant can't tell the difference between his (uneducated) opinion and fact.
> 
> what a maroon...


the little lib has no argument... what a surprize.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


whats obvious is that your denial has no merit.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Feb 15, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Unlawful Killing, With Malice Aforethought - Second Degree Murder
PC 187

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. 
This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply: 
The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code. 
The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon' s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not. 
The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus. 
Subdivision (b) *shall not be construed to prohibit the prosecution of any person under any other provision of law. *


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


laughable.  let me know when you have more than denial of the obvious.  Your ignorance and dishonesty is displayed quite well.  Why not just grow a pair and admit that you did inadvertantly use an appeal to authority as an argument, and because you'er to stupid to actually reccognize what you did on your own had to have someone show you?


----------



## jillian (Feb 15, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > the little pissant can't tell the difference between his (uneducated) opinion and fact.
> ...



why don't you believe that you're too stupid to bother arguing with?

seriously. trust me. you are.

child, mommy needs her computer back.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


yes it did uphold Roe, and in doing so enshrined viability over the trimester system which it scrapped.

and all three of you arguing that gumps appeal to authority was not what it is when it is clearly displayed doesn't say much about the intelligence of any of you.


----------



## jillian (Feb 15, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



it did nothing of the sort.

you don't know what appeal to authority is.

why do you think you know anything? did your high school teacher tell you that you do?


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



what he's really saying is he knows as much as the justices. His argument is that "the founders wrote in plain english" and screw the lawyers for trying to say they know more than "the people".


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


still got nothing huh?


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 15, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> and all three of you arguing that gumps appeal to authority was not what it is when it is clearly displayed doesn't say much about the intelligence of any of you.



Once again, I did not appeal to authority - especailly in the example you gave. Just for shits and giggles, who do you think I was 'appealing' to?


----------



## jillian (Feb 15, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > and all three of you arguing that gumps appeal to authority was not what it is when it is clearly displayed doesn't say much about the intelligence of any of you.
> ...



the little pissant keeps repeating certain buzz words because he heard someone use them. 

why do you think someone like him, who clearly knows nothing, thinks he should be taken seriously?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


yes it did.  It replaced the trimester system with strict viability.  maybe you should actually learn what you're talking about before you type.



> you don't know what appeal to authority is.


evidently one of us doesn't.. and it would be you.



> why do you think you know anything? did your high school teacher tell you that you do?


more tripe.  If thats all you got, you ain't got much.  grow up l'il lib.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


once again you prove you ahve only limited comprehension and no psychic ability at all there cleo.

The founders didn't write Roe or Casey and I seriously doubt they wrote any state statutes against murder.  They also didn't write the 14th amendment, but its Ok if that confuses you.

What I'm saying is you can read the law for yourself, you can read the case law for yourself, you can read the statutes for yourself, and you can read the applicable constituional provisions for yourself.  And, if you have comprehensive and reasoning ability can form your own opinion instead of having someone else tell you what it should be.  Your argument of course is that lawers and judges are smart and know about these things so they must be "right".  which of course is a clasic appeal to authority.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 15, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



well, just to clarify, I'm talking about the judges on the USSC. Is that still appealing to authority, or do they have none..


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > and all three of you arguing that gumps appeal to authority was not what it is when it is clearly displayed doesn't say much about the intelligence of any of you.
> ...


do you really need it displayed for you again?  Most people would get it on the first try



> Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:
> 
> 1.Source A says that p is true. (* legal minds... have decided otherwise*)
> 2.Source A is authoritative. (*legal minds more intelligent than you*<<< the source of their authority )
> ...


seriously, its pretty straight forward and fairly obvious.  You are not under the mistaken opinion that an authority has to be some singular person are you?



> On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.


I believe the implication here is that the "legal minds" must be right because they are "more intelligent than you" and therfore are infalible by comparison.

your appeal to authority is clear, its also falacious.  And weak, really, really weak.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


still got nuthin huh?


----------



## xsited1 (Feb 15, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Abortion as Murder.



It'll be interesting to see how abortion changes in the future as medical science progresses to the point that a fetus could survive in, say, an incubator after just 6 weeks and grow to term.  

I often wonder how many of those aborted would have become something great in our world.  Of course, I'm one who believes that everyone can contribute something to our world, even those with a crippling condition like Down Syndrome.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Of course they have authority, that of course does not in any way mean they're either right or wrong, just that they have authority.  SCOTUS has ruled in many cases that we today would consider wroong in the past, seriously was Dredd Scott a valid application of constituional principles?  How about all the cases where one SCOTUS has reversed a prior SCOTUS ruling?  They can't both be right (on tgher other hand there is no implication that either of the decissions is "right").  What more I haven't argued that they are wrong.  I might even think they are, but my argument isn't based on them being wrong, its based on the rulings in Casey and Roe as they are.  They are the ones who de facto gave viable fetus' an arguable staus as "persons" by declaring the states have an interest in preserving their "lives".


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

xsited1 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Abortion as Murder.
> ...


Thats why the medical science is an aspect of the law, the more advanced it gets the further back viability gets pushed.  Seems rather arbitrary a thing to base rigid law on.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


once again you offer "nothing".  being "told" its not murder does not make it "not murder" and statutes against murder do not typically describe the act itself... only the outcome.  If you think they do go find one that defines the act of murder and you might have a point with regard to that statute.  Is there one saying driving an ice pick into the heart of another person is murder?  No, there's not.

Murder is the unlawful and intentional taking of another persons life.  How its achieved is irrelevant, so the only questionthats relevant here is, is it unlawful.  To determine that you have to determine what is makes the taking of another persons life "unlawful" and what does that is either of two things.

1.  The taking is not in defence of a threat to the life of self or others.
2.  The taking is not sanctioned by the state through due process.

Abortion of a viable fetus where the mothers life is not in danger meets neither test.  it is not in defence of the life of self or others and it is not sanctioned by due process.  That leaves the question of "personhood" as the only remaining criteria.  By virtue of Roe and Casey a viable fetus is arguably a "person" under the legal deffinition since the state would have no interest in preserving its life if it were not.  This conclusion can be drawn based on the nature of the authority granted the SCOTUS to determine controversies with regard to cases in the law and the constitution wherein they decided the states have an interest in preserving the "life" of a viable fetus.  

The states "interest" is prima facea based on the states duty to not deprive any person of life without due process of law.  That is the only constitutional grounds that a federal court could find any finding of a state interest that would allow any interferance.   It is a logical falacy to assume the state would have any interest in a non-entity or potential person.  There is no right to not be deprived of potential life for notional persons.  The states authority to intercede must be grounded somewhere on some constitutional provision or it has none and the right to privacy trumps throughout.  And we know it doesn't because the states authority trumps privacy for a viable fetus. In this case there is only one constitutional provision on which it could be grounded that a federal court could find an interest in, and thats the 14th amendment.  The right to not be deprived of life without due process and equal protection under the law applies to "persons", therefore a viable fetus MUST be a person or it does not apply in which case there is no state "interest" to ballance.

So, if a viable fetus is a person under the 14th (which they must be) and since the equal protection clause mandates that there not be seperate classes of people for whom the law applies differently, then a viable fetus must be afforded protection equally with all other persons in a given jurisdiction.  If one person is protected from murder by the threat of state sanction against their murderers in a jurisdiction then all persons must be protected by the same statute.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 15, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



And we're all in deep shit when the governed decide to put aside their own common sense and stop monitoring what the governing are doing in their name because "they're the experts; they know more than we do".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 15, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Certainly doesn't stop YOU.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 15, 2011)

xsited1 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Abortion as Murder.
> ...



The sad thing is that, in most cases, the only "crippling condition" those babies had was a selfish slut for a mother.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 16, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



or you...shrug...


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 16, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Seems to be the progressive way to do things.  Put "experts" in charge and wash your hands of any responsibility for the outcome.  They need their scapegoats.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 16, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Murder is the unlawful and intentional taking of another persons life.  How its achieved is irrelevant, so the only questionthats relevant here is, is it unlawful.  To determine that you have to determine what is makes the taking of another persons life "unlawful" and what does that is either of two things.
> 
> That leaves the question of "personhood" as the only remaining criteria.  By virtue of Roe and Casey a viable fetus is arguably a "person" under the legal deffinition since the state would have no interest in preserving its life if it were not.


You are correct in stating it all comes down to personhood.  But the only argument you have offered so far has been that the fetus is arguably a person based on conclusions you personally drew, that are not explicitly stated anywhere.  

I had previously asked you what determines when a person is a person, and you responded "science."  I am still looking for a specific answer, not finger pointing to some other source.  If you want to make this point, you need to support it yourself, not some vague reference to an entire field. 

Just curious: if there were risk to the mother's life, and a choice had to be made to save the fetus or the mother, could you make a decision?



Cecilie1200 said:


> The sad thing is that, in most cases, the only "crippling condition" those babies had was a selfish slut for a mother.


Don't be so hard on yourself.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 16, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > Could you cite them, please?
> ...


Oh I see.  You want to make a claim and have me do your homework.  I asked if you could cite these laws you keep referring to.  The answer is clearly no.


> Thats whats wrong with Roe, they userped that power for themselves, they have no such authority.


One big conspiracy!  It had been challenged by countless groups over time, and upheld time and time again, but one random person believes they are smarter than all the federal courts that have ever looked at this!  Amazing!



> Well, that would depend on what the law said, but if it excluded a fetus I most certainly would disagree with that law as I do many other laws... it would however negate any legal argument and then the argument would be strictly scientific/moral/ethical.


What makes you think this issue is anything BUT scientific/moral/ethical?  Are you serious?  Why do you think laws are enacted in the first place?  What do you think the very purpose of laws serve?  With that being said, why do you so easily dismiss Roe?  Claim it somehow doesn't count, if you are only interested in playing to the letter of the law?  It's hypocritical.  The things you want to count based on the assumptions you draw from them which are not explicitly stated count, and the definitive rulings on the topic somehow should be thrown out.  Ridiculous.

This is a scientific/moral/ethical case.  Foregoing that to complain about law technicalities which themselves don't quite line up is superficial, misguided, and foolish. 



BenNatuf said:


> Either a viable fetus is a person or its not.


You used the word "viable" there.  What makes a fetus "viable?"  At what point?



BenNatuf said:


> I don't care what excuse you use to attempt to call the law not the law.  If its on the books its the law.


Dumb Laws, Stupid Laws: We have weird laws, strange laws, and just plain crazy laws!
Because all laws on the books should be blindly followed without question.  That sounds good.  Let's find some really dumb ones from a century ago which happened to never been removed from the books and see how they apply today.



BenNatuf said:


> reading a bit in to that aren't you?  I did not and never have said "the moment it touches the uterin wall", I said AFTER IMPLANTATION, which for those with a moderate level of reading conprehension would imply the process was COMPLETE.


Ah I see.  And what point is that?  What day?  What cell division number?  What markers are found at that exact point.  Do me a favor and just define exactly when implantation is complete, and thus by your definition unable to be cryopreserved. 



BenNatuf said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Apparently not.  Maybe I'm just uneducated in this matter.  So please, explain the obvious difference you vaguely reference yet failed to elucidate in your previous post.  




BenNatuf said:


> yes in fact, it is a human being, in a very early stage of development.  There is absolutely nothing else it can be.  You saying its not is irrelevant, biology says it is.  Embryos are differentiated, they are differentiated by their DNA, claiming that they are undeifferentiated is just a silly denial of the facts you yourself reccognize since you've already admitted (in the next sentence no less) that DNA does differentiate them.


DNA does in fact differentiate them as human, much like cells from your pancreas, or cancer, or a deceased person.  Clearly the latter three are not living human BEINGS though they contain human DNA.  Similarly, defining a human being as a "member" of our species only pushes back the question. So again I ask: what comprises the human BEING?  Or do you think the only necessity is species DNA?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 16, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Murder is the unlawful and intentional taking of another persons life.  How its achieved is irrelevant, so the only questionthats relevant here is, is it unlawful.  To determine that you have to determine what is makes the taking of another persons life "unlawful" and what does that is either of two things.
> ...


is the right to privacy explicitly stated anywhere?  Yeah, they are conclusions I drew, just as anyone can.  That would be how legal opinions are arrived at.  You look at the statutes, you look at the case law, you apply logical reasoning, and you arive at a conclusion.

Tell me "sparky", if the states interest in preserving the "life" of a viable fetus is not based on it's right to not be deprived of life without to process and the states duty to provide equal protection under the law... what is it based on?  What possible "interest" could the state have that would negate the right to privacy?



> I had previously asked you what determines when a person is a person, and you responded "science."


that is not what you asked.  What you asked was what determines a human being as being a human being... those are different questions. 





> I am still looking for a specific answer, not finger pointing to some other source.  If you want to make this point, you need to support it yourself, not some vague reference to an entire field.


what other reference aside from vague could a "person" be defined under?  It's not a science question, it's a philosophy question.  If however you want some authoritative source to determine it for you, I refer you back to the definition I supplied from a dictionary...

#4.  A fetus

As for a "legal" definition, again it falls to two things, the body of law and what can be garnered from it and argued legally, and the general philosphical bent of society.  We can discern from the law an argument that a viable fetus is a person, whether or not society in general accepts that can only be determined by public policy, and the congress has passed no laws or resolutions to determine it.  I'm not, and never have claimed mine is the "only" possible argument, but it is one possible argument and it is valid legal reasoning.



> Just curious: if there were risk to the mother's life, and a choice had to be made to save the fetus or the mother, could you make a decision?


if I had to, yes.  And likely I would choose the mother.  Self defence when ones own life is threatenned is always a valid reason to kill.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 16, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> is the right to privacy explicitly stated anywhere?


No, which is why privacy is NOT a global right, although protected in many instances.  When you go to work, you have ZERO privacy on your employee e-mail account, but there are still laws against peeping toms. So you offer a poor example.



BenNatuf said:


> Yeah, they are conclusions I drew, just as anyone can.  That would be how legal opinions are arrived at.  You look at the statutes, you look at the case law, you apply logical reasoning, and you arive at a conclusion.


Again, this is nothing short of hypocrisy.  In one area you demand that the letter of the law be applied, because it is possible, and in another breath you claim that legal opinions are arrived at by applying logical reasoning to reach a conclusion.  Remember that law that can possibly be applied to abortion as murder but no one has done so yet?  That happened because everyone else besides you applied logical reasoning to reach a conclusion that is quite district from yours. 



BenNatuf said:


> Tell me "sparky", if the states interest in preserving the "life" of a viable fetus is not based on it's right to not be deprived of life without to process and the states duty to provide equal protection under the law... what is it based on?  What possible "interest" could the state have that would negate the right to privacy?


The answer is irrelevant.  Reading into the anthropomorphized "interest of a state" is completely irrelevant. Nonetheless, I can offer a number of answers to your question which clearly show your assumption is not the only possibility, including reduction of suffering on the mother, reduction of pain on a viable neurologic system, creating a compromise between arguing camps, etc etc etc. But again, we're not talking about aborting viable fetuses.  The large majority of abortions are only possible before viability anyway. So I can't quite tell why you're pushing the conversation there now.  



BenNatuf said:


> that is not what you asked.  What you asked was what determines a human being as being a human being... those are different questions.


Oh I see what has confused you so much.  Let me know if you can figure out an answer for either question then dear. 

Let's start with just one, as two seems to be difficult for you: what makes someone a human being?



BenNatuf said:


> > Just curious: if there were risk to the mother's life, and a choice had to be made to save the fetus or the mother, could you make a decision?
> 
> 
> if I had to, yes.  And likely I would choose the mother.  Self defence when ones own life is threatenned is always a valid reason to kill.


Self defense?  

And what if you were making the decision for another person.  A partner or family member, perhaps?  Would you choose the mother or the 2 month old fetus?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 16, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...


the answer is clearly that you're not a bright as you think you are.  Are you not aware of the statutes against murder in all 50 states?  Is murder legal in any of them?  Why in the hell would you need a link to a murder statute to know murder is illegal.  Your attempted deflection is rejected.



> One big conspiracy!  It had been challenged by countless groups over time, and upheld time and time again, but one random person believes they are smarter than all the federal courts that have ever looked at this!  Amazing!


why in the hell would you expect the court to give back authority it userped?  Would kind of defeat the userpation.  Once again, I know it's the law currently, but should it be?  Did the courts actually haver a constitutional grant of authority to insert there own judgement where the congress elected not too?  Isn't the very act of not acting a statement of congressional intent to not act?  If the congress has declined to make it the law, no court has the power to insert it as law.  They can strike down laws that they deem unconstitutional, but they certainly have no authority to make them up from scratch.  Also "sparky" there is no conspiracy involved, they didn't conspire to do anything, they just did it, and the rest of the government let them.




> What makes you think this issue is anything BUT scientific/moral/ethical?  Are you serious?  Why do you think laws are enacted in the first place?  What do you think the very purpose of laws serve?  With that being said, why do you so easily dismiss Roe?  Claim it somehow doesn't count, if you are only interested in playing to the letter of the law?  It's hypocritical.  The things you want to count based on the assumptions you draw from them which are not explicitly stated count, and the definitive rulings on the topic somehow should be thrown out.  Ridiculous.


your entire claim here is rediculous.  I never dismissed Roe at all, in fact, its "finding" is the central part of my argument.  As to the purpose of laws... well yeah, duh!  But that has not a damned thing to do with legal reasoning which is built on the written law not the reason behind it.  And when it comes to Roe... there is no written law and the ONLY part of the decission with precedential value is the FINDING.  Dicta is non binding and cannot be used for precedent.  Once again your attempting to move the argument off of the legal argument onto a moral argument where you perhaps feel more sure footed because the talking points make it so easy.



> This is a scientific/moral/ethical case.  Foregoing that to complain about law technicalities which themselves don't quite line up is superficial, misguided, and foolish.


your attempted deflection away from the legal arguments is self serving, misguided and foolish.  BTW, the "legal technicallities" line up perfectly.  Your inability to grasp them is not my problem.




> You used the word "viable" there.  What makes a fetus "viable?"  At what point?


Are you serious?  maybe you should read Roe and casey before you attempt to argue about them.  A fetus is viable when it can survive outside the womb.  With current medical science, thats at about 4 1/2 months.  Also perhaps in your "riteous fervor" you falied to note I've ALWAYS said viable fetus.  That would be the only ones the interpretation applies to.




> Dumb Laws, Stupid Laws: We have weird laws, strange laws, and just plain crazy laws!
> Because all laws on the books should be blindly followed without question.  That sounds good.  Let's find some really dumb ones from a century ago which happened to never been removed from the books and see how they apply today.


The law is the law, whether or not its enforced its still the law.



> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > ones a human being, and the other isn't... I would think that pretty self apparent.
> ...


 already answered and I'm not going to play your little intentionally obtuse game.  In fact, you answered what differentiates them yourself, in the sentence after you claimed there was no differentiation.  Go figure.




> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > yes in fact, it is a human being, in a very early stage of development.  There is absolutely nothing else it can be.  You saying its not is irrelevant, biology says it is.  Embryos are differentiated, they are differentiated by their DNA, claiming that they are undeifferentiated is just a silly denial of the facts you yourself reccognize since you've already admitted (in the next sentence no less) that DNA does differentiate them.
> ...


a pancreas is not a human being and is not a "life".  It is an organ.  the stupid cell argument is a loser and you know it.  A human embryo fits the biological definition of life (that thing a person cannot be deprived of, but a pancreas can) and it is a unique individual in the species.  

What it doesn't fit is the legal deffinition of a person, which would require viability.  Kind of silly to argue against a conception argument I'm not even making... don't you think?  hard to get away from the talking points for you i guess.


----------



## AllieBaba (Feb 16, 2011)

"The large majority of abortions are only possible before viability anyway. So I can't quite tell why you're pushing the conversation there now."

You have evidence of this? Because I've looked for stats for YEARS and there are none.


----------



## AllieBaba (Feb 16, 2011)

And what the hell do you mean by "only possible"? Babies can be and are killed any time from conception to birth.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 16, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > is the right to privacy explicitly stated anywhere?
> ...


Just sillyness, you don't have a right to speak freely at work either... know why?  because the government is precluded from infringing on your rights, people can do it whenever they wish and if you don't like it you can sue them.  BTW sparky, you also don't own your 'employee email account" so its not yours to keep private to begin with.



> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, they are conclusions I drew, just as anyone can.  That would be how legal opinions are arrived at.  You look at the statutes, you look at the case law, you apply logical reasoning, and you arive at a conclusion.
> ...


your logical falacy is kind of well a logical falacy.  There is no hypocracy in any of what i said, I have expalined the reasoning behind why I think the law should be applied as I've stated.  Should one arive there in some other way besides logical reasoning?  There is no contradiction there and you inane appeal to a larger authority (once again) is meaningless.  That its never been tried does not mean it can't be or that it would be either successful or unsuccesful, and that its never been tried does not mean "everyone else" (your new authority I suppose) reached any conclusion on it at all, that is merely an unsupported assertion. 



> The answer is irrelevant.  Reading into the anthropomorphized "interest of a state" is completely irrelevant.


The finding in Roe is "irrelevant?  Better let the courts know. 





> Nonetheless, I can offer a number of answers to your question which clearly show your assumption is not the only possibility, including reduction of suffering on the mother, reduction of pain on a viable neurologic system, creating a compromise between arguing camps, etc etc etc. But again, we're not talking about aborting viable fetuses.  The large majority of abortions are only possible before viability anyway. So I can't quite tell why you're pushing the conversation there now.


Pushing it there now?  Can you read?  It's the ONLY PLACE I"VE EVER PUSHED IT.  How many times do I have to say VIABLE FETUS!!!  Its in the fucking OP for christs sake and I've repeated it in just about every fucking post.

As to what the states interest is grounded on, what do you suppose it is?  Ether? Holecloth?  The states authority to infringe in a right must be grounded on some graqnted authority.  Courts are not arbitters of "compromise" they are arbiters of the LAW.  What interest does the STATE have in a "viable neurologic system"?  I must have missed that authority in the constitution along with how that system is capable of negating a persons rights.




> Oh I see what has confused you so much.  Let me know if you can figure out an answer for either question then dear.
> 
> Let's start with just one, as two seems to be difficult for you: what makes someone a human being?


already answered twice there sparky.  maybe you should go back and get that link on reading comprehension and give it a run.



> > if I had to, yes.  And likely I would choose the mother.  Self defence when ones own life is threatenned is always a valid reason to kill.
> 
> 
> Self defense?


You don't know what self defense is?  You have a right to defend your life or the life of others with deadly force.  Well established in the law.  Why would you find that funny?



> And what if you were making the decision for another person.  A partner or family member, perhaps?  Would you choose the mother or the 2 month old fetus?


Already answered that one too... does it always take two or three times for shit to sink in with you?  Does it ever?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 17, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


You claim you only care about the letter of the law, regardless of inference, meaning, enforcement, or practicality, yet you won't even cite the very laws you claim technically reject abortion?  No one is debating whether murder is bad.  The issue here is what the laws you continually reference but don't cite actually say, and how they may be interpreted.  Nice straw man attempt though. 



BenNatuf said:


> why in the hell would you expect the court to give back authority it userped?  Would kind of defeat the userpation.  Once again, I know it's the law currently, but should it be?  Also "sparky" there is no conspiracy involved, they didn't conspire to do anything, they just did it, and the rest of the government let them.


And we return to your hypocrisy once again.  The laws you want ought to be followed to the letter, regardless of how impractical or misinterpreted that letter may be, whereas you brush aside the issues you dislike by insinuating they ought not really be laws anyway.  How foolish.  

The conspiracy is not what established Roe, the conspiracy theories are from one random person on the internet thinking he understands the entire US legal system better than every single court that has ever upheld those decisions.  Laughable.  Precedence is golden in this country. 



BenNatuf said:


> your attempted deflection away from the legal arguments is self serving, misguided and foolish.


Your attempted deflection away from the REASONS BEHIND HAVING LAWS is self serving, misguided, and foolish.  See how easy it is to provide unsupported adjectives?  As I mentioned in my previous post and you promptly ignored it, ALL laws should stem from the scientific/moral/ethical issue.  Or do you believe people should follow unethical/immoral laws simply because they are laws?  Perhaps we can return to the salem witch trials?  

Do we really need to review all of the periods in history were genocide and pillaging ran rampant because people will blindly following laws?  Or maybe you think we should return to times where laws stated we did not have freedom of speech or religion?  Hopefully we have grown a bit more civilized since those times, and can now identify that laws need to be based on the scientific/ethical/moral reasoning, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. 



BenNatuf said:


> Are you serious?  maybe you should read Roe and casey before you attempt to argue about them.  A fetus is viable when it can survive outside the womb.  With current medical science, thats at about 4 1/2 months.  Also perhaps in your "riteous fervor" you falied to note I've ALWAYS said viable fetus.  That would be the only ones the interpretation applies to.


So why go off on tangents regarding cryopreservation of implanted embryos?  What's your overall point at all?  The large majority of states acknowledge and accept the viability barrier, with a small minority of areas performing abortions later.  



BenNatuf said:


> already answered and I'm not going to play your little intentionally obtuse game.  In fact, you answered what differentiates them yourself, in the sentence after you claimed there was no differentiation.  Go figure.


Ah, the vague "I already did it and won't even post a link of where I did it" tactic.  Which means you can't.  Good job. 



BenNatuf said:


> > BenNatuf said:
> >
> >
> > > yes in fact, it is a human being, in a very early stage of development.  There is absolutely nothing else it can be.  You saying its not is irrelevant, biology says it is.  Embryos are differentiated, they are differentiated by their DNA, claiming that they are undeifferentiated is just a silly denial of the facts you yourself reccognize since you've already admitted (in the next sentence no less) that DNA does differentiate them.
> ...


Hold on a minute.  You did not give the biological definition.  You gave the lay definition.  And you did not define human being, you defined the vaguest form of "life" and then refused to enter an ethical discussion on the differences.  

It's great that you can differentiate that pancreatic tissue is not a human being, but simply saying "that's loser" is an unsupported and useless argument.  But the thing is, you CAN'T tell me WHY it's "loser" and yet you think you have a valid argument.  Boo hoo you.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 17, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> "The large majority of abortions are only possible before viability anyway. So I can't quite tell why you're pushing the conversation there now."
> 
> You have evidence of this? Because I've looked for stats for YEARS and there are none.


Looked for years?  Have you tried google?
Let me google that for you
First hit.  Magic.

Oh, and here is similar information on Wikipedia.  Abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amazing! Internet searching!  Where were you looking for all those years?



AllieBaba said:


> And what the hell do you mean by "only possible"? Babies can be and are killed any time from conception to birth.


It's amusing when you have no clue what you're talking about yet keep talking anyway, and it's amazing how often this happens.  Elective late term abortions are generally banned in most states, and even when that isn't the case, most health care providers do not offer it past that point.  Partial birth abortions are illegal.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 17, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...


Silly and weak attempt at deflection, every opne of the fifty states have laws against murder, in fact they have multiple laws against murder, and if its your contention that any one of those laws exempts abortion of a viable fetus its up to you to prove that.  The fact is they don't, and they all boild down to the same thing.  Unlawfully and intentionally taking the life of another person.  How doesn't really matter. 




> And we return to your hypocrisy once again.  The laws you want ought to be followed to the letter, regardless of how impractical or misinterpreted that letter may be, whereas you brush aside the issues you dislike by insinuating they ought not really be laws anyway.  How foolish.


No, what we have here is just you lying.  Sorry, but I don't know what else to call it when you lie.  Please, enlighten us as to what "letter" of any law you refer to?  Do you mean I think murderers should be punished?  Well yeah, I do, that would be why we have laws against it.  If you're refering to interpreting Roe and Casey to define a viable fetus as a person, then you're way off base, because there is no law to letter.  There is only a court finding, which would be an interpretation itself.  



> The conspiracy is not what established Roe, the conspiracy theories are from one random person on the internet thinking he understands the entire US legal system better than every single court that has ever upheld those decisions.  Laughable.  Precedence is golden in this country.


did you consult alinsky to come up with this conspiracy garbage?   I have not espoused any "conspiracy".  The branches of government tug and push at each others powers every day.  In this case the SCOTUS managed to grab some.  There's no "conspiracy" its the way our government works and why the seperate branches have to jealously gaurd their authority.   When you find the part of the constitution empowering the courts to write law where congress has not... let us know.



> Your attempted deflection away from the REASONS BEHIND HAVING LAWS is self serving, misguided, and foolish.  See how easy it is to provide unsupported adjectives?


BWAHAHAHAHAHHA... skin a little thin?  Don't like it when I throw your crap back at you.  Too bad.





> As I mentioned in my previous post and you promptly ignored it, ALL laws should stem from the scientific/moral/ethical issue.  Or do you believe people should follow unethical/immoral laws simply because they are laws?  Perhaps we can return to the salem witch trials?


It matters not a whit.  What the law is, is what is written, why its written is irrelevant to its application.  Courts do not rule on perceptions or intentions, they rule on written laws. 



> Do we really need to review all of the periods in history were genocide and pillaging ran rampant because people will blindly following laws?  Or maybe you think we should return to times where laws stated we did not have freedom of speech or religion?  Hopefully we have grown a bit more civilized since those times, and can now identify that laws need to be based on the scientific/ethical/moral reasoning, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.


your a riot.  pillaging and genocide are the result of lawlessness.  Honestly dude, are you drinking?  Laws did not give us freedom of speech, you were born with it.  And again, you can base the law on anything you wish, once iots written, its whats written that is the law.




> So why go off on tangents regarding cryopreservation of implanted embryos?  What's your overall point at all?  The large majority of states acknowledge and accept the viability barrier, with a small minority of areas performing abortions later.


That is just false.  Most states bar a specific procedure which would be used after about 8 months, fetus' are viable LONG BEFORE that, and they are aborted every day and in every state.

Go off on a tangent?  I mentioned once in an aside and you ran with it.  




> Ah, the vague "I already did it and won't even post a link of where I did it" tactic.  Which means you can't.  Good job.


No, just means I'm not gonna answer the same question  from you over and over again because your too dense to get it the first time.  You asked the same damned question three times and I answered it every fucking time.  have you answered mine yet?  No, you've just ignored them.



BenNatuf said:


> > DNA does in fact differentiate them as human, much like cells from your pancreas, or cancer, or a deceased person.  Clearly the latter three are not living human BEINGS though they contain human DNA.  Similarly, defining a human being as a "member" of our species only pushes back the question. So again I ask: what comprises the human BEING?  Or do you think the only necessity is species DNA?
> 
> 
> a pancreas is not a human being and is not a "life".  It is an organ.  the stupid cell argument is a loser and you know it.  A human embryo fits the biological definition of life (that thing a person cannot be deprived of, but a pancreas can) and it is a unique individual in the species.





> Hold on a minute.  You did not give the biological definition.  You gave the lay definition.  And you did not define human being, you defined the vaguest form of "life" and then refused to enter an ethical discussion on the differences.


false.  I answered both, and I've commented alot on the PHILISOPHICAL definition... there is no "ethical" one. 



> It's great that you can differentiate that pancreatic tissue is not a human being, but simply saying "that's loser" is an unsupported and useless argument.  But the thing is, you CAN'T tell me WHY it's "loser" and yet you think you have a valid argument.  Boo hoo you.


I didn't simply say "that's a loser", i went on to explain why, and once again you are either incapable of understanding or simply refuse to acknowledge it.... it would have to do with that whole "unique individual of the genus homo sapiens sapiens" thing.  Not to worry... I'm sure you'll ignore it again.  Seems to be what you do when you can't argue a point.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 17, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


Glad you agree that your example was useless. 



BenNatuf said:


> The finding in Roe is "irrelevant?  Better let the courts know. Pushing it there now?  Can you read?


Can you?  Why don't you start by pointing out where I stated the finding in Roe is irrelevant?  Clearly you picked that up somewhere in your reading, despite me not actually saying it.  To correct yet another straw man, what I did say was that the anthropromorphized state interest is irrelevant.  It doesn't matter how one interprets the state's interest of the result, but that doesn't make the result itself irrelevant. 



BenNatuf said:


> As to what the states interest is grounded on, what do you suppose it is?  Ether? Holecloth?


Did you miss the part where I stated it was irrelevant?  The very fact that you are asking shows it is not a defined interest, and therefore your one unsupported interpretation of Roe should not be taken as such.  If you want to discuss WHY Roe ended as it did, we can certainly do that, but all attempts to get you to discuss the underlying ethics of this issue instead of just spewing forth keywords have been ignored, sidestepped, or redirected. 



BenNatuf said:


> > Self defense?
> 
> 
> You don't know what self defense is?  You have a right to defend your life or the life of others with deadly force.  Well established in the law.  Why would you find that funny?


So you're defining self defense as defending yourself.  Good definition.  Let me know when you start to pick up on your shortcomings. Perhaps we should start defining cancer surgeries or the flu as "self defense" 



BenNatuf said:


> > And what if you were making the decision for another person.  A partner or family member, perhaps?  Would you choose the mother or the 2 month old fetus?
> 
> 
> Already answered that one too... does it always take two or three times for shit to sink in with you?  Does it ever?


Actually no, you answered a similar yet different question.  You seem to state things are already answered when it's clear you are just having trouble with the details.  So let's reiterate: previously you claimed you would choose the mother in reference to self-defense.  Then I asked you a question where you would need to choose between the two options where SELF-defense was removed, i.e. you were not defending self whatsoever and thus your silly application was irrelevant.  

But assuming you would answer the same, it seems to me like you hold the life of the mother to be a different value as the life of the fetus.  Why is that?  If not, why would you pick the mother?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 17, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


Once again I repeat: no one is debating whether murder is bad, or even if states have laws about murder.  The key here is that you claim your whining here is only in regards to the letter of the law, which you have yet to produce.  You claim they do not exempt abortion yet you refuse to actually directly cite them, to instead give your own personal unsupported interpretation.

You claim I am deflecting the topic, which is nothing but your own insecurity.  The topic is as you claim it to be: the letter of the law does not exempt abortion.  I have asked you several times to support your claim by citing the law, and every single time without fail you have avoided it.  Ran from it.  Deflected it by pointing the finger back at me.  But at the end of all your worming away from the actual issue, the fact still remains that you have yet to cite a single law that shows abortion is not exempt.  It very well may be the case, but for someone claiming they only care about the letter, you have yet to actually show it.



BenNatuf said:


> No, what we have here is just you lying.  Sorry, but I don't know what else to call it when you lie.  Please, enlighten us as to what "letter" of any law you refer to?  Do you mean I think murderers should be punished?  Well yeah, I do, that would be why we have laws against it.  If you're refering to interpreting Roe and Casey to define a viable fetus as a person, then you're way off base, because there is no law to letter.  There is only a court finding, which would be an interpretation itself.


Yes yes, I'm a liar liar poopey pants deflector pants on fire.  Now when you're done with your snack and nap, and want to discuss the issue like a big boy, let me know.  

You continue to insinuate that court findings are of little value, when in fact they are binding.  Precedent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note how I supported something I said with a direct link to relevant information.  You should try that sometime. 



BenNatuf said:


> did you consult alinsky to come up with this conspiracy garbage?   I have not espoused any "conspiracy".  The branches of government tug and push at each others powers every day.  In this case the SCOTUS managed to grab some.  There's no "conspiracy" its the way our government works and why the seperate branches have to jealously gaurd their authority.   When you find the part of the constitution empowering the courts to write law where congress has not... let us know.


So you still think this is a massive oversight whereby SCOTUS has illegally usurped power despite the decision being upheld time and time again. And then you wonder why I think you are a crackpot conspiracy theorist. 



BenNatuf said:


> BWAHAHAHAHAHHA... skin a little thin?  Don't like it when I throw your crap back at you.  Too bad.It matters not a whit.  What the law is, is what is written, why its written is irrelevant to its application.  Courts do not rule on perceptions or intentions, they rule on written laws.


So I take that to mean you can't actually discuss this issue.

Once again I will restate: laws ought to be based on the scientific/ethical/moral underpinnings of their topics, not the other way around.  Blindly following unethical and immoral laws simply because they are laws has produced horrible outcomes throughout history.  It amuses me that your only retort on this point is name calling.  Did you have your nap yet?



BenNatuf said:


> your a riot.  pillaging and genocide are the result of lawlessness.  Honestly dude, are you drinking?  Laws did not give us freedom of speech, you were born with it.  And again, you can base the law on anything you wish, once iots written, its whats written that is the law.


The salem witch trials, inquisition, every other religious war, and that thing that I otherwise dare not bring up, the holocaust, were all "lawful" in approach.  Do you need to review history?  

Laws absolutely give us freedom of speech, which is not something people are born with.  It is something inherent to American culture, certainly, but only because it was written into our laws from the start based on the subjugation of this country's founding citizens by Britain.  If those truths are so self-evident, why do you suppose it took so long in human history to definitively establish them?



BenNatuf said:


> That is just false.  Most states bar a specific procedure which would be used after about 8 months, fetus' are viable LONG BEFORE that, and they are aborted every day and in every state.


Perhaps you missed the links I gave regarding abortion statistics in the US. You know, that supporting evidence thing again.  The FACT remains that less than 1% of all abortions in this country take place after the fetus is of a viable age.  Most health care providers simply will not offer those services whatsoever after the 24th week. 

Every day in every state after that point?  Sounds like you are pretty clueless. 




BenNatuf said:


> No, just means I'm not gonna answer the same question  from you over and over again because your too dense to get it the first time.  You asked the same damned question three times and I answered it every fucking time.  have you answered mine yet?  No, you've just ignored them.


Aw, baby is resorting to cursing.  How cute.  So let's review: you won't restate, and you won't even provide a link, but you insist you're right for reasons you stated but no one else besides you know.  Right.  Is there some question you feel I've overlooked and would like me to answer directly?  I'm happy to. 

In the meantime, we have no understanding of what "human being" means to you.  Now you can go one of two ways: you can either realize you're in a discussion board and understand that basic communication skills are required to DISCUSS things, or you can continue to shove your fingers so deep into your ears that they touch each other in the middle, pretending that you're right simply because you can't hear anything else.  



BenNatuf said:


> > It's great that you can differentiate that pancreatic tissue is not a human being, but simply saying "that's loser" is an unsupported and useless argument.  But the thing is, you CAN'T tell me WHY it's "loser" and yet you think you have a valid argument.  Boo hoo you.
> 
> 
> I didn't simply say "that's a loser", i went on to explain why, and once again you are either incapable of understanding or simply refuse to acknowledge it.... it would have to do with that whole "unique individual of the genus homo sapiens sapiens" thing.  Not to worry... I'm sure you'll ignore it again.  Seems to be what you do when you can't argue a point.


You went on to explain why.  Interesting.  Let's revisit your explanation:
"It is an organ."
While true, it doesn't really differentiate the topics.

"the stupid cell argument is a loser and you know it."
your usual mature response

"A human embryo fits the biological definition of life"
Again, you gave the lay definition from a lay dictionary.  In fact the biological definition of life is a bit different. If we go to any standard biology dictionary, we readily discern that the #1 definition of life is "The state of being which begins with generation, birth, or germination, and ends with death; also, the time during which this state continues; that state of an animal or plant in which all or any of its organs are capable of performing all or any of their functions; used of all animal and vegetable organisms."  If we then look at any encyclopedia, it is confirmed that definitions are not so easily applied to life.  This returns me to my prior point, that we must discuss the ethics of this issue instead of throwing buzzwords at it with gray areas of definition.  Murder is such a word.  Human being is a large discussion which you are either unwilling to have or unwilling to reference where you've had it previously. Defining it as "individual" also pushes back the exact same point.  Is a fetus an individual?  What comprises an individual?  

Again, we can either use buzzwords or address the actual ethics.  Higher courts do the latter.  You seem content with the former.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 17, 2011)

correction: the large majority are not by pill.  I knew it wasn't by cutting, but i forgot about the non-cutting non-pill option, even though that still starts with a pill.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 18, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...


You are the one arguing abortion of a viable fetus isn't included in murder statutes because its not explicitly included in them.  If your going to be hypocritical at least be consistantly hypocritical. 




> Can you?  Why don't you start by pointing out where I stated the finding in Roe is irrelevant?  Clearly you picked that up somewhere in your reading, despite me not actually saying it.  To correct yet another straw man, what I did say was that the anthropromorphized state interest is irrelevant.  It doesn't matter how one interprets the state's interest of the result, but that doesn't make the result itself irrelevant.


You don't actually know what a finding is do you?  Dude, the "FINDING" or precedential and BINDING part of the opinion is that the states do have an iterest in preserving the life of a viable fetus.  Your lame attempts to set that aside as some sort of change in the law made by men is just silly, of course men changed it, men wrote it. 




> Did you miss the part where I stated it was irrelevant?  The very fact that you are asking shows it is not a defined interest, and therefore your one unsupported interpretation of Roe should not be taken as such.  If you want to discuss WHY Roe ended as it did, we can certainly do that, but all attempts to get you to discuss the underlying ethics of this issue instead of just spewing forth keywords have been ignored, sidestepped, or redirected.


once again you lamely attemt to deflect.  The central finding of Roe is not "irrelevant", it is in fact the only part of the decision that is relevant.  The rest of the decission is dicta explaining how they came to that decission and has NO precedential value.  Seriously, all your doing is going around in circles trying to justify your wrong opinion on the law elevating dicta above findings... it doesn't work that way. 




> So you're defining self defense as defending yourself.  Good definition.  Let me know when you start to pick up on your shortcomings. Perhaps we should start defining cancer surgeries or the flu as "self defense"


No other person ios killed in a cancer surgery.  Simply glossing over the FACT that another person is involved in the decission to abort a viable fetus will not make that fact go away.  A viable fetus is not a cancer, its a person.



BenNatuf said:


> > And what if you were making the decision for another person.  A partner or family member, perhaps?  Would you choose the mother or the 2 month old fetus?
> 
> 
> Already answered that one too... does it always take two or three times for shit to sink in with you?  Does it ever?





> Actually no, you answered a similar yet different question.  You seem to state things are already answered when it's clear you are just having trouble with the details.  So let's reiterate: previously you claimed you would choose the mother in reference to self-defense.  Then I asked you a question where you would need to choose between the two options where SELF-defense was removed, i.e. you were not defending self whatsoever and thus your silly application was irrelevant.


your difficulty in reading comprehension is getting worse.  And simply ignoring the answers you've already been given and pretending they haven't been is getting old.  Check back a couple pages and try reading them again, you asked I answered, which is more than I can say for you.



> But assuming you would answer the same, it seems to me like you hold the life of the mother to be a different value as the life of the fetus.  Why is that?  If not, why would you pick the mother?


because you gotta pick one and there is no gaurentee that if the mother dies the baby won't dies with her.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 18, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Once again I repeat: no one is debating whether murder is bad, or even if states have laws about murder.  The key here is that you claim your whining here is only in regards to the letter of the law, which you have yet to produce.  You claim they do not exempt abortion yet you refuse to actually directly cite them, to instead give your own personal unsupported interpretation.


you can't cite what does not exist and no murder statutes exempt any particular type of killing, that would be including abortion there einstein.  Your are the one claiming they do, which if they do you should be able to produce any number of murder statutes showing this exemption.  If it's not exempted then there is no exemption and it would be inclusive of the law, so long as a viable fetus fits the definition of a "person"  You're the one employing a dumbass strawman and are apparently aren't even aware enough of your own argument to even know it.


> You claim I am deflecting the topic, which is nothing but your own insecurity.  The topic is as you claim it to be: the letter of the law does not exempt abortion.  I have asked you several times to support your claim by citing the law, and every single time without fail you have avoided it.


you are the one claiming it does.  Go find a murder statute that exempts abortion of a viable fetus and we'll talk.  How many different murder statutes would you like me to link from the fifty states?  All of them?  Here's a clue for you, you won't find abortion mentioned in any of them, and I can no more post what doesn't exist than you can.  On the other hand, if it does exist in them, it should be relatively easy for you to prove your assertion that it does.





> Ran from it.  Deflected it by pointing the finger back at me.  But at the end of all your worming away from the actual issue, the fact still remains that you have yet to cite a single law that shows abortion is not exempt.  It very well may be the case, but for someone claiming they only care about the letter, you have yet to actually show it.


what other things that are not covered in murder statutes would you like me to link?  If you think murder statutes include the phrase "except in the case of abortion of a viable fetus", then link it, because thats YOUR CLAIM.


> You continue to insinuate that court findings are of little value, when in fact they are binding.  Precedent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Note how I supported something I said with a direct link to relevant information.  You should try that sometime.


you're the one trying to make the central finding irelevant, not me.  I'm citing it.  You are attempting to deflect from it by relying on dicta.  here's that hint for you again...

Central "finding" of Roe:  The state has an interest in preserving the life of a viable fetus and the mothers privacy in access to abortion is only protected so long as the fetus is unviable. 


> So you still think this is a massive oversight whereby SCOTUS has illegally usurped power despite the decision being upheld time and time again. And then you wonder why I think you are a crackpot conspiracy theorist.


you would expect them to not uphold their userpation?  Facts are what they are, the court has NO authority to write law in leiu of the congress writing them.  If the congress has not acted the court can not act in its place.  Thewre need be no "conspiracy" for the court to userp power, theri merely needs to be a doing.  And its been done.  Not the first time either.


> So I take that to mean you can't actually discuss this issue.


you're really confused bud.  You've contradicted yourself so many times you're probobly getting dizzy trying to find out what your arguments are.


> Once again I will restate: laws ought to be based on the scientific/ethical/moral underpinnings of their topics, not the other way around.  Blindly following unethical and immoral laws simply because they are laws has produced horrible outcomes throughout history.  It amuses me that your only retort on this point is name calling.  Did you have your nap yet?


who gives a shit what YOU think laws should be based on?  Certainly not the courts.  Which of course brings up the question...

What the hell is immoral or unethical about laws against murder?



> The salem witch trials, inquisition, every other religious war, and that thing that I otherwise dare not bring up, the holocaust, were all "lawful" in approach.  Do you need to review history?


Religious war?  Thats funny.  Religion is a tool in war not the cause nor the reason for it.  Power is what wars are fought over.  


> Laws absolutely give us freedom of speech, which is not something people are born with.  It is something inherent to American culture, certainly, but only because it was written into our laws from the start based on the subjugation of this country's founding citizens by Britain.  If those truths are so self-evident, why do you suppose it took so long in human history to definitively establish them?


False, completely false and something only a authoritarian leftist progressive would believe.  Our rights are endowed by our creator, not by government, not by the constitution, not by the law, they preexisted the law and the constitution, and the only thing the constitution does is preclude the government from infringing on what we allready possess.


> Perhaps you missed the links I gave regarding abortion statistics in the US. You know, that supporting evidence thing again.  The FACT remains that less than 1% of all abortions in this country take place after the fetus is of a viable age.  Most health care providers simply will not offer those services whatsoever after the 24th week.


Even if true (which your self serving leftist propoganda surely would claim) how about we just kill off 1% of everyone over 80?  Is that OK too?  In the 1% figure what is considered a "viable age"?  And best to not go with what "most health care providers" will do beacuse thats just not a statistical figue.  Panned Parenthood will provide abortion services in just about every case right up untill about the 8th month when the procedures neccessary for performing them are illegal in most states.  They perform 390K abortions every year.


> Aw, baby is resorting to cursing.  How cute.  So let's review: you won't restate, and you won't even provide a link, but you insist you're right for reasons you stated but no one else besides you know.  Right.  Is there some question you feel I've overlooked and would like me to answer directly?  I'm happy to.


Restate?  Why would I when you have the same back button I do and you've already proven you don't read very well anyway?

What constitutional provision does the states interest in preserving the life of a viable fetus flow from?

What state interest other than protecting one persons rights could negate the rights of another person?


> In the meantime, we have no understanding of what "human being" means to you.


because you either can't read or refuse to.  been answered more than once, your lack of understanding or acknowledgement is your problem not mine.


> Now you can go one of two ways: you can either realize you're in a discussion board and understand that basic communication skills are required to DISCUSS things, or you can continue to shove your fingers so deep into your ears that they touch each other in the middle, pretending that you're right simply because you can't hear anything else.


too funny.  Just for you I'll answer one more time, but pay close attention, cause i won't do it again.  Hopefully, this time it will sink in.

Human Being:  A member of the species homo sapiens sapiens.

Pretty much covers the deffinition.


> While true, it doesn't really differentiate the topics.


Once again showing your inanity.  Yeah, I think that one is a pancreas and the other is a human being kinda differetiates them, otherwise, they'd both be a pancreas


> Again, you gave the lay definition from a lay dictionary.  In fact the biological definition of life is a bit different. If we go to any standard biology dictionary, we readily discern that the #1 definition of life is "The state of being which begins with generation, birth, or germination, and ends with death; also, the time during which this state continues; that state of an animal or plant in which all or any of its organs are capable of performing all or any of their functions; used of all animal and vegetable organisms."  If we then look at any encyclopedia, it is confirmed that definitions are not so easily applied to life.  This returns me to my prior point, that we must discuss the ethics of this issue instead of throwing buzzwords at it with gray areas of definition.  Murder is such a word.  Human being is a large discussion which you are either unwilling to have or unwilling to reference where you've had it previously. Defining it as "individual" also pushes back the exact same point.  Is a fetus an individual?  What comprises an individual?
> 
> Again, we can either use buzzwords or address the actual ethics.  Higher courts do the latter.  You seem content with the former.


Buzzwords?

Higher courts do not rule based on what you think they do, they rule on the law as written and the constitution, not their "feelings".

You don't know what an individual is?  Would you like for me to define "is" too?  An individual is a single person of the genus homo sapiens sapiens.  Rather a dumb question don't you think?

Laughable, you confuse the deffinition of a human being which is completely a specie distinction with the deffinition of a person.  Which once again is a PHILISOPHICAL argument and has not a damned thing to do with ethics that regulate BEHAVIOR.  The constitution does not preclude depriving the life of a human being without due process of law, it preclude depriving a PERSON of life.  To help you out here A "person" is a viable living member of the species homo sapiens sapiens or so one can deduce from what the courts say.

The entire thing boils down to this.  If a viable fetus is a "person" then they are covered in the statutes against murder simply by the fact that the equal protection clause does not allow different classes of persons to be protected differently.  So we first have to look at the body of law to determine if a viable fetus is a person.  And that brings us back to the central questions.

From what constitutional provision is the state granted authority to negate one persons rights?  If a viable fetus is not a person, it has no rights, and the state has no compelling interest in protecting this non-entity over and above the rights of an actual person.  But the courts say the state does.  What other grant of authority to the states could possibly be used to justify the negation of a fundamental right other than a more compelling fundamental right?  The state cannot have an interest pulled from the ether.  It's interest must be grounded.  Other than the compelling interest of not allowing a person to be deprived of life, what other possible interest could the state have that would negate the rights of the woman?

And as to "life" there is an accepted biological definition and the tripe you posted ain't it.


> life, Matter characterized by the ability to metabolize nutrients (process materials for energy and tissue building), grow, reproduce, and respond and adapt to environmental stimuli.


A viable fetus fits all the criteria, in fact an embryo does, but then again the argument here isn't about whether a fetus is a "life" (we know it is), or a "human being" (we know it's that too), it's about whether it's a "person" in any legal sence.  And for that you have to look at the body of law.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/340003/life

Now, you can go on arguing points that are either inarguable or not being argued if it makes you feel good.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 21, 2011)

I'll try this one more time for anyone who cares to answer.

We know there are two competing interests in the constitution, the states authority and the peoples rights.  We also know that the state is precluded from infringing on a persons rights except in areas where it has a grant of authority and a compelling interest to do so.  Those compelling interests are limitted mostly to:

1.  Defence of the nation, which of course is the government acting to protect the life liberty and property of the citizenry.

2.  Public safety, which of course is the government acting to secure the life liberty and property of the citizenry.

3.  In defence of another persons even more compelling right, which of course is a balancing of the fundamental rights of life liberty and property between persons.

These are the only reasons I know of by which the state may use its grant of authority to infringe or limit on a persons rights.  If there is some other reason thats constitutionaly grounded I'll be glad to entertain it, so feel free to add and join the debate.

The SCOTUS in Roe and Casey determined a state interest in preserving the life of a viable fetus.  In doing so they allow the state to use its grant of authority to limit and infringe on a womans right to privacy grounded in the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments (and possibly others).  Since we already know the states grant of authority is limitted in its ability to infringe on a persons rights, on what compelling interest is this grant of authority based?

National defence?  No.
Public Safety?  No.

There is only one compelling interest the state can claim to empower this infringement and that is the balancing of one persons rights against anothers.  It procedes logically that since the states grant of authority allows it to infringe on the womans right to privacy it must be based on some other persons more compelling right.  The only other possible "person" involved in this decission is the viable fetus, and it is inarguable that the most fundamental of rights (life) could possibly be trumped by a lesser right (privacy).  

So, once again, is there any possible interpretation of Roe's central finding that could possibly be interpretted as to NOT grant a viable fetus "personhood" that would still allow the state to use its constitutional grant of authority to infringe on the womans right to privacy?  If so, state it, and explain the legal philosophy which backs it up.

And, if not, how do we justify these "persons" not recieving the equal protection all persons are gaurenteed under the law to recieve justice by having their killers prosecuted under the same laws as all other persons when they are intentionally deprived of life without due process of law and when the taking of that life does not involve the defence of ones own just as compelling fundamental rights (life, liberty, property); which, under all circumstances is unlawful and therefore murder?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 22, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> I'll try this one more time for anyone who cares to answer.
> 
> We know there are two competing interests in the constitution, the states authority and the peoples rights.  We also know that the state is precluded from infringing on a persons rights except in areas where it has a grant of authority and a compelling interest to do so.  Those compelling interests are limitted mostly to:
> 
> ...



I've tried this a couple different places and so far no-one who supports abortion rights has been able to answer these fundamental questions, and like here, most have just not tried.  Mouth breathing talking points and platitudes is simply not enough.  If you are an abortion rights supporter and you can't answer these fundamental questions don't you have to question your support of those "rights", particularly in the case of a viable fetus?  If it doesn't, what does it say about the nature of your support?  Is it constituionally and legally grounded (nation of laws), or is it grounded on your beliefs irregardless of the constitution and the laws (nation of men)?  What other person or persons would you place so much value on that you would elevate them above the law and exempt them from its consequences because of your "beliefs"?  Which others would you place so little value on that you would exempt them from its protections?


----------



## mdn2000 (Feb 22, 2011)

Abortion is the single sickest, cruel, thing a person can do.

*Warning, graphic images at link*
Whirled Views with Dan Burrell » Links


*Pic deleted *

*PixieStix*


----------



## mdn2000 (Feb 22, 2011)

This is the debate and this is how it should be presented

*Warning, graphic images at link*
Abortion Debate

*Pic deleted *

*PixieStix*


----------



## Misty (Feb 22, 2011)

Once you devalue life to nothing more than an inconvience, this is the end result, brutal murders of innocent babies.

Former Nurse on Obama's Controversial Abortion Vote - Hannity - FOXNews.com

"JILL STANEK, PRO-LIFE ACTIVIST: Sure. This is not partial birth abortion. This is called induced labor abortion, and for this procedure, the physician inserts a medication into the mom's birth canal that dilates the cervix, and the intent is for the baby be delivered prematurely. They're fully formed, but very small.*

So when the cervix opens, essentially, the baby falls out of the uterus, and it is anticipated that the baby will die during the birth process or soon afterwards. But sometimes these babies live for a time.

Christ Hospital, where I worked, confessed to the "Chicago Sun-Times" in 2001 that between 10 and 20 percent of babies at that hospital that were aborted by this method survived.

HANNITY: You tell the story -- a hard-wrenching story about a about a down syndrome baby you found.

STANEK: Yes.

HANNITY: . that was living, that had been abandoned in the soiled utility room at the hospital that you ended up cradling and rocking and holding for the 45 minutes that this baby*
Tell us that story.

STANEK: One night a nursing coworker was taking a little baby boy who had been aborted alive at -- between 21 and 22 weeks because he had down syndrome to our soiled utility room to die because his parents didn't want to hold him, and she didn't have time to hold him that night, and when she told me what she was doing, I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone, and so I did cradle and rock him for the 45 minutes that he lived."


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 22, 2011)

Same thing I posted elsewhere in answer to the silence of those who support abortion "rights".  

So, I guess I can assume that since no libs are willing to discuss the actual conveying and legal justification for abortion "rights" and the states interest in infringing on those rights at viability, it's not actually the "rights" they support so much as the "abortions". Here you have a chance to discuss the philosophy behind the actual right and all anyone can say is "it's her choice", but thats not really true is it? She has no "choice" in whether or not the "right" can be employed freely or infringed upon, she only has a "choice" to get an actual abortion. So, when you say "it's her choice", it's not her "right" your supporting, it's her abortion.


----------



## Jroc (Feb 22, 2011)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFVt8yLuyUs"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFVt8yLuyUs[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs5inizpmIg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs5inizpmIg[/ame]


----------



## mdn2000 (Feb 22, 2011)

I can not join the debate, pics of what we are taliking about are not allowed.

The country is destroyed, no freedom of speech, not here.


----------



## elvis (Feb 22, 2011)

mdn2000 said:


> I can not join the debate, pics of what we are taliking about are not allowed.
> 
> The country is destroyed, no freedom of speech, not here.



Links to the pictures were made available.  You can still join the debate. But no more discussing in public what was done with the pictures, please.


----------



## BolshevikHunter (Feb 22, 2011)

They should execute every doctor who has ever performed such a sick and twisted procedure. I would do it for free if the law allowed it. As for you disgusting selfish pigs out there who assisted in the butchering of your own child, Your Judgement day is coming. Oh yeah, It's coming alright.  ~BH


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 22, 2011)

mdn2000 said:


> I can not join the debate, pics of what we are taliking about are not allowed.
> 
> The country is destroyed, no freedom of speech, not here.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 22, 2011)

Still nothing on this...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3345659-post699.html

not really surprized.


----------



## BolshevikHunter (Feb 22, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Still nothing on this...
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3345659-post699.html
> 
> not really surprized.



Ben, I for one think that your arguement is a very good one. I agree that the murdered human being should without a doubt be protected and given the same rights as any other living human being. Not much to debate on my end. However, You won't see any of the cowards who support this come into this thread and debate the subject. It takes a coward to kill an innocent child, just as it takes a coward to run and hide when it comes to defending their own beliefs or actions. ~BH


----------



## Jroc (Feb 22, 2011)

elvis said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > I can not join the debate, pics of what we are taliking about are not allowed.
> ...



I warned him this would happen.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 23, 2011)

BolshevikHunter said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Still nothing on this...
> ...


I'm doing my best to think that somebody might actually be thinking about it.


----------



## BolshevikHunter (Feb 23, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



I don't see how one could not after viewing those images. ~BH


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2011)

BolshevikHunter said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > BolshevikHunter said:
> ...



I can answer that.  One could not think about it by having a vested interest in NEVER thinking about it.  Humans have a remarkable capacity for selective blindness and and rationalization when they want it.


----------



## BolshevikHunter (Feb 23, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Seems to be the case. ~BH


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 24, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


I find it quite telling that in the couple places i have posted that analysis not one single abortion "rights" supporter has even attempted to answer the questions about the nature and source of the governments authority and their duty in that regard given the ramifications of the findings in Roe and Casey.  Not once has any pro abortionist even attempted to make a legally reasonable argument to negate the argument that given those findings a viable fetus is de facto a "person" regardless of what the dicta might insinuate but not assert.  Not once has a pro abortionist attempted to explain why these persons are entitled to a lesser equal treatment than any other person and why they should not be protected by the same exact laws as the rest of us.

From what I can gather they support what they support because they support it, and cannot make one rational legal argument as to why they support it as law but can only rationalize why they support it as law.  Do they even know the difference between a rational argument and a rationalized argument?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 24, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


Seems to be the case, I haven't seen one abortionist rights supporter even attempt it yet.  Maybe they went to IL?


----------



## Cervantes22 (Feb 24, 2011)

BolshevikHunter said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > BolshevikHunter said:
> ...



From what I hear most of them are botched anyway. But who cares, there are tons of medical procedures that look disgusting. You want to me to find pictures of those?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 25, 2011)

Cervantes22 said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


Thats nice, but the thread isn't about the pictures.  Do you have anything to add to the legal arguments?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 25, 2011)

Cervantes22 said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Pretty sure the point isn't that they're disgusting.  But thank you for so clearly demonstrating my point about a vested interest in blindness and rationalization trumping reality.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 25, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Cervantes22 said:
> 
> 
> > BolshevikHunter said:
> ...


**chuckle**


----------



## BolshevikHunter (Feb 25, 2011)

Cervantes22 said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Oh really, where did you "hear" that? And what the hell does finding pitcures of medical procedures that look disgusting have to do with butchering a human being? What a weak minded response. ~BH


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 25, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> I'll try this one more time for anyone who cares to answer.
> 
> We know there are two competing interests in the constitution, the states authority and the peoples rights.  We also know that the state is precluded from infringing on a persons rights except in areas where it has a grant of authority and a compelling interest to do so.  Those compelling interests are limitted mostly to:
> 
> ...



I've made this point before - this is strictly my opinion - 

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court, in a gallant effort to find a reasonable, sensible compromise to deal with the abortion question, with little help from the Constitution,

may have simply invented a form of personhood for the viable fetus where no such thing exists, constitutionally.  

Now to the highlighted part:  The Supreme Court did not BAN abortion of a viable fetus, and, I assume that where late term abortion is allowed, there is no recourse for someone acting on behalf of the aborted fetus to prosecute the abortionist, or the mother, or both 

for violating the fetus's civil rights.  Thus they really didn't grant the fetus full personhood.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 25, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > I'll try this one more time for anyone who cares to answer.
> ...


I appreciate your attempt.  It does comprise an explanation, but not an argument.

That said the SCOTUS is not in the business of ruling on extra constitutional reasonable sensible compromises (which of course is a matter of opinion if you happen to like the outcome).  They are in the business of adjudicating reasonable and sensible applications of the law.  The court in Roe should have just said there was no federal question to be answered, as unless and until the congress deems to define what a person is, by virtue of the tenth amendment that authority falls to the states.  If any state should choose to not define it then it remains undefined.  

And, there is no "form of personhood", either you are a person or your not.  There are not "degrees of personhood".  If a viable fetus is not a person then no restrictions against abortion should be allowed at all, as the state's authority to abridge the rights of the woman would be unfounded.  If the viable fetus is a person, then every state should be required to enforce the laws on their murderers equally.  Thats what happens when you federalize a state issue.  Instead of each state having to treat all persons equally within it's borders, every person has to be treated equally throughout the country.



> Now to the highlighted part:  The Supreme Court did not BAN abortion of a viable fetus, and, I assume that where late term abortion is allowed, there is no recourse for someone acting on behalf of the aborted fetus to prosecute the abortionist, or the mother, or both
> 
> for violating the fetus's civil rights.  Thus they really didn't grant the fetus full personhood.


There is no such thing as "half personhood", and I never said the court banned abortion of a viable fetus.  Why would they have to?  If it's a person you can't legally kill it.  

I said, they said, the STATES have an interest in preserving the life of a viable fetus... and thats what they said.  In doing so they have conferred personhood on viable fetus' as that is the only place the states interest could possibly flow from.  As such, their ruling is deeply flawed as it should say the States MUST take an interest in the life of a viable fetus, otherwise they are allowing an entire class of person to be killed without due process of law.  In that, it is not a federal issue, its the STATES that must enforce their laws, and the states that are failing to do so.  Does any of that make a difference?  Likely not, as no prosecutor will enforce the law as they should.  BTW, the courts do not "grant rights", the holder of the "right" posesses it before they ever enter the court.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 25, 2011)

BolshevikHunter said:


> Cervantes22 said:
> 
> 
> > BolshevikHunter said:
> ...



Apparently, Cervantes is the sort of person who can look at horrifying photos of mass graves full of humans butchered in a war, shrug, and say, "Lots of types of death look disgusting, want me to find pictures of them?" . . . if he happens to support the war in question.


----------



## BolshevikHunter (Feb 25, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> > Cervantes22 said:
> ...



Which brings us back to the whole "blindness and rationalization trumping reality" thing.  ~BH


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 26, 2011)

BolshevikHunter said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > BolshevikHunter said:
> ...


They not only rationalize was is happenning away, they also rationalize the law away.


----------



## Care4all (Feb 26, 2011)

Each State can do their own thing, with viable fetus.  some states ban abortion after 3 months, some states allow it up to 6 months....the State itself, gets to decide.

I'm not certain a State has the power to instate a law that says killing a viable fetus through a consensual abortion, is murdering a BORN baby....giving the baby "Personhood" with ALL the rights that come with personhood....  I can see them making a law about Fetal Homicides, but that is still not *murder* of a human being that is born....?


----------



## Care4all (Feb 26, 2011)

Can parents to be, count their fetus as a person before it is born, and take the tax write off for the unborn child?

What exactly is a "Birth Certificate" legally for in the USA?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 26, 2011)

Care4all said:


> Each State can do their own thing, with viable fetus.  some states ban abortion after 3 months, some states allow it up to 6 months....the State itself, gets to decide.
> 
> I'm not certain a State has the power to instate a law that says killing a viable fetus through a consensual abortion, is murdering a BORN baby....giving the baby "Personhood" with ALL the rights that come with personhood....  I can see them making a law about Fetal Homicides, but that is still not *murder* of a human being that is born....?


Show me a statute against murder that requires the person murdered be "born", and why would they need seperate laws against murder for different persons?  What other persons should not be covered by the statutes?

Also it is not the "states" that would be confiring personhood on the viable fetus (it should be sans congressional action... but it isn't), it's the courts who in Roe and Casey de facto did so.  

Don't think so?

Then answer the question about from whence the states' authority flows to negate the rights of the woman once the fetus is viable.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 26, 2011)

Care4all said:


> Can parents to be, count their fetus as a person before it is born, and take the tax write off for the unborn child?


Not according to tax law which gives credits for "children" not for "persons".



> What exactly is a "Birth Certificate" legally for in the USA?


Citizenship, which has absolutely nothing to do with any other "persons".


----------



## Care4all (Feb 26, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Each State can do their own thing, with viable fetus.  some states ban abortion after 3 months, some states allow it up to 6 months....the State itself, gets to decide.
> ...



you tell me then...Why, in the past 30 years, have States not put a charge of Murder, against a woman that has aborted her fetus at the 5 or 6 month gestation point?  Certainly there are States that do not support abortion....but are forced to cover them at least up to 3 months....why haven't they put a murder charge in to law, against the woman aborting her child after viability?


Why are they just twiddling their thumbs?

A fetus does not have the same worth as a born child, and the States know such....is what I am guessing....but not certain?

Just because the SC said that States could have an interest in a viable fetus, does not give legal personhood, to the fetus, as you seem to imply?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 26, 2011)

Care4all said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


certainly not because they don't fit the deffinition under the statutes.  The insinuation here is that if the state fails to enforce a law, its not the law, and thats simply not true.  





> Certainly there are States that do not support abortion....but are forced to cover them at least up to 3 months....why haven't they put a murder charge in to law, against the woman aborting her child after viability?


We both know the answer to that, political shit storm.  Once again, the states refusals' to enforce the law equally do not make the law, not the law.  Also, while its possible and reasonable that a court could uphold a conviction (if it got by a jury) it's unlikely that any court would, because they know what the result would be also.  Politics trumps construction.




> Why are they just twiddling their thumbs?
> 
> A fetus does not have the same worth as a born child, and the States know such....is what I am guessing....but not certain?


neither does an infant have the same worth to the state as a working adult, for that matter neither does a welfare case.  "Worth" is not a factor in "equal treatment under the law".



> Just because the SC said that States could have an interest in a viable fetus, does not give legal personhood, to the fetus, as you seem to imply?


Then answer the question, from what grant of authority is the state allowed to negate the womans rights durring_ any _part of preganancy?  They can't just negate rights because they feel like it, niether can than do so because they "think" its the right thing to do.  They must have some rational basis in the law to do so.  In negating rights that basis must be compelling.  So which is it?

national defence?
public safety?

or

The ballancing of one persons rights against anothers!

Here's the truth of it.  This argument has never been decided by any court as no prosecutor to my knowledge has ever bought a case.  Unless and until a court does decide the matter, it is a reasonable legal opinion, and any prosecutor who wanted to could bring murder charges against both the woman and the doctor under it.  He of course would have to be in an extremely pro-life district and his constituents would have to be willing to put up with months of 1000's of press and 1000's of protesters marching up and down their streets outside the courthouse causing a ruckus.  Prosecutors are of course politicians and he'd would by nature weigh the benefits against the cost instead of just looking at the law.  And, since they all have "prosecutorial discretion" and political ambition the likelyhood of one deciding to do it is rather small.  

The public by and large does support restrictions on abortion when a fetus is viable, the public at large however, does not take that logic and apply it to what the law actually is, they apply it to what they think is "right", and while they suport restrictions, actually using the logical reasoning to enforce the law equally resulting in a murder charge on a woman for doing what technically is murder would NOT be publicly supported.  So, the political ambitions of the prosecutor would have to be rather slight and rather short term.


----------



## Care4all (Feb 26, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Good points....but, I think that they must feel they do not have the jurisdiction or rather, the law as written about what constitutes Murder, does not cover a viable fetus being aborted....otherwise, I believe one of these, "Against abortion States" with a strong prolife constituency, would have tried to prosecute such actions, regardless of the Dog and Pony show that would occur....


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 26, 2011)

Care4all said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


Of course they have the jurisdiction, they are prosecutors with prosecutorial discretion and are free to interpret the statutes as they see fit to bring charges (thats what they do every day)... that of course does not impose any requirement on any court to entertain those charges.

As to the deffinition of murder its pretty straight forward

"Ulawfully and with intent taking the life of another person"

This raises several questions

What is "unlawfully".  In construction it would be taking the life of another person either not in defence of your own threatenned fundamental rights (life, liberty and property-which requires a ballancing of rights), or without due process.  Dispensing with the second is simple, there is no due process involved in abortion.  The first is the "ballancing" that courts do, and in Roe and Casey they came down on the side of the viable fetus allowing the states to negate the womans rights in favor of their "interest".  Again, simple "interest" can not negate rights, the authority to do so must procede constituionally from granted authorities.  Which effectively answers the second question as to what is a "person".

BTW, do you actually believe politicians of any stripe would subject their ambitions to the law?  pffft!


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 3, 2011)

Is there an abortion rights supporter in the house who will answer the questions in this post and make a reasonned legal argument against its assertions?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3345659-post699.html

So far a couple have tried and so far there's nothing very compelling to rebut it.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 5, 2011)

A state has no grant of authority to negate the constitutionally protected rights of one person except in the protection of a more fundamental constitutionally protected right of another person or persons. 

What constitutional grant of authority allows a state to negate a womans right to privacy after the fetus becomes viable? From whence does this power flow? 

If you can answer that without the viable fetus being a "person" then abortion is legal all the way to birth, if you can't it is murder, by deffinition, after the fetus becomes viable.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 5, 2011)

Jillian,
instead of just acting like a petulant child and negging me for asking a valid question based on clearly reasonned legal argument, why not try to actually answer the questions and support your position?  The answer is simple... you can't, and you know it.

What authority does the state have to negate a persons right other than in the protection of another person or persons' more compelling rights?

give it a shot, I'm sure it was covered in your 9th grade text books.

But no... you'd rather be a petulant child.

Don't worry though, we both know it aint about the previous post, it's about having your race based claim on a black mans opinions exposed for the intellectual slavery it is.  Having your hypocracies exposed must be tough on you.  Now have another childish fit or find a corner to cry in.


----------



## Care4all (Mar 5, 2011)

Not to add fuel to this fire but:

Other than for medical reasons, if a woman has an abortion after 6 months of gestation....where the foetus is viable, a State could legislate that such abortions is murder, based on Roe v Wade, in my humble opinion....but I am not a lawyer...

There is a difference between an abortion and an abortion occurring AFTER VIABILITY if it is not for medical reasons....in Roe v wade they said the state COULD have a bigger interest, after VIABILITY....

so, imho, they COULD legislate such.....

they haven't and I don't think they would, but it just seems like they COULD if they wanted to....???


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 7, 2011)

Care4all said:


> Not to add fuel to this fire but:
> 
> Other than for medical reasons, if a woman has an abortion after 6 months of gestation....where the foetus is viable, a State could legislate that such abortions is murder, based on Roe v Wade, in my humble opinion....but I am not a lawyer...
> 
> ...


In actuallity C4A, the state wouldn't even have to legislate it, they could simply choose to enforce the current statutes against murder; and it doesnt have to be 6 months, the trimester system was scrapped in Casey in favor of the strict standard of "viability" whenever that may be.  Now thats not to say they couldn't legislate it, it may actually lend to the argument and force the courts to address the issue.  As things currently are if a prosecutor chose to enforce the current statutes he would be right to do so according to their definitions, but I find it unlikely that any court would entertain the charges.  The Irony is they would be citing Roe in a dismissal when it's Roe which actually confirs de facto Personhood on viable fetus'.  A point they'd dance around in dicta as they always do.


----------



## jeffrockit (Mar 8, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



Then explain why someone that kills a pregnant woman and the mother and baby dies, they are charged with a double murder.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 9, 2011)

jeffrockit said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


S/he cannot explain it, because s/he has a concept of the law built around what "I (s/he) said in the eyes of the law" is.  The entire argument here is about what the law says, what Roe says, what Casey says, what the constituion says, and how they are applied; but, this fucking retard thinks what "I (s/he) said" means more than that.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 10, 2011)

Still no abortion rights supporters to address this or answer the questions?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3345659-post699.html

So once again, tell us, if the states authority to negate a womans right to abort a viable fetus does not extend from the ballancing of rights between persons... where does the power come from?


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 13, 2011)

I guess it's just too much to expect.  Can any of you abortion rights supporters make a reasonned argument or does the negation of the usual talking point deffenses completely disarm you?  You're entire argument is built around an understanding of Roe; well, here is the logical legal extension of Roe... and you have NOTHING to negate it with.

Explain to us how in the context of Roe a womans constitutional right to privacy can be negated by the states interest.  Explain to us what the states interest is, where the state gets the constitutional authority to do so, and the legal reasoning to establish that authority.  If you can do all of that without referring to the viable fetus and your arguments reason stands up to srutiny then you have an argument that's legally reasonable.

If you can't

Then you have to explain to us where the state gets the authority to declare a seperate class of person from all other persons who can be deprived of the constitutional protections of due process and equal treatment and how it is the killing of these persons do not fit within ther legal deffinition of murder.

must be a toughie


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 19, 2011)

Well, it's saturday and time once again to see if any of our resident abortion rights supporters can address this

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3345659-post699.html


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 21, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



They could not have conferred personhood on a viable fetus or else the states could not legalize the abortion of viable fetuses.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 21, 2011)

Care4all said:


> Each State can do their own thing, with viable fetus.  some states ban abortion after 3 months, some states allow it up to 6 months....the State itself, gets to decide.
> 
> I'm not certain a State has the power to instate a law that says killing a viable fetus through a consensual abortion, is murdering a BORN baby....giving the baby "Personhood" with ALL the rights that come with personhood....  I can see them making a law about Fetal Homicides, but that is still not *murder* of a human being that is born....?



If a viable fetus has full personhood then it would be all but indistinguishable, legally, from a born child,

and that is clearly not the case.  The OP is very wrong about that.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 21, 2011)

You find this, regarding the issue of a fetus being a person, in the actual Roe v. Wade decision:

*A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157]   for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. *


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 21, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Thats kind of the point.  the states are not enforcing the law as they should.  A lack of enforcement is not proof of anything except a lack of enforcement.

Now, maybe you can answer the questions, if a viable fetus is not a person under what grant of authority does the SCOTUS allow the states to negate a womans constitutional right to privacy once the fetus becomes viable?  A persons constitutional rights cannot be negated except in the protection of another person or persons more compelling rights.  Who's the other person?  If the states can negate rights for any other reason... what is it?  Name one court case where the SCOTUS allowed a persons rights to be negated other than to protect the more compelling rights of another person or persons?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 21, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



I answered it but you summarily rejected my answer, even though I am right and you are wrong.

I called it a form of personhood, for lack of a better description, and I am exactly right.  SCOTUS conveyed to the states the power to treat the fetus uniquely, i.e., to grant it protections as a person, or not.

That is not full personhood.  That is something else.  Your premise about 'half' a person is essentially false.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 21, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



I recommend you read IX - B in the decision:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 21, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


No, you have answered nothing,  What you've provided is a lame excuse for an answer.  There is no provision in the constituion for negating a persons constitutional rights for a "sort of person", there are no "forms of personhood", there are no "unique non-persons".  There are no "partial persons", there are no "not quite persons" there is no-one in the constitution with any rights except "persons".  When you find the provision allowing a persons rights to be negated by anything other than another persons more compelling rights... post it.

The government simply does not have the authority to negate a persons rights for anything except in the protection of another person or persons more compelling rights.  You are quite simply, wrong.  If a viable fetus is not a "person" in the constitutional sence, then a viable fetus has no rights and therefor cannot be the cause to negate a womans right to privacy and abortion cannot be restricted.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 21, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Why would I concern myself with non-binding dicta?  The only binding part of the decission is the finding.  The intellectually dishonest hoops they jumped through to get there are meaningless in the law.  

The finding in Roe is that the States have an interest in restricting abortion once the fetus becomes viable.  If its not a person, what interest would they have?  How could that interest be justification for negating a persons rights?  There is no instance in the history of this nation where the government has ever been seen to have the power to negate rights based on anything other than another person or persons more compelling rights... except this one case.  That is the flaw in Roe.

The only thing you'll do by leaning on the dicta is expose the flaw.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 22, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



You're wrongly assuming that there has to be an either/or all or nothing conveyance of rights and protections to fetuses, or born humans, for that matter.  

Otherwise, how could we constitutionally deny the right to vote to minors?  How could we constitutionally draft men to serve and fight and die for their country?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 22, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



The first thing I pointed out in this thread was my opinion that the 'flaw' in Roe v. Wade was that it gave rights to 'viable' fetuses with no Constitutional basis for that.

The 'proper' ruling would have been to make all abortion a right.

That's why Roe v Wade is brilliant.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 22, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Roe v Wade decides that States get to decide whether they have an interest or not.  There is nothing in Roe v Wade that prevents a State from allowing abortion after viability;  if the court were granting personhood to the fetus, that would be tantamount to allowing the states to legalize infanticide.

Did they do that?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 22, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> [Why would I concern myself with non-binding dicta?  The only binding part of the decission is the finding.  The intellectually dishonest hoops they jumped through to get there are meaningless in the law.
> 
> .



You wouldn't since they refute your premise.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 23, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Your contention is demonstrably false, the courts have found consistantly that minors do have rights, and restricted those rights based on the more compelling rights of thier parents.  And voting is a poor example at any rate since its the constituion which restricts it making the restriction absolutely constituional.  The draft is authorized by the governments authority to protect the right of all people to not be deprived of life liberty and property by having there government defeated in war and supplanted and by the constitutional provision granting the congress the authority to raise armies.  Rights can only be infringed on through ballancing their exercize with the rights of other persons or by constitutional grants of authority, which coincidently serve to empower the government to protect those rights to begin with.

There is no constitutional provision to not deprive a notional person of potential life in protection of their future rights.  There is only a prohibition to not deprive an actual person of real life in protection of thier current rights.  The government has absolutely NO authority to restrict a persons rights based on the future rights of a notional person with potential life.  the authority simply does not exist, and any claim thast it does is falacious.  The SCOTUS is not empowered to empower itself or the government where it has no authority, only constitutional amendment can do that.  Yet Roe does.  It is inherently unconstitutional as law.

Further rights are an all or nothing proposition as they are held by persons, either you are a person and have rights or you are not and have none.  There is no constitutinal middle ground.  Neither can there be if all persons are to be treated equally.  The constitutution does not empower the government to declare any person less than a person.  You either are, or you're not.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 23, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Brilliant?  hardly, its a logical falacy built around a presumed power that does not exist.

The proper ruling would have been either that a viable fetus was a person and could not be deprived of life without due process; or, that it was not a person and the state had no interest in protecting it.  

Of course then we have the deffinition of viable to contend with and how as law its inconsistant for all persons because first, there is no test to determine viability to ensure these person are protected; and, second, the standard changes with medical advancements.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 23, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > [Why would I concern myself with non-binding dicta?  The only binding part of the decission is the finding.  The intellectually dishonest hoops they jumped through to get there are meaningless in the law.
> ...


First, no they don't.  They make claims which are not constitutionally grounded.  There is no protection for potential life in the constitution, there are no notional persons in it.

second, dicta is non-binding rendering it meaningless as precedent.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 23, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


If a viable fetus is not a person the state has no constitutional grounds to restrict the womans right to privacy.  States authorities cannot negate constituional rights unless the authority to do so is constitutionally grounded.  And yes, the courts did defacto grant the states permission to allow infanticide if we are to take the courts grant of authority to the states for what it is, the state exercizing its authority in the defence of a person rights.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 23, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Carb, here's the gist of it, we AGREE on this point.

The fact is my argument is that the court has no authority to make any decission which is not constitutionally grounded.  The Constitution limits our ENTIRE government including the courts.

What you seem to be celebrating is the SCOTUS acting outside of the constitution and making decissions which are not grounded in it.  Think about that seriously.  Are we a nation of laws or aren't we?

I said earlier that the opinion should have been either that a viable fetus was a person, therby engendering the states with the authority to protect it; or, that it was not thereby negating any possibility of ever infringing on a womans rights.  That however is only correct in the context of them making any decission.  The correct decission would have been for the court to declare themselves not having the authority to make ANY decission, since congress had not thought to use its legislative powers to define what a "person" is in the law.  They (the courts) used to do that quite a bit before progressives took over our government.

Where in our constitution is the SCOTUS empowered to enhance the powers of our government beyond it's constitutional limitations?


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 27, 2011)

Well, I guess Carby gave up, so I'll leave it to another Abortion rights supporter who buy the dicta based argument to explain what Constitutional provision allows the SCOTUS to grant a "form of personhood" engendering only "some rights" and not the rest of them when the constitution requires "equal treatment under the law" for "persons" of any form.  The argument is constitutionally inconsistant.

and

If they granted no "form of personhood" on what constitutionally grounded authority does the court allow the states to negate a womans rights at all?

There are two possibilities if you adhere to Roe, to adhere to it you either have to:

1.  Believe the state can cite some generic "interest" which empowers them to negate rights.

or 

2.  Believe the constitution allows different classifications or persons who get different rights

If there's a third possibility which progresses logically and stands up to scrutiny I don't know what it is.  And, I've seen no argument to justify constitutionally either of those two.


----------



## Varth Dader (Mar 27, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> ...
> 2.  Believe the constitution allows different classifications or persons who get different rights



Don't they do that with kids (give them less rights than adults)? Say for free speech rights?


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 28, 2011)

Varth Dader said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


No they do not.  They ballance the rights of the child with the rights of the person responsible for the child.  And, they ballance the rights of a child in school, with the rights of all the other children to get an education.  It's a ballancing act of one persons rights against anothers, and the persons with the more compelling right wins.

Other than the constitutional rights that are only afforded adults in the first place, Children have the same rights as anyone else, they just lose the battle of who's rights are more compelling in most cases.


----------



## jillian (Mar 28, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



they did that... 

embryo vs human... human has more compellig rights.

human vs baby... baby has more compelling rights.

nice that you still don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 28, 2011)

jillian said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Varth Dader said:
> ...


Nice to see you're still incapable of understanding this thread has nothing to do with embryos.

Woman vs Viable fetus... Viable fetus has more compelling rights.

BTW einstein, a baby is a human.  So is a viable fetus.  For that matter, so is an embryo.  But the Constitution doesn't protect "humans", it protects "persons".


----------



## Varth Dader (Mar 28, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> No they do not.  They ballance the rights of the child with the rights of the person responsible for the child.  And, they ballance the rights of a child in school, with the rights of all the other children to get an education.  It's a ballancing act of one persons rights against anothers, and the persons with the more compelling right wins.
> 
> Other than the constitutional rights that are only afforded adults in the first place, Children have the same rights as anyone else, they just lose the battle of who's rights are more compelling in most cases.



Where in the constitution do you see your argument about the balance of rights? Where do you see a right to education in the Constitution? Where does it say that Kids can't put out a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" sign?

Anyways, where do you come up with this: 



> Woman vs Viable fetus... Viable fetus has more compelling rights.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 29, 2011)

Varth Dader said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > No they do not.  They ballance the rights of the child with the rights of the person responsible for the child.  And, they ballance the rights of a child in school, with the rights of all the other children to get an education.  It's a ballancing act of one persons rights against anothers, and the persons with the more compelling right wins.
> ...


You've heard of Roe V Wade?  That is precisely what it does and why abortion of a viable fetus can be restricted or outright banned.

On the specific issue of "BHFJ", I happen to agree with you that the courts went to far in upholding the schools decission.  They were attempting to Ballance the rights of the other students to learn without undue distraction and failed.  As to the right to an education, you seem to be of the wrongheaded opinion that the Constitution confers rights in the first place, it does not, it prevents the government from infringing on some of them.

As to the rest maybe you should take a civics class.


----------



## Varth Dader (Mar 29, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> You've heard of Roe V Wade?  That is precisely what it does and why abortion of a viable fetus can be restricted or outright banned.
> 
> On the specific issue of "BHFJ", I happen to agree with you that the courts went to far in upholding the schools decission.  They were attempting to Ballance the rights of the other students to learn without undue distraction and failed.  As to the right to an education, you seem to be of the wrongheaded opinion that the Constitution confers rights in the first place, it does not, it prevents the government from infringing on some of them.
> 
> As to the rest maybe you should take a civics class.



Is Roe V Wade the notion the viable fetus has rights or that the State has in interest in the fetus living?

Out of curiosity, if a fetus is viable outside the womb, but a woman wants to get it out for whatever valid reason, should society pay the health care (and other related costs) of that baby if it is born prematurely? Because it seems to me if a baby will be born (extracted?) prematurely, the baby will have increased odds of disabilities or other negative consequences.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 29, 2011)

Varth Dader said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > You've heard of Roe V Wade?  That is precisely what it does and why abortion of a viable fetus can be restricted or outright banned.
> ...


You can't have one without the other.  The state has no authority to restrict the womans constitutional rights based on any generic "interest".  The states authority to do so is based on the state acting to protect the more compelling rights of another person or persons.



> Out of curiosity, if a fetus is viable outside the womb, but a woman wants to get it out for whatever valid reason, should society pay the health care (and other related costs) of that baby if it is born prematurely? Because it seems to me if a baby will be born (extracted?) prematurely, the baby will have increased odds of disabilities or other negative consequences.


No, she should be prosecuted for attempted murder if it lives and murder if it dies, except in the case of medical neccesity to preserve her own life.  Seriously, if she decides to bash her 6 month old in the head with a hammer for whatever reason is that OK too?  There is no valid reason to kill other than those ordered through due process or to protect your own life, liberty or property.  And in the case of liberty and property the ballance usually goes to life.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 29, 2011)

Varth Dader said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



No, kids have the same RIGHTS as anyone.  What they have fewer of are PRIVILEGES.  Remember that the right to free speech that you mentioned is protection against GOVERNMENT encroachment, not against other people.  The things a child does not have that an adult does, such as being able to vote, drive, purchase restricted substances, etc., are not rights like freedom of speech and assembly, a speedy trial, etc.  They are privileges, accorded under certain circumstances and not under others.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 29, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



I thought it was interesting that she still doesn't know the definition of "human".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 29, 2011)

Varth Dader said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > No they do not.  They ballance the rights of the child with the rights of the person responsible for the child.  And, they ballance the rights of a child in school, with the rights of all the other children to get an education.  It's a ballancing act of one persons rights against anothers, and the persons with the more compelling right wins.
> ...



The Constitution doesn't have to explicitly mention balancing rights.  Common sense tells you that if you are going to extend the same rights to everyone, they are going to HAVE to be balanced against each other.

As for a viable fetus having more compelling rights, that would be Roe v. Wade he's referencing, which gives the state the ability to prohibit abortions after the point where the fetus becomes viable outside the womb, with certain exceptions.  His entire point has been that the ONLY justification Roe v. Wade could possibly have for allowing the state to interfere in abortions at that point would be that the fetus has rights which take precedent over the mother's then, because the state can only interfere in someone's rights when someone ELSE has rights which supersede the first person's.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 29, 2011)

Varth Dader said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > You've heard of Roe V Wade?  That is precisely what it does and why abortion of a viable fetus can be restricted or outright banned.
> ...



The state's interest in the fetus's life and the fetus's rights are one and the same thing.

Why do people always think "I want [fill in the blank]" translates into "the state should provide it to me"?  She wants something that badly, SHE can pay for it.

As it happens, though, a responsible doctor would not induce labor on a premature baby without a compelling health reason to do so.  That's a malpractice suit waiting to happen.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 29, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


Seems to be a concept that's alien to them, which is why I've asked several dozens of times for anyone to explain: "what is the states interest that would empower it to infringe on a persons constitutional rights?"  To my knowledge the only interest the state could have to do so is to protect the more compelling right of another person or persons.  And, as I've asked before... "which person would that be?"


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 29, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


I'm guessing that "to decide all cases in law and equity..."  kinda gets buy him.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 29, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Varth Dader said:
> ...



Perhaps it was the "common sense" thing that was confusing.


----------



## eots (Mar 29, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



it occurs behind the facade of the mothers body so it appears less ugly and brutal ?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 29, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Is there an abortion rights supporter in the house who will answer the questions in this post and make a reasonned legal argument against its assertions?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3345659-post699.html
> 
> So far a couple have tried and so far there's nothing very compelling to rebut it.



This is the way it was when it was "illegal":
2 women have an abortion.
Woman A has an abortion and is prosecuted for it. 
Woman B has an abortion and is not prosecuted. 
Which one committed murder?
How come the prosecutor selectively prosecuted and chose one over the other with these exact same cases?
Happens every day in the real world. 
2 doctors perform an abortion.
Doctor A performs an abortion and states that it was for "the safety of the mother". The local prosecutor indicts him for murder. 
Doctor B performs an abortion and states that it was for "the safety of the mother". The same prosecutor does not indict him for murder and the evidence is the same.
Happens every day in the real world.
2 women want to have an abortion but it is illegal in that state.
Woman A travels to another state and has the abortion.
Woman B has the child that she does not want, does not know how to raise and does not care about the child.
Happens every day in the real world.
Why did they call the laws "abortion control laws" when NO ONE can control abortion.
Doctors like $$ and will conduce abortions at will. NO state can define what is a legal and what is not a legal abortion if it was banned.
Get over it. I oppose abortion but as a strict conservative I fear THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT even more.
No sane person wants to give government, AN ENTITY THAT HAS LIMITED POWER BY THE US CONSTITUTION, the authority to pick and choose who goes to jail for murder and who doesn't UNDER THE SAME EXACT SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 29, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Is there an abortion rights supporter in the house who will answer the questions in this post and make a reasonned legal argument against its assertions?
> ...


Abortion has never been federaly illegal.  We have 50 states and the point of them is that they should have some different laws, don't like the ones where you're at?  Move.

Other than that I do notice that you just spewed out a bunch of talking point BS and didn't actually address the points or the questions in the post.  I'm not interetested in your worn out talking points about fairness.  The thread is about the law as it relates to a viable fetus and what that means considering Roe and Casey.

Hit men like money too, should we let them kill?  The power of government is that all states must ensure that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law and all persons shall be treated equally under the law."  I really don't care if you fear that.

And yes, people do or don't go to jail under the exact same set of circumstances depending on what state they live in and what the laws are in that state.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 29, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



That is exactly what I stated. Pay attention next time.
Repeat after me for the facts:
Abortion will NEVER BE ILLEGAL in the United States, ever, EVEN IF ROE V WADE IS OVERTURNED TOMORROW.
United States Law for dummies:
Overturn Roe v. Wade and all you do is place the issue back to each individual state for their legislatures to decide what to ban or not to ban.
Got it so far Moe?
Now to be sure there will be some states that will ban and outlaw abortion outright. More power to them in their ignorance but that is their right as this is a states rights issue and I stand for that.
Other states may put some restrictions on the procedure and those will vary but some form of abortion will be legislated as legal.
With the law so far?
Other states it will be totally legal.
So overturn Roe v. Wade and what will we be left with?
The states where it is illegal or partially illegal will make it hard for women to have an abortion on demand whether someone likes it or not.
The states where it is legal will make it very easy for women to have an abortion on demand whether someone likes it or not.
ALL that will be accomplished will be that it will be more difficult for poor women to travel to a state where abortion is legal to have an abortion.
Well DUH. 
The net result of that as anyone with half a brain will know is that:
A. more children born to women that DO NOT WANT THEM and 
B. more children born to women that CAN NOT RAISE THEM PROPERLY
Well DUH
The rest of the women that are not poor that want to have an abortion in a state that BANS ABORTION will simply get in a car or book an airline ticket and travel to another state AND HAVE A LEGAL ABORTION.
Well DUH.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 29, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


no, you went off on a crying jag about woman A and woman B.


> Repeat after me for the facts:
> Abortion will NEVER BE ILLEGAL in the United States, ever, EVEN IF ROE V WADE IS OVERTURNED TOMORROW.
> United States Law for dummies:


speaking of dummies, the thread is about VIABLE fetus and how they are treated in ROE.


> Overturn Roe v. Wade and all you do is place the issue back to each individual state for their legislatures to decide what to ban or not to ban.
> Got it so far Moe?


Hey Curly, don't know if you noticed but nobodies ever said anything different.


> Now to be sure there will be some states that will ban and outlaw abortion outright. More power to them in their ignorance but that is their right as this is a states rights issue and I stand for that.


States don't have rights dumbass, they have authority, people have rights.


> Other states may put some restrictions on the procedure and those will vary but some form of abortion will be legislated as legal.
> With the law so far?


did anybody state otherwise?


> Other states it will be totally legal.
> So overturn Roe v. Wade and what will we be left with?
> The states where it is illegal or partially illegal will make it hard for women to have an abortion on demand whether someone likes it or not.
> The states where it is legal will make it very easy for women to have an abortion on demand whether someone likes it or not.
> ALL that will be accomplished will be that it will be more difficult for poor women to travel to a state where abortion is legal to have an abortion.


don't like the laws?  Move to another state... that would be what our federal system was designed to allow


> Well DUH.
> The net result of that as anyone with half a brain will know is that:
> A. more children born to women that DO NOT WANT THEM and
> B. more children born to women that CAN NOT RAISE THEM PROPERLY
> ...


so?

Now, if you can get this through your thick skull, the thread isn't about all abortions, its about viable fetus' and how they are treated under Roe.  So see iof you can answer this question einstien

Roe states that the states have an interst in protecting a fetus once it becomes viable that can infringe on a womans constitutional right to privacy.  When can states infringe on constitutional rights?  ONLY when ballancing the rights of one person against the more compelling rights of another person or persons.  Who would that other person be?  Gee, there is only one possibility.  The viable fetus.  Given that what else could a viable fetus be but a person?  

There is no provision in the constitution that would allow the state to deprive anyone of their constitutional rights for any generic "interest", neither is their provision for protecting the future right of potential life of any notional persons who does not yet exist, and the courts are not empowered to create one.  That can only be done by constitutional amendment.  Given the limitted nature of the states authority, aplying ROE requires that a viable fetus MUST be a person, otherwise the state is powerless to ever infringe on any abortion.  And yet, Roe allows the states to do just that, and simultaneously allows them to allow killing these persons without due process.  That contradiction is a major flaw, as the courts are NOT empowered to allow that if the fetus is a person, and not empowered to allow it to be stopped if their not.  it creates a standard where a viable fetus is a person if the mother wants it, and isn't if she doesn't.

Now, what does the 14th amendment gaurentee all persons?  To not be deprived of life without due process of law.  What else does it gaurentee them?  Equal protection under the law.  What happens when you intentionally take the life of another person without due process?  You get charged with murder.  How are you protected by the law from murder?  The killers are prosecuted.  Do we have different classes of persons for whom these protections do not apply?  Does the constitution allow that?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 30, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Why do I make this large check out to "State of Georgia" every April 15th if they have no right to tax?


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 30, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


Do you not know the difference between a right and an authority?  They have the AUTHORITY to tax.  Taxing is not a "right", its an authority.  People have rights, states have authoirity.  

The states authorities are limitted by the peoples rights.  The peoples rights can be infringed upon by the state ONLY when that infringement serves to protect the more compelling rights of another person or persons.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 30, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



No, the 10th Amendment vests all rights not given to the Federal government to the states. The 14th amendment, and SPECIFICALLY the interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, has been read by the courts to mean that every citizen of every state is entitled to the same rights and no state can restrict the rights a citizen enjoys in another state.
In Florida for instance there is a written constitutional RIGHT TO PRIVACY, which does not exist in any other state. 
Now the US Supreme Court HAS been wishy washy on this issue but that does not support your uninformed claims. They also have been intellectually dishonest. In cases where the states have made caps on tort liability, limited certain rights to sue, etc. and allowed corporations to act that were otherwise outlawed, they do rule the state government trumps the Federal government. But then we have the medical weed cases and the Bush v. Gore fiasco where the states clearly had the right to run their own government the Supremes hold the states had no such right. 
The problem is that you are not following THE LAW.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 30, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


That is complete garbage.  Rights are held by people, they include things like "freedom of speech, freedom of religion, protection from unreasonable searches and siezures, not being deprived of life, liberty and property.  Authority is exercized by states, not rights.

9th ammendment



> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


oooh, by golly look!!! people have rights

10th amendment



> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


and OMG!!!! who'd a thunk it, states have POWER!!!!

And no, the 14th amendment gaurentees that every person within a state must have the same treatment of every other person within that state, not that they must enjoy the same treatment as any other person in any other state.  That would be why different states have different laws.  Seriously, take a civics class or something.  Also, the commerce clause has absolutely nothing to do with rights... where do you get this dumb shit?

National Constitution Center: Interactive Constitution



> Now the US Supreme Court HAS been wishy washy on this issue but that does not support your uninformed claims.


I'm not relying on there wishy washyness, I'm relying on my very informed claims of how the law works and how it relates to the constitution and what the courts decissions mean in relation to those.  You claiming it doesn't is meaningless, I have shown that it does by actually aplying legal reasoning thats consistant (which the SCOTUS did not). You claim it doesn't, based on what?  You saying so?  Pretty weak





> They also have been intellectually dishonest. In cases where the states have made caps on tort liability, limited certain rights to sue, etc. and allowed corporations to act that were otherwise outlawed, they do rule the state government trumps the Federal government. But then we have the medical weed cases and the Bush v. Gore fiasco where the states clearly had the right to run their own government the Supremes hold the states had no such right.


That would be because the Constitution gives the Courts the power to decide all cases in "law or equity" and because to sue you have to show damages and show standing.  These are pretty basic tenets of the law and if you don't know that you really should quit this thread.  

Further, finding that laws regulating how an assembly of persons known as a coporation spend their own damned money persuing their own right to free speech in thier own commercials is not "allowing them to do something that's outlawed", its correcting the law to fit within the scope of the constitutional limitations on government power.  Which you evidently love when it suits you.


> The problem is that you are not following THE LAW.


No, the problem is you have no idea how the law works.  Are you so dense you don't realize the irony of claiming the 14th amendment means all people must be treated the same by the laws in all 50 states (as if there were no borders) and then trumpetting "states rights"?  

Federal law must treat all persons equally in all states, state law must treat people equally within the state.  Roe is federal law (not passed by the congress, invented by the courts... another usurpation). So tell me einstein, How does federal law vis a vie Roe treat all persons equally?  Either the woman in a state that allows abortion of viable fetus' is getting away with killing a person without due process, or women in the other states are being deprived of their right to privacy to have a medical procedure which effects no person but themselves.  This dichotomy in federal law is not constitutionally consistent.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 30, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



You live in the United STATES of America, NOT the United PEOPLE of America.
You can deny that all you want but that is fact.
The United STATES OF AMERICA was not really established as a "nation". Rather, we were formed as a federation of individual states.
Twist, distort and slant all you want but the facts are facts.
As a result of that we were established WITH a Federal government that was supposed to function with a limited number of responsibilities.
Now people do have rights and one can argue that governments only have those responsibilities as mentioned earlier but they have the right to have those responsibilites. 
States do have rights guaranteed to them by Constitution. 
We are a federation, a group of political entities together that yield some, too much these days, of their power to a central government.
I recommend a Constitutional Law or History class for you. 
The assertion that a "right" cannot exist in anyone other than an individual is not supported by common definition of the word, nor by any position of logic. 
The State IS a creation of the people and the spout of any state's power is the right of the people how they should be governed. Once those people have entered into an agreement to create a state government, a sovereign entity, then that entity, THE STATE, has powers that it legally can utilize.
Such "powers" are defined and called RIGHTS regardless how they are invested in a person, a corporation or a sovereign.
So when you make your preposterous claim that "rights reside in the individual" there is no logical support for that.
When power is delegated to sovereign government and they plan to utilize that power it becomes a right for that state.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 30, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


did anyone claim otherwise?  Dude, you make no sence


> Twist, distort and slant all you want but the facts are facts.
> As a result of that we were established WITH a Federal government that was supposed to function with a limited number of responsibilities.
> Now people do have rights and one can argue that governments only have those responsibilities as mentioned earlier but they have the right to have those responsibilites.
> States do have rights guaranteed to them by Constitution.


I've already proven you wrong by showing you the EXACT quotes from the constituion (in fact they were the 9th and 10th in their entirety)... you should just give up.  I've shown you what IS in there, you make claims you can't support.


> We are a federation, a group of political entities together that yield some, too much these days, of their power to a central government.


who siad we weren't?  And since you want the federal government to be able to tell the states they have to allow abortion, i guess you must like them having all that extra power


> I recommend a Constitutional Law or History class for you.


Let me know when you can at least get the words right.  Don't worry, I won't expect you to actually understand them 


> The assertion that a "right" cannot exist in anyone other than an individual is not supported by common definition of the word, nor by any position of logic.


Except the constitution which reccognizes that people have rights and states have authority.  Ooops.  Guess you must have missed that. 


> The State IS a creation of the people and the spout of any state's power is the right of the people how they should be governed. Once those people have entered into an agreement to create a state government, a sovereign entity, then that entity, THE STATE, has powers that it legally can utilize.


yes, powers.  Not rights


> Such "powers" are defined and called RIGHTS regardless how they are invested in a person, a corporation or a sovereign.


No, they're called authorities... maybe you should add a vocabulary class to that civics thing you're lacking in?


> So when you make your preposterous claim that "rights reside in the individual" there is no logical support for that.


Except of course the rights pre-exist the constitution and the government, they belong to the people, the state cannot infringe on them, and they are unalienable.  Try this one on for size

"...all MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their creater with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the persuit of hapiness..."





> When power is delegated to sovereign government and they plan to utilize that power it becomes a right for that state.


no, its just authority they are ceded and have the power to use.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 30, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



This, of course, should not in any way be confused with the concept and issue of "states' rights" in regards to possible conflicts between the sphere of influence of the federal government versus that of the individual states.

I'd hate for some dumbass leftist who can't separate topics and stick to one to triumphantly declare that you've now invalidated and dismissed THAT debate by way of THIS one.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 30, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



The electoral college defends the interest and RIGHTS of the states. The President is not elected by a majority vote of the people. The President is elected by the electoral college, the rights apportioned to each state with a specific number of electoral votes.
It is the States that send the electors to the electoral college, not the people. The election you vote in is a state run election, not a federal run election.
It was the intent of the electoral college to protect the STATES, not the individual voter.
It was the states that joined the union, not the people. And every state gets 2 Senators regardless of population to ensure each states' rights on treaties and such.
We used to practice it a little more purely with the States appointing their own Senators until the 17th Amendment ruined that also. If that wasn't a right then what was it?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 30, 2011)

I like the Curly come back!


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 30, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


The federal governments authority was ceded to it by the states, and is on loan from the states, it is not possible to argue against the authorities retained by the states by citing hegomony over the very entities the federal power is borowed from.  The "states rights" argument is in essence an argument over the authority of the states vs the authority ceded to the federal government and is not a "rights" argument at all.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 30, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


That has nothing to do with rights, its our federal system and the method by which we choose a President.  Now you're claiming a method is a right...


> It is the States that send the electors to the electoral college, not the people. The election you vote in is a state run election, not a federal run election.


who said it wasn't?  The constituion leaves the authority to run elections in the hands of the states.  Thats AUTHORITY.


> It was the intent of the electoral college to protect the STATES, not the individual voter.


It is the intent of the electoral college to make sure that smaller states had some influence in the federal system in determining their own future, and are not ruled in tyrany by the majority.  Of course the states gave up most of their ability to do that with the 17th amendment but thats another story.  Still has not a dmaned thing to do with any rights.


> It was the states that joined the union, not the people.


It was the states that created the union, and it was the states that lent some of their authority to the federal government to facilitate the union.





> And every state gets 2 Senators regardless of population to ensure each states' rights on treaties and such.


You mean their authority to ratify them?  treaties are not enacted by rights, they are enacted by authority.


> We used to practice it a little more purely with the States appointing their own Senators until the 17th Amendment ruined that also. If that wasn't a right then what was it?


Their authority.  They APPOINTED senators because they had the AUTHORITY to do so.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 30, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



The SCOTUS 'interprets' the Constitution.  That is its job.  That also confirms that the Constitution is open to interpretation.  Which it is.

I said, if the SCOTUS strictly interprets the Constitution on abortion, given that the Constitution makes no mention of the unborn, given that the Constitution conveys no civil rights to non-persons, 

then the correct decision under that constraint is to protect the right of abortion from conception to birth, on the grounds of a woman's rights.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 30, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


It is the courts job to apply the law, in applying the law they determine if the interpretation the excutive used in enforcing it is constitutionally consistent.  It is not their interpretation they judge, it is the executives.  That there are areas that can be interpretted strictly or less strictly is a given, but their are no portions that can be interpretted in or out of it.  The courts are not empowered to enhance the powers of the federal government, when they do so, they themselves are acting in amanner inconsistant with the constitution.



> I said, if the SCOTUS strictly interprets the Constitution on abortion, given that the Constitution makes no mention of the unborn, given that the Constitution conveys no civil rights to non-persons,
> 
> then the correct decision under that constraint is to protect the right of abortion from conception to birth, on the grounds of a woman's rights.


That would be correct IF they determine that an unborn is at no point a person.  I've never said otherwise.

They however have conveyed protections on the unborn once they are viable which is an implicit admission that they are persons at least at that point, otherwise the government has NO authority to infringe on the womans constitutional right.  And if you're going to be consistant with the constitution it would mean they are entitled to its protections against being deprived of life without due process of law, and having equal protection under the law.  Once again the constitution does NOT protect the future rights of potential life of notional persons.  It protects actual persons, real life and existing rights.  The SCOTUS is not empowered to create different classes of persons who do not get those protections, to do that you have to change the constitution.

The SCOTUS is not empowered to make up authorities that do not exist by interpretting them into existance from the ether of what they consider the "right" thing to do, or the best compromise.  Either the government has the power, or it doesn't.  If ROE is correct then the government has the power to infringe on ALL of your rights for any generic interest it can dream up that the courts will wave at.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 30, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> still not murder.


The extent of your argument is overwhelming.

"because I said so"

let me know when you can address the questions I've asked and refute something with more than your BS and unsupported opinion.

You can start here

By what constitutional provision and grant of authority does the state have the power to negate a persons right for any generic "interest"?


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 30, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> ive already had my fun in your thread.


so you got nothin' huh?

cewl.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 30, 2011)

Just figured I'd bring the post forward for anybody who wants to take a shot at it

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3345659-post699.html


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 30, 2011)

​


Plasmaball said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


I am minding my business and I'll worry about who I please.  Trust me, I don't give a rats fucking ass about you.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 30, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > ​
> ...


maybe you should try to actually read the thread.  Its about VIABLE fetus' and how the law should view tham vis a vie ROE if we're to be consistant in our aplication of the law and consistant with our constitutional principles.  And the flaw in ROE that renders the decision itself constituionally inconsistant.  

And I can think whatever I please, I don't need your permission or your aproval, niether do I seek it.  as I recall, you are the one who entered this thread.

When your capable of making a grown up argument and debating points of law and how its applied or not applied in a manner consistant with the constitution, feel free to try.  Your inane talking points just don't interest me.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 30, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Methods, authorities, responsibilities, powers, whatever name you can come up with, are all given as rights defined by law.
You have yet to show anything or any definition to prove otherwise. 
We are a nation of laws.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 30, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Quite true, but since it was labeled with the word "rights", I didn't want some leftist playing at "Mr. Clever Dick" to go nuts with it.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 30, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


you mean like the 10th amendment that calls them "powers".  

I'm sorry you don't know the difference between a right and an authority, and evidently wish to remain blissfully ignorant, but I guess thats the way it is.  

We are a country of laws... which would be the method the states use to exercize their authority.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 30, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> still not murder.



Abortion is not murder for one reason and one reason only:  because murder is defined as the "unlawful taking of a human life", and abortion has been declared lawful by judicial fiat.  That's it.  There is no substantial difference between the two.  There is merely a technical, semantic one.

The purpose of this thread, by the way, is not to shout the slogan, "Abortion is murder", as I see it.  It is to say essentially what I just did:  if you compare an abortion to the murders of which Dr. Gosnell is accused, there is no real, qualitative difference.  There is just the semantic one of "lawful" versus "unlawful".


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 30, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Oh, I know.  I mean we've already seen what a mess a "conservative" will make of it.  Eh?  screw it, long as he votes GOP I'm happy, he can keep his delusions.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 30, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > ​
> ...



Yes, because interfering in someone's desire to kill someone else is intolerably nosy.    If I'M not the victim, it's none of my business.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 30, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


Evidently it wouldn't be your business if you were the hit man either.  Just doing your job!!!


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 31, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Nope, paid killers and paid killers.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 31, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



The only "stupid shit" here is your obtuse attempt to pretend that anyone was talking about a "massive desire to abort fetuses".  That wasn't even a good try, but hey.  If you don't mind looking like a jackass in public, I don't mind you doing it, either.

Do women who get abortions desire to abort that particular fetus?  Yes, they do.  Is it comparable to a person desiring to kill another person for their money or whatever other motive?  Yes, it is.  Does desiring to kill another person require a "massive desire to kill people"?  No, it doesn't.

If you are going to say stupid shit, EVERYONE will treat you as a stupid shit.  Oh, and look!  They already do.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 31, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Since you refused to even read the Court's rationale for how they decided Roe v Wade, that I directed you to, it's not easy to carry on a discussion about their rationale.

They did not 'dream up' a reason, in the sense that implies something cavalier and baseless.  The Court drew on common law, on the cultural beliefs of the time of the writing of the Constitution, etc., etc., in developing a very thoughtful and actually quite brilliant decision.  

By your logic the Court cannot compromise on any rights for any reason.  By your logic yelling fire in a crowded theatre is constitutionally protected.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 31, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



It is well established that rights under the constitution are not absolute.  That would include the right of privacy.  The Court's infringement of a woman's right of privacy was based on that established fact, and justified by citing compelling State's interests.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 31, 2011)

The country is running massive deficits that our great grandkids will have to pay, or will not be able to pay, Medicare is a waste, education  is a mess, social security is a mess, gas is almost $4 a gallon and you folks are worried about abortion. 
A non issue. Get with the conservative program.  The moral police need not apply to the conservative movement.
FAIR TAX, less government and less taxes. Abortion has NOTHING to do with solving the problems we face.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 31, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Their "rationalle" is dicta, which is irrelevant to the application of the law as it has no precedential value.  The argument is based on the precedent set by the finding not by the dicta contained in the opinion.  If courts offer no precedential value to dicta why should anyone else?



> They did not 'dream up' a reason, in the sense that implies something cavalier and baseless.  The Court drew on common law, on the cultural beliefs of the time of the writing of the Constitution, etc., etc., in developing a very thoughtful and actually quite brilliant decision.


They did no such thing, they invented a power for the state to infringe on a persons right for a generic interest and surrounded that invention with a lot of logical falacies and circular arguments.  I know they said the intent of the founders when they said "person" was that it would be a "walking around person" (itself a falacy as at worst they meant born) but since they chose not to define their intent, the inference is not that we must believe what they did given medical science of that day, but that we're free to define it as we wish in this day.  However we do that though must be consistant as there are no notional persons with any rights in the document anywhere.  Clearly they expected the definition to change, and by golly it did when we passed the 14th amendment ("person" as they were speaking about it referencing the 14th not being an invention of the founders in the first place).  

the decission is far from brilliant, it is perhaps the most flawed deccission in the history of the courts as it clearly either robs a woman of a constitutional right in the interest of protecting a non-person with no rights to balance, or it allows a woman to kill without consequence a person the court says the state has an interest in protecting, depending on where you live and whether the woman wants the child.



> By your logic the Court cannot compromise on any rights for any reason.  By your logic yelling fire in a crowded theatre is constitutionally protected.


Your strawman is rediculous as my argument is based on the ballancing of one persons rights against anothers and clearly states that courts are supposed to determine the more compelling right.

so which is it?

In granting the states the ability to infringe on a womans right to privacy did they rely on the states authority to protect another person and ballance those rights?  or did they just invent some generic interest the state might have out of the ether?  What interest can the state possibly have that would EVER allow them to infringe on your constitutional rights other than their interest in ballancing them against another person or persons?  Thats the problem, they declare a states interest but do not define that interest in any way that could possibly constitutionally justify either taking a right, or taking a life, and there is no possible way to conclude that either one or the other isn't happenning.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 31, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


WHAT INTEREST CAN THE STATE HAVE THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO TAKE YOUR RIGHTS?  In every case the only interest the state can ever have that would allow them to do that is the more compelling right of another person or persons.  There is no other authority the state has that can do so.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 31, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> The country is running massive deficits that our great grandkids will have to pay, or will not be able to pay, Medicare is a waste, education  is a mess, social security is a mess, gas is almost $4 a gallon and you folks are worried about abortion.
> A non issue. Get with the conservative program.  The moral police need not apply to the conservative movement.
> FAIR TAX, less government and less taxes. Abortion has NOTHING to do with solving the problems we face.


Fair tax?  Why would any conservative ever want to inflict that piece of shit redistribution scheme on steroids onto the country?

And i don't give a shit what you don't give a shit about.  If you don't give a shit about the law, then don't post in the fucking thread dumbass.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 31, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The country is running massive deficits that our great grandkids will have to pay, or will not be able to pay, Medicare is a waste, education  is a mess, social security is a mess, gas is almost $4 a gallon and you folks are worried about abortion.
> ...


]

My business is the LAW. Over the last 30 years I have investigated over 5000 cases, 1500 cases for trial.
I know the law as that is my business. 
Fair Tax redistribution?
How is a consumption tax "redistribution"? 
Income tax IS redistribution. 
You are not very intelligent. Sorry about that.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 31, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


family consumption allowance and prebate.  Look it up dumbass.

You've allready proven you're a complete moron claiming states have rights and now you don't know the first thing about the law you support... what a fucking moron.

Now asshole, this thread is about how viable fetus' should be treated under the law with regard to the findings in ROE and Casey and how that relates constituionally to "persons" due process and equal treatment.  If thats not what you want to discuss... why post here?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 31, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



You are not very intelligent and need to stick to whatever you do for a living.
Sorry about that.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 31, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


And you still haven't made one single argument thats even cogent.  Dude, you're a complete moron.  Likely some redneck deputy who fancies yourself magnum PI while you run around handing out warrants to your drunk buddies for beating their wives and screwing their cousins.  I'll bet you support the so called "fair tax" and don't even know what the family consumption allowance and prebate is.  And while you carp about "moral police" probobly kneel at the alter of that useless pro life liberal "Huckster" preacher from AR.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 31, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Redneck, well maybe. Sticks and stones, doesn't matter to me.
But not a deputy. I am a private detective licensed for 30 years in Atlanta with my own agency. One of my clients for years was the attorney that they wrote the Matlock show after that Andy Griffith played. 
How about we both put up 20K and you can check with the Georgia Secretary of States' office where I am licensed under after you put your cash up and they will show you that my detective agency has been in business since 1982. 
Or crawl back into the hole you came out of because your milk is weak?
Which is it? 
Once again, you are not very intelligent and undisciplined. You can not control your temper.
Wouldn't want you on my line when it is 4th and 1. Fold like a house of cards.
Sorry for you but it is what it is. 
20K?


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 31, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


If thats what you say you are, I haven't got any reason to doubt it, so why would a wager you're not?  The rest is intersting.  As to intelligence at least I know states have authorities not rights. I know whats in the law you support, and you apparently don't.  Supporting a law that you know nothing about other than its named "fair tax' isn't very bright.  And, at least I can put together a cogent argument and know what the topic of the thread is.  I couldn't care less what you think about my discipline and no, I'm not angry, I'm just pointing out that you're wrong... a lot.

Truth is there's probobly a lot we would would agree on, and I didn't create this thread to make abortion an issue, it already is.  But in case you haven't noticed the argument here isn't about any moral anything... it's about the law as it applies to viable fetus' with regard to the deciissions in Roe and Casey and how that relates to the constitutional requirements of due process and equal treatment.  It's a thread about a theory of law and constitutional principles more than it is about abortion.  If thats not what you want to discuss, why are you here complaining about it?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 31, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The country is running massive deficits that our great grandkids will have to pay, or will not be able to pay, Medicare is a waste, education  is a mess, social security is a mess, gas is almost $4 a gallon and you folks are worried about abortion.
> ...



But Gadawg LOVES telling other people what priorities they can and cannot have, based on the fact that HIS priorities are the universal standard to which everyone else must aspire.


----------



## BenNatuf (Mar 31, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


I think I'm kinda gettin' that...


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 1, 2011)

Once again it would appear no-one can identify just what the "compelling interest" the states have that would empower them to negate a person's constitutionally protected rights might be.  A generic "interest" is insufficient grounds to empower the state to infringe on constitutional rights.  Their "interest" must be based on some precept that would justify a use of thier authority in so extreme a manner that it could negate a constitutionally protected right, like the ballancing of that right against another person or persons more compelling right.  If that ellement of the states interest is absent, it's authority is absent.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 1, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



It was all laid out in Roe.  You need only refer to the court's rationale and demonstrate why it's wrong.


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 1, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Then go ahead and lay it out.  I've made my argument and you have them to lean on.  Go to Roe and Casey and find out what the interest of the state is and then explain why and how that "interest" could be used to negate a persons constitutional right.  While your doing it, think on how the state could use that same or any other claimed interest to negate other rights.  Then tell me how the negation squares with the idea that the government cannot infringe on your rights except in the case of a more compelling interest of another person or persons rights (real persons, not notional ones).

You claim you want to use thier argument... so do it.  Don't expect me to do your homework for you.  I will gladly entertain whatever you come up with.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 2, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



If you vote you also are telling other people what your priorities are.
If you believe strongly in your beliefs and have the information, facts and figures to back it up after a lot of hard work doing one's research you stand on your priorities.
Never stated anywhere what your priorities should be. One can take a look at the mess we are in today to know that the nation does not have their priorities in order. 
Moral issues are not a nation's priorities. Those are family issues and abortion is a family decision. The very people that object to gay this and that being taught at school is wrong and should only be taught at home are the ones stating that other morals should be taught in public. Which is it and who decides what the moral police should teach and where is that as a priority?
The government? Or each voter? 
As a taxpayer that owns and runs 3 corporations I want a structured priority list for each and every issue I vote on. Pushing that disciplined order of how our politicians spend their time on each issue with a priority listing is what a responsible taxpayer and citizen does.
Climb on board and join us. It will make for a better society that does not waste time on moral issues and focuses ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 2, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



You haven't even read Roe v. Wade?

lol


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 2, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Once again it would appear no-one can identify just what the "compelling interest" the states have that would empower them to negate a person's constitutionally protected rights might be.  A generic "interest" is insufficient grounds to empower the state to infringe on constitutional rights.  Their "interest" must be based on some precept that would justify a use of thier authority in so extreme a manner that it could negate a constitutionally protected right, like the ballancing of that right against another person or persons more compelling right.  If that ellement of the states interest is absent, it's authority is absent.



Just to be clear, are you acknowledging a first trimester constitutional right to an abortion, based on the right to privacy?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 2, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Once again it would appear no-one can identify just what the "compelling interest" the states have that would empower them to negate a person's constitutionally protected rights might be.  A generic "interest" is insufficient grounds to empower the state to infringe on constitutional rights.  Their "interest" must be based on some precept that would justify a use of thier authority in so extreme a manner that it could negate a constitutionally protected right, like the ballancing of that right against another person or persons more compelling right.  If that ellement of the states interest is absent, it's authority is absent.



Why was/is the draft constitutional?


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 2, 2011)

Roe v. Wade was decided based on perjury

the entire case needs to be thrown out and reheard


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 2, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


no you're not, voting is secret


> If you believe strongly in your beliefs and have the information, facts and figures to back it up after a lot of hard work doing one's research you stand on your priorities.


You don't need to do any of that to stand on your priorities... it does help the argument though


> Never stated anywhere what your priorities should be. One can take a look at the mess we are in today to know that the nation does not have their priorities in order.


The irony is delicious, you're not telling anybody what thier priorities should be... except the entire nation. 


> Moral issues are not a nation's priorities.


Good thing this thread doesn't argue any then, what does it argue is a theory of law.





> Those are family issues and abortion is a family decision.


killing is nobodies private choice





> The very people that object to gay this and that being taught at school is wrong and should only be taught at home are the ones stating that other morals should be taught in public.


do you ever make any sense?  Thwere is nothing about gay anything in this thread, and personally I don't give a rats ass what gay people do.





> Which is it and who decides what the moral police should teach and where is that as a priority?


evidently... you.


> The government? Or each voter?


a dumb assed canard if their ever was one.  The government is empowered to make law and enforce it, they have lots of them and I don't know of any of them that were enected based on their amoral philosophy


> As a taxpayer that owns and runs 3 corporations I want a structured priority list for each and every issue I vote on. Pushing that disciplined order of how our politicians spend their time on each issue with a priority listing is what a responsible taxpayer and citizen does.


but your not trying to push your priorities on anyone?


> Climb on board and join us. It will make for a better society that does not waste time on moral issues and focuses ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.


Once again you don't know the difference between a discussion about a theory of law and and what you falsely claim is wasting time on moral issues.  I'm probobly about 100% less Christian than you are, but here you have to trot out the canard of religious moralism because its the only fucking argument you know, and your just to damned stupid to know this thread doesn't have a damned thing to do with that.  Why don't you join your strawman at the wizards and see if he has an extra brain for you?


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 2, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


I've read it more than once, Casey too.  You are the one who wants to employ arguments from the dicta, so you go fetch them, and you use them to see if you can create a logical reasonable argument for the state having any interest at all to negate a persons rights that does not involve ballancing those rights against another persons.  What your asking me to do is research to argue against an argument you haven't made and in effect  make your argument for you.  No, make it yourself.

You complained I wouldn't respond to the dicta, something I never said.  What I did say is it has no precedential value in the law, and it doesn't.  Since this thread is about the application of the law the only relevant parts of Roe and Casey are the findings.  You want to argue against that theory using opinions from the dicta of the cases... so have at it.  Just remember to explain how the rationale they use relates to the government having any authority to negate a persons rights based on whatever interest they identify and how that relates to the government having no authority to infringe on the rights they allow to be infringed on.  

Simple question:  do you know of any other incidence that is not specifically constituionally authorized that allows the state to infringe on a persons constituional rights for any reason other than in the ballancing of those rights with the more compelling rights of another person or persons?

and another:  do you know of any instance when a person has ever had thier rights negated by any interest of the state that is not based on a ballancing of rights between that person and another person or persons except for those cases where the state is specifically constituionaly empowered to do so?


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 2, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Once again it would appear no-one can identify just what the "compelling interest" the states have that would empower them to negate a person's constitutionally protected rights might be.  A generic "interest" is insufficient grounds to empower the state to infringe on constitutional rights.  Their "interest" must be based on some precept that would justify a use of thier authority in so extreme a manner that it could negate a constitutionally protected right, like the ballancing of that right against another person or persons more compelling right.  If that ellement of the states interest is absent, it's authority is absent.
> ...


I acknowledge that acording to Roe and Casey the womans right to privacy outweighs the states "interest" whatever that may be.  This thread is not about my personal beliefs on abortion, it's about law theory and how its applied or not applied vis a vie Roe and Casey, and thats why it's limitted to viable fetus'.  

Once again if your going to give the findings in Roe and Casey any credence, and apply the law accordingly based on the precedential value of those findings (remembering that dicta has no precedential value), I don't see how you can escape the conclusion that a viable fetus is, in law, a person.  There just is no other conclusion you could come to under the theories we use to enforce and apply the law, the chief among them that the state has no authority to negate rights it is constituionally prohibitted from infringing upon, except in the case of specific constituionally granted authority to do so, or in the ballancing of that right with the rights of another person or persons more compelling rights.  States simply do not have the constituional authority to negate rights based on any "compelling interest", it does not exist; unless that interest is another person or persons rights.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 2, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Another undisciplined temper tantrum post.
You want abortion illegal and enforced by government because you want control over women.


----------



## Zona (Apr 2, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Love the fetus, hate the child.  

Its just that simple really.  Pro life, abortion is murder etc.

Then its, why are all these poor children sucking on the tit of the government.


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 2, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Once again it would appear no-one can identify just what the "compelling interest" the states have that would empower them to negate a person's constitutionally protected rights might be.  A generic "interest" is insufficient grounds to empower the state to infringe on constitutional rights.  Their "interest" must be based on some precept that would justify a use of thier authority in so extreme a manner that it could negate a constitutionally protected right, like the ballancing of that right against another person or persons more compelling right.  If that ellement of the states interest is absent, it's authority is absent.
> ...


Because the congress has the authority to raise armies and defending the nation with them protects the right to life liberty and property of every person in the nation.

1.  The congress has the constituional authority
2.  The affront to personal liberty is ballanced against the right of all persons to have thier lives liberty and property protected.

meets both criteria.


----------



## elvis (Apr 2, 2011)

Zona said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.
> ...



tell ya what.  get rid of abortion, I'll let all the kids suck on the govt's tit. no problem. free health care, toys, shelter, etc.


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 2, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


Another strawman... you're going to need a bus to OZ if you keep erecting them.

I'm sorry if you're too damned stupid to know the difference between critisism, scorn, ridicule, reasonably dispalying the absolute ignorance and contradictions displayed in your argument, and a temper tantrum... but that would be because you're an idiot; so, I guess I'm not the one who should be sorry about it anyway.

Tell me einstien, how many times can you contradict yourself in one post before you think anybody else should point it out?  honestly, you've made enough of a fool of yourself in this thread.  Maybe you should try the romper room... seems more your speed.


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 2, 2011)

Zona said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.
> ...


All you people have is strawman talking points.  Care to actually comment on what the thread is actually about?


----------



## Zona (Apr 2, 2011)

elvis said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Why are there so many people who want to push an illegal agenda.  You know...abortion being legal and all.


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 2, 2011)

Zona said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...


The thread isn't about all abortions.  maybe you should actually read some of it before you knee jerk a response?

BTW, what would be illegal about supporting changing of laws?


----------



## elvis (Apr 2, 2011)

Zona said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...


slavery was once legal.  I guess those pushing against it were pushing an illegal agenda.


----------



## Zona (Apr 2, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



What, the legality of abortion?  Is that the point of this?  If it weren't, then maybe you could have some weight behind your  point.   

I don't think its right, any person telling a woman she HAS to do something with her body, future and mental state.   You are there to tell her she has to have a baby, then not be there when she needs support because of something you MADE happen.  Thank God abortion is legal and thank god this country is not stuck in a mindset that is antiquated.

Why do you guys disrespect women so much?  Talk about a daddy state.  You think you know better than every woman on the planet.  

How dare you.


----------



## Zona (Apr 2, 2011)

elvis said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



Slavery was legal and abortion was illegal.  Lets all thank the one we pray to, this has changed.


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 2, 2011)

Zona said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...


Maybe if you actually read the thread you'd have an idea what it was about?  And then you could actually comment OT  



> I don't think its right, any person telling a woman she HAS to do something with her body, future and mental state.   You are there to tell her she has to have a baby, then not be there when she needs support because of something you MADE happen.  Thank God abortion is legal and thank god this country is not stuck in a mindset that is antiquated.


Your BS talking points are irrelevant to the discussion.  I do undertsand it's all your masters provide you with, but this thread isn'rt about all abortions, in reality, it's not even about abortion per se,  It's about legal theory and how Roe and Casey have turned it on its head.



> Why do you guys disrespect women so much?  Talk about a daddy state.  You think you know better than every woman on the planet.
> 
> How dare you.


Why do you guys hate babies so much?  See how easy that is?  Your inane talking point defences are irrelevant.  they serve no purpose.  If you want to rail about abortion rights create a thread to do it, this one is about legal theory as it pertains to the findings in Roe and casey and how that applies to the law and its enforcement or lack thereof.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 2, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Go ahead and call me what you want if you believe that adds credibility to your argument.
Because that is what you are left with.
You just can not stand the fact that your arguments are moot. No matter what happens you always end up with:
Overturn Roe tomorrow and it goes back to the states.
Some will ban it, some will have it legal for all and some will have some restrictions.
Women with $$ that live in a state that bans it will simply go to another state and have the procedure done.
Women with NO $$ in a state that bans it will be forced at the point of a gun, which is the power of government, to have the baby that they do not want and do not know to care for it.
Everything else you inquire about, state and project is gobbly gook BS. It will never happen and is just rank la la land speculation.
But keep the insults coming. No cry babies here. But next time get 2/3rds of your insult correct: It is Mr. Wealthy Idiot.


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 2, 2011)

Zona said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...


Abortion was never fedrally illegal.  wher do you people get this stupid shit?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 2, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



Who stated abortion was federally illegal?
Abortion was illegal in every state, with some states having limited exceptions due to rape and incest, for many years.
Every state is not a federal law but it is EVERY STATE.


----------



## Zona (Apr 2, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



Oh the irony here.  You wont get it of course but this is priceless.

Who said it was FEDRALLY illegal.  It was illegal in pretty much every state, no?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 2, 2011)

I have a problem with my space key on this old Gateway and maybe he has the same problem with the e key.


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 2, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


who said anything different?  You keep throwing out this strawman, but nowhere in the thread have I ever said Roe should be overturned never mind what the consequence of it should be.  That would be because the thread isn't about my personal beliefs about abortion, its about law theory.


> Some will ban it, some will have it legal for all and some will have some restrictions.
> Women with $$ that live in a state that bans it will simply go to another state and have the procedure done.
> Women with NO $$ in a state that bans it will be forced at the point of a gun, which is the power of government, to have the baby that they do not want and do not know to care for it.


none of which has anything to do with the topic of the thread... and you're still too thick to know it even after having it explained to you in detail numerous times.


> Everything else you inquire about, state and project is gobbly gook BS. It will never happen and is just rank la la land speculation.


Is that the extent of your argument on topic?  LOL....   Much of law theory is built on speculation, that would be why it's "theory".  Also, it's gobbloedygook, at least get your unsupported dismissals right.


> But keep the insults coming. No cry babies here. But next time get 2/3rds of your insult correct: It is Mr. Wealthy Idiot.


Great country!!!  BTW, if their are no crybabies here, quit whining about it... yet another contradiction.


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 2, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...


Perhaps you have some proof of this assertion?  Not saying it's not true, but not agreeing it is either.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 2, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



It is "there are no crybabies here" not "their".


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 2, 2011)

Zona said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...


yeah, typo's detract so much from an argument.  Let me know when you have something OT.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 2, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



"Not saying it's not true, but not agreeing it is either"
Fence sitter. You know it is true and have NOTHING to offer as any proof to show it is not true.
From about 1900 on EVERY state abortion was illegal except for about 10, off and on, where it had those exceptions listed.
You have no proof to show otherwise so suck it up for once and admit it. 
*Wham it zero on set, EP team on go, 3rd team D on go.*


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 2, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> I have a problem with my space key on this old Gateway and maybe he has the same problem with the e key.


That was fair... perhaps I'll back up and start over with you.  But to be honest, mostly it's because I'm not a typer and don't take the time to spell check.


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 2, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


Touche'


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 2, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


Actually no.  I've never done any research to see what the state of the law was in individual states prior to Roe.  I asked for proof of the assertion because I honestly don't know.  Not that it matters to the topic here, but it's an interetsing factoid.  I haven't assumed you have knowledge you don't here (really not difficult), nor have I assumed you don't.  My comments are based on what you do post, not what I imagine you might know because of some psychic ability you seem to think you have.


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 2, 2011)

Zona said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...


It's implied by your comparison.  If you don't want people to infer things based on the comparisons you provide, don't imply them in their use.


----------



## Zona (Apr 2, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



I knew you wouldn't get it.  You think I said anything because of the typo's alone?  No, you said the words stupid shit AND the typo's in the same post.  

That is the irony. 

Now back to you saying abortion was legal way way back in the day here in the states.  Hell, back in the 1800's was it even legal here?  You know, roe v. wade and everything back in the 70's.  

Just a little research may help you out a bid.  Just saying.

Abortion - History of Abortion in the United States


----------



## Zona (Apr 2, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



I implied federally and not state by state?  Really?  ok.  You are starting to look just a little silly here dude.


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 2, 2011)

Zona said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...


what are you in the third grade?  Of course I got it.  Last I checked typos weren't evendence of stupidity, they're just evedence of the inability to type.  I guess you's miss the irony in your own irony.



> Now back to you saying abortion was legal way way back in the day here in the states.  Hell, back in the 1800's was it even legal here?  You know, roe v. wade and everything back in the 70's.
> 
> Just a little research may help you out a bid.  Just saying.
> 
> Abortion - History of Abortion in the United States


Why would I want to help out a bid?  Oh, was that a typo?  my bad.

Now to help you out a "bid" the thread isn't about abortion, it is specific to viable fetus' and is about how they are and should be treated under the law in view of Roe and Casey.  I also have no interest in your self serving emotional drivel about the way women were treated anywhere at anytime.  It's not germaine to the topic.


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 2, 2011)

Zona said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...


Slavery as I recall was federally legal.  Yep, it certainly was.  So yeah, when you use it to compare to abotions illegallity the implication is that it too was federal in nature.  That would be the reasonable logical inference.  Your inability to properly analogize doesn't make me look silly, it makes you look ill equipped.


----------



## Zona (Apr 2, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



"abotions illegallity"?  Really?  Ill equipped indeed.  I will go slow here since you are still not getting it.  

The irony of you spelling something wrong and saying "ill equipped" is just precious.  You are a funny guy.  At this point, you are doing this on purpose of course.

bid that.


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 2, 2011)

Zona said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...


nope, the irony is in you obsessing about typos while you help me out a "bid".  Is that all you got? 

The further irony is in your further obsession about typos when you poorly analogize and blame the reader for drawing the reasonably logical inference from your poorly constructed analogy.  You evedently, are ill equipped to make a rational logical argument, so instead you obsess on trivia of no consequence.  And no, thats not precious... it's sad.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 2, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > I have a problem with my space key on this old Gateway and maybe he has the same problem with the e key.
> ...



I am a fair guy and have nothing against you.
This is all for fun. No worries my man.


----------



## Zona (Apr 3, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


----------



## syrenn (Apr 3, 2011)

Well damn zona, i thought you dropped off of the face of the planet.


----------



## Wingsofwind (Apr 3, 2011)

Zona said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



This is why I don't bother to point out when someone has a typo. I have typos sometimes and when someone points it out to me it is easy to find one that they have had also. Not to mention it takes away what the thread was originally about.


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 3, 2011)

Zona said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...


Conradulations, you win the deflection award for those who have absolutely nothing OT to say!!!  Have you gotten it yet?  I really don't give it shit about your nitpicky bullshit.

You keep the ironies coming.  Hate to inform you, but once again your clapping to insinuate some kind of irony created between my pointing out your poor analogy (a deficit in reasoning), and your pointing out a minor spelling error (lazy) is just further proof of your poor use of analogies and inability to properly identify an irony because of it.


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 3, 2011)

Insufficient said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


good thing I didn't do that.  Zona just started this crap because her argument made no sense, used poor analogies, and was OT.  She's just acting out (like a fucking petulant child) because I pointed it out to her.  She evidently doesn't know the difference between arguments which lack logical reasoning and posters who don't use spell check.


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 3, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


Just as an aside, my computer may be compensating.  I have a habit when I write things out of thinking ahead of my writing and rushing through the writing to catch up, the result of which is often a lot of extra e's at the ends of words where they don't belong (not to mention writing that sometimes I can't even read).


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 3, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



I linked you to it.  All you had to do was read it and refute it.  You refuse to because you can't refute it.

You're trying to win this argument by excluding the counter - arguments you can't refute.

I also said that if Roe was wrong, its error was in giving the fetus any rights as person at all.  You've yet to refute that,
so presumably, that is the winning argument here, i.e.,

that constitutionally, in the strictest most literal adherence to the document,

a woman has a right to an abortion from conception until birth.

Eh?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 3, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



Abortion was illegal at the state level and state laws have to be constitutional.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 3, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



The draft is constitutional because Congress has the constitutional authority?  lol, could you get more circular in an argument than that?

The constitution never explicitly or implicitly gave Congress the right to raise armies by forced conscription.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 3, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > hey dipshit
> ...



Where does Roe v Wade say that?


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 3, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


bullshit.  Your linking to it does not equate to your arguing to support it.  If you want to make the argument... make it.  I am under no obligation to research you argument for you and negate it because you're too damned lazy to do it yourself.



> You're trying to win this argument by excluding the counter - arguments you can't refute.


No I'm not, your refusing to do your own homework and present the arguments you wish to make.  I am under no obligation to search them out for you.



> I also said that if Roe was wrong, its error was in giving the fetus any rights as person at all.  You've yet to refute that,
> so presumably, that is the winning argument here, i.e.,


evidently you don't read responses either.  I've said that if the SCOTUS did not identify a viable fetus as a person that is EXACTLY how the law should be applied.  But its not what they did... is it?  They attempted to say it wasn't a person and then go on to negate anothers persons rights on the basis of some generic interest of the state with ABSOLUTELY no constituional underpinning.



> that constitutionally, in the strictest most literal adherence to the document,
> 
> a woman has a right to an abortion from conception until birth.
> 
> Eh?


depends on how you define "person".  So the strictest most literal adherance is a matter of that deffinition.  If you define it as a viable fetus then the strictest interpretation would be to not allow any abortion after viability except to protect the mothers life (life ballancing life).  If you do not, abortion until birth is the only alternative if we're going to protect real rights of real people.  Splitting the baby "so to speak" is anethema to the constituion, either a viable fetus is a person, or its not.  The constitution does not allow the states (or the federal government) to create different classes of persons for whom due process rights are unequal to all other persons.

The best thing the SCOTUS could have done in this case is to admit that sans the Congress using its "neccesary and proper" power to define constitutional terms in law, they had no authority to do it in place of them, and that because of that by virtue of the 10th amendment the power to do so rightly belonged to the states, and not the courts.  The proper course for the court in the absence of congressional action is to assume that the congress intended not to act, and in doing so leave it up to the states.  One of the biggest faults of courts in modern jurisprudence is the assumption that if congress doesn't act on an issue, the courts have to or even should.  Courts used to reccognize the limits on their own power, in the progressive era it would appear they don't believe there are any.


----------



## Zona (Apr 3, 2011)

syrenn said:


> Well damn zona, i thought you dropped off of the face of the planet.



I did for a minute but am back now.  


Hi.


----------



## Zona (Apr 3, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...




and yes, I know at this point you are doing this on purpose, (we will just go with that)  but this game is beginning to get fun.

You really want to debate me if abortion is murder?  You think either of us will make the other one change their mind?  Really?

Look, here is the deal.  It is legal for a woman to have an abortion here in the untied states.  The law is backing me up so I am good with that kind of support.

When pro life people adopt 6 or 7 kids.  Kids who are born handicapped or from poor backgrounds and not blond blue, perhaps we really could have an honest debate about it.

Why are you trying to break the law and make a woman have to HAVE an unwanted child.  There are some on your side who say even if she is raped or is a victim of incest the child should be born.  Who takes care of those kids?  You?  If the situation arises (and it does) that if the woman allows the pregnancy to come to term and she will die, should she have the child?  if so, who takes care of child then?  You?  See where I am going here.

There is no point in arguing pro choice vs. pro life.  There really isn't.  On my side, you make no points.  You take away the rights given to women in this country.  on your side, you say it is not her choice. I am a law abiding citizen and what you are preaching is wrong in the eyes of the law.  If we start living like that...obeying the laws selectively, it will cause anarchy.


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 3, 2011)

Zona said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...


aside from the clumsy wording (or is there just one missing?) I won't say anything about, you still don't seem to understand the threads not about "if abortion is murder".  In the scheme of things it doesn't matter whether you or I consider a viable fetus to be a person, what matters is how the findings in Roe and Casey treat them and women and what that means under the theory of law we practice in every event but Roe and Casey.  It's about how the law is applied vis a vie viable fetus' and womens rights with regard to Roe and Casey and how that is inconsistant with the constituional precepts of due process and equal treament under the same theory of law we use for every other application.  So the thread is not about what I think, or what you think, its about our laws and how in every event except this they are consistantly applied with one overiding philosophy.  That the government does not have the power to negate anyones rights unless that negation is constituionally authorized or in the interest of protecting another person or persons more compelling rights.



> Look, here is the deal.  It is legal for a woman to have an abortion here in the untied states.  The law is backing me up so I am good with that kind of support.


up until viability, yes.  After that, not so much.



> When pro life people adopt 6 or 7 kids.  Kids who are born handicapped or from poor backgrounds and not blond blue, perhaps we really could have an honest debate about it.


I could give a damn about your sense of fairness or what you consider riteous, or a contradiction in some peoples views (or theirs for that matter).  The thread has nothing to do with stupid talking points or deflective defenses..



> Why are you trying to break the law and make a woman have to HAVE an unwanted child.  There are some on your side who say even if she is raped or is a victim of incest the child should be born.  Who takes care of those kids?  You?  If the situation arises (and it does) that if the woman allows the pregnancy to come to term and she will die, should she have the child?  if so, who takes care of child then?  You?  See where I am going here.


yes, with the standard talking points that don't require you to think.  The law already says (in most states) that if the fetus is viable the woman cannot get an abortion except in certain circumstances.  This thread has nothing to do with my own personal beliefs about abortion much less anybody elses.  And, the last time I checked we didn't kill anybody because they couldn't be cared for by family (or the family chose not to).  All of which of course is OT.



> There is no point in arguing pro choice vs. pro life.  There really isn't.  On my side, you make no points.  You take away the rights given to women in this country.  on your side, you say it is not her choice. I am a law abiding citizen and what you are preaching is wrong in the eyes of the law.  If we start living like that...obeying the laws selectively, it will cause anarchy.


1.  I'm not preaching
2.  I'm not arguing pro-choice v pro life, i'm arguing for consistancy in legal theory.
3.  Whether or not it is her choice vis a vie a viable fetus' is currently undefined federally
4.  And, I doubt you'd be arguing that if the law changed.

Odd, if you'd bothered to read the thread an attempt to understand what the point of it was, you might have known all that.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 3, 2011)

Adoption and abortion have absolutely nothing to do with each other.


----------



## Zona (Apr 4, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



There are just too many typo's for me to even try to understand what the hell you are talking about.    It makes it hard to take you seriously.  But at this point, you are just doing this on purpose.   Dude, seriously, if English is your second language, I will stop this but damn this is fun.

It is legal for a woman to have an abortion here in the states.  Period.  Agree.  Even late term abortions are legal in the States.  Agree.  Bill O'reilly may hate it and he mentioned Tiller over and over as a killer. He did so, right up until someone killed him for performing LEGAL late term abortions, but hey, God bless America righty?

Again, abortion is legal here.  Agree.


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 5, 2011)

Zona said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...


your claim is rather disingenuous.  It's simple enough to understand as I hardly believe the difference between womens and women's makes the post unintelligeable.  Nor does any other of the typos.  So, the basic fact is you're just using trivial BS as an excuse  condratulations!!!  You win the deflection award yet again!

BTW, there is no apostrophe in typos. 





> But at this point, you are just doing this on purpose.   Dude, seriously, if English is your second language, I will stop this but damn this is fun.


I'm glad you think avoiding discussing ideas by deflecting to trivial BS is fun... not very genuine, nor very original though.



> It is legal for a woman to have an abortion here in the states.  Period.  Agree.  Even late term abortions are legal in the States.  Agree.


No, late term abortions are not, in fact, they are legally available in only two states last time I checked.  They are decidedly illegal in most cases in most states.





> Bill O'reilly may hate it and he mentioned Tiller over and over as a killer. He did so, right up until someone killed him for performing LEGAL late term abortions, but hey, God bless America righty?


More BS deflection and talking points.  Tiller's "services" were far from legal and the failure in his prosecution only serves to prove one of the points I've been making; that even when the states follow the SCOTUS decissions in Roe and Casey and devise laws proscribing late term abortions, the courts will ignore that and follow the political easy road in defending even so barbaric a practice as partial birth abortion.  Also, I don't give two shits what O'reilly thinks or who you wish to place blame on for Tiller's killing, as the last I checked the only person responsible for it was the murderer who did it.  In case you hadn't noticed, I neither use nor need disingenuous appeals to supposed authority to make my case, and your insinuation that I do by your citing of O'reily is irrelevant to the discussion.  Not to worry though, I know these irrelevant deflections and talking points are all that your masters provide you with.  Gods forbid you should think for yourself.



> Again, abortion is legal here.  Agree.


Once again the use of a logical falacy does not prove anything.  That laws are not (and will not be) enforced does not making breaking them "legal".  

The exception carved out in Roe for a states interest in "potential life" is unique in our system, does not follow any legal theory ever used before or since, and does not pass strict scrutiny.  In no case ever has the court granted to the states any ability to negate anyones constitutional rights except if that negation be founded by inumeration in the constitution or in the the ballancing of the rights of another person or persons.  The finding in Roe gives the states either the power to negate actual persons' rights based on some notional non-existant persons future and as yet unrealized rights, which power the states do not have; or, it allows the states to choose not to provide due process or equal treatment to actual persons (viable fetus') in the ballancing of thier rights against the rights of other persons' (women) at their whim, which power the states also do not have.  

There is no gray area in the constitution.  A viable fetus either is a person or it is not.  If it is not the states interest can never grow so compelling as to negate a person's rights (the woman), if it is the states interest can never be ignored in the providing to persons (viable fetus') due process and equal protection under the law.  Yet the decission allows both, and because of that is inconsistant with our theory of law.  Here the court tried a Solomonesque splitting of the baby, but seems to have forgotten that Solomon's wisdom was not in splitting the baby, but in ultimately not splitting the baby.  This baby is split.  

The affect of the decission is that each and every state may choose to protect or not protect the rights of the woman or the viable fetus both as if the viable fetus were a person, and as if it weren't simultaneously.  The effect of this is a "person" who is both reccognized and protected as such, and unreccognized and left unprotected at the same time, and in doing so creating a class of lesser person.  The constitution specifically forbids such classes of persons to be created.

Now, please, go ahead and spell check to avoid any discussion...  for me, the ideas are more important than any trivial BS you might cite to avoid them.

P.S., I may have spell checked this time to avoid typo's on this post, as this time I do have the time; but, you've made such a big deal of deflecting from the ideas by using it as a trivial excuse, that I just can't do it.  It is too much of a display of your lack of any real argument, which of course "it's legal" is not one of.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 10, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



That is false.  As I pointed out, men of a certain age are subject to the draft, which is not only a denial of freedom but is life threatening.  Thousands have been drafted and killed as a consequence.  How is that constitutional?  

Children are denied all sorts of rights that adults have.  Starting with voting.

It is a false premise to claim that if the Court grants certain rights or protections, it must grant them all.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 10, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Adoption and abortion have absolutely nothing to do with each other.



Then why do anti-abortion propagandists constantly compare the two, for purposes of claiming adoption is the better choice?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 10, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



The opinion supporting the Roe v Wade decision, written by the Court, IS an argument, you idiot.


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 10, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


your canard is irrelevant as the constitution clearly gives the congress the ability to raise and support armies and the power to regulate them.  A power given the congress to support the defense of the nation and therby protect all of our lives, liberties and property.



> Children are denied all sorts of rights that adults have.  Starting with voting.


They are denied nothing, the constitution itself does not give them voting rights, it is therefor not possible for them to be denied what the constitution does nt acknowledge they have in the first place... just another canard.  As for any other "denials" they are weighed in the ballance of thier parents rights and judged the lessor.



> It is a false premise to claim that if the Court grants certain rights or protections, it must grant them all.


No, it's a canard to claim that any of your examples actually deny anyones "rights".  Where the government IS empowered, it IS empowered.  Where constitutional rights are NOT extended constituionally they are NOT extended.  And ballancing a parents rights against their childrens does not negate the children having those rights.... it just puts them on the short side of the ballancing equasion.

The government is not and never has been empowered to ballance a persons rights against any generic "interest" of the state unless that interest is founded constitutionally or an interest in the ballance of other person's rights.  Your canard is simply that, a canard.  Name one other case where a person's rights have been negated by any interest of the state that is not either grounded in the constitution or a matter of that ballancing.

Good luck Mr Phelps!!!


----------



## jillian (Apr 10, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



he's an idiot with no concept of the legal effect of decisions of the court.

but he's a *constitutionalist* donchaknow.


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 10, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


And you're too stupid to present it?  You are the one who wants to use the dicta as the source of your argument, so go ahead and do so, I am under no compulsion to search out the argument and present the parts I think you'd use for you.  Prestent your argument and we'll debate it, I'm not going to present it for you.


----------



## BenNatuf (Apr 10, 2011)

jillian said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...


still got nothin' huh?

When you come up with an argument feel free to use one.  Until then you're commentary here is up to your usual standard of "nothing relevant"

You really should send that certificate in paralegal back to the university of Pheonix.


----------



## frazzledgear (Apr 11, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BenNatuf said:
> ...



Arguments are going astray.  Roe v. Wade did NOT declare a fetus a non-person or non-human.  No court has the authority to declare a woman's baby is not a person when every woman who has ever had a baby knows good and well it is.  Which is also why it is against the law in many states for someone to kill a woman's fetus intentionally or not during the commission of another crime!  A fetus has CITIZENSHIP when it takes its first breath.  But it is already a PERSON long before that.  

I do not understand the really stupid arguments of some people here.  "Person" only means "human being" and nothing more -it doesn't specify the location, stage of development or age of that person.  It isn't a guppy in there that suddenly and magically turns into a human being by having its mouth an inch further south than that of another fetus whose mouth is still an inch further north!  Human beings can only produce another human being so what is in there is at all times a very real HUMAN BEING.  Person =HUMAN BEING.  But it isn't a citizen yet which requires that person take a breath.  Even the Supreme Court ruled that states have an abiding interest in protecting the life of that person even though it is not yet born and a citizen -and the older and more mature that person becomes and capable of independent life outside of its mother, the greater the interest of the state in protecting it.  Which is why Roe v. Wade still allowed limits on when a woman could get an abortion.

Something the left NEVER mentions is the fact the US has the most liberal abortion laws in the world outside of communist China where women in some regions are forced to have abortions against their will.  In some European countries like Switzerland and Poland, abortion can only be done for legitimate medical necessity.  Where it is legal, it is only legal up to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and late term abortions are NOT allowed!  Only the UK allows abortion up to 24 weeks and the rest of Europe disagrees with allowing abortion that late into pregnancy because it crosses the line of viability!  No COURT imposed its own determination of whether abortion should be legal or not in their country -the people themselves voted for or against it and THEY don't want abortions beyond 12 weeks.  It isn't a political issue in their countries because the people themselves decided what their law would be -and did NOT have rammed down their throats against their will by a court of 9 people.  So it shouldn't surprise the pro-abortion extremists but the vast majority of Americans don't want it to be legal after 12 weeks here either!  

Summary of European Abortion Laws  And there is NO push anywhere in Europe to extend the time period someone can get an abortion beyond 12 weeks!  No one is arguing for a need to kill older and viable babies in Europe!  If abortions are going to be done, at the very least they should be done LONG before there is a chance of viability in the fetus and that is how it is viewed in Europe.  Because once viable it means that person can survive on its own and therefore is the SOLE owner of its life.  NOT the mommy harboring homicidal thoughts about that child.  Mommy's CONVENIENCE isn't of more value than the life of a human being.  Especially since 67% of all abortions today are actually done for reasons of DADDY'S convenience and the percentage of woman who say they were pressured into having one against their will by the baby's father.  

Even Europe recognizes that killing a fetus capable of independent life outside of its mother is really nothing short of murder!  Just because it hasn't come out yet -doesn't mean it can be killed just because it hasn't yet come out on its own!  Even in Europe the most vigorous supporters of abortion recognize that once a fetus reaches viability, no one can legitimately argue or pretend that child doesn't have an independent life separate from that of its mother -which also means no one, including the mother, has any "right" to kill that person.  And it IS a person!  "Person" just means a HUMAN BEING and it is absolutely a human being since two human beings can only produce another human being.

A fetus starts to become capable of surviving outside of its mother just two weeks after the halfway point in pregnancy at 22 weeks gestation (normal pregnancy is 40 weeks) -with the odds of survival rapidly increasing after that!  A baby born at 24 weeks has better than an 80% chance of survival and at 27 weeks that chance of survival is nearly identical with a full term baby.  

Taking its first breath ONLY determines citizenship but NEVER determines personhood or its species!  And no court has the authority to declare a woman's unborn child to be non-human and a non-person -which is why no court ever has.

Abortion laws do NOT define personhood, do NOT define when a fetus is legally considered a human being and it would be STUPID of the courts to pretend that the fetus of any human being is anything BUT another human being!  The law can only define when CITIZENSHIP begins and no one is quibbling about THAT.  

But the majority of people in this country object to allowing someone to kill their child for reasons of CONVENIENCE right up until a child takes its first breath -as if a woman's CONVENIENCE takes priority over the very life of another human being right up to the moment of birth!   It doesn't in Europe or in any other civilized place in the world (I do not consider any place where government claims a "right" to kill a woman's unborn child against her will to be "civilized" obviously)  - and it sure as hell shouldn't here either.  

I agree with the person who said this issue properly belongs in the states and is NOT a constitutional issue!   And besides the majority of Americans agreeing with that, so do many constitutional lawyers.  If it had been left to the states, it wouldn't be a political issue still DECADES later!  It is because the Supreme Court made a bad ruling and FORCED an unwanted law down the throats of a people who actually have a superior right of self-determination and a right to decide for themselves what laws they agree to be governed by that it is a political issue at all -and the best way to turn any issue into a political one!  Having a court ram it down our throats is NOT a representative democracy but an OLIGARCHY.  The Constitution was written at a time when abortion was illegal as well as the sale of abortifacients as a matter of state law -and yet that activist Supreme Court would have us all believe the authors of the Constitution failed to mention some magical "right" of privacy that would overturn state law and allow women to intentionally harm their unborn child in the hopes of killing it before it took its first breath.   It took 9 people 200 years later to find that one and the people of this country disagree with it so vigorously that here decades later its STILL a hotly debated and UNSETTLED issue.  And it will remain an unsettled political issue until WE THE PEOPLE decide the issue -not 9 people on a court forcing its will on a population that vigorously disagrees with its ruling!  It never was a political issue UNTIL that ruling and the people of each state were dealing with the issue as a social health issue -not a political one.

Abortion is the worst age discrimination of all but is defended to the hilt right up to the moment of birth where they still support the violent murder of that child during the process of its birth even -by the very people most likely to demand the perpetrator be given a jail sentence if they saw someone doing to any OTHER living creature what is done to a human fetus in an abortion.  I even heard a pro-HUMAN abortion extremist member of NOW go nuts at hearing about a veterinarian who performed an abortion on a dog, ranting and railing against the owner of that dog for not having gotten it spayed in the first place to avoid pregnancy.  Apparently shooting off her mouth without fully appreciating the utter irony of the fact that while she obviously believed a dog's owner knew good and well how to avoid an unwanted pregnancy in her dog,  she was at the same time insisting that a full grown WOMAN dog owner couldn't possibly be expected to know how to avoid unwanted pregnancy herself.  Huh?  *THAT is the kind of mental gymnastics and convoluted the thinking of the typical pro-abortion extremist who never saw a human fetus whose death they wouldn't celebrate as upholding the "rights" of womanhood.  *


----------

