Zone1 A Question For Pro-Choicers

[dblack]

I wonder if the pro-lifers here have considered that there are limits to the government's ability to prevent evil from happening. For example, child abuse could be prevented by requiring parents to install cameras in their homes so that the state can monitor their parenting and ensure they aren't harming their children. But, hopefully, most of us agree that would be an intrusion we wouldn't tolerate. Even though child abuse is horrible, a government that monitors our personal family matters in that way would be worse. At some level we have to trust parents and hope for the best.

That's where I'm at with the abortion issue. Is a fetus "alive"? Of course. Is it conscious? Is it a person? That's debatable, but even if it is, the intrusion required to "protect" it is too much. Procreation is the ultimate personal concern. The state has no business regulating it and no business dictating what goes on inside a person's body.

 

[Blues Man]

Yes. Absolutely.

Once conception occurs, it is an undeniable scienticific fact that a new living organism now exists, and that this organism is of the species Homo sapiens.

This is a human being, albeit in a very early stage of development. There is no honest, rational basis on which to claim that it is any more acceptable to intentionally kill this person, than to kill any other innocent human being at any age, at any stage of development.

OK so now how far will you go to make sure the government can protect that embryo to the same extent it would protect any other person?

Should every woman have to report every positive pregnancy test to the state?
Should every doctor have to tell the government the name and addresses of every pregnant patient?

After all the government can't protect the rights of a "person" if the government does not know that "person" was conceived, correct?

What if a woman refuses to get medical care while pregnant? Should the government force her to go to the doctor so the unborn person can be protected?

What if a woman refuses to eat while pregnant? Would the government be able to incarcerate her and force feed her because not feeding a child is neglect?

What if a woman who lives in a state where abortion is illegal wants to travel to a state where abortion is legal ? Can the state prevent her from travelling so as to protect the unborn person?

What if that woman wanted to engage in what the state deems "risky" behavior while pregnant? Should she be incarcerated and not allowed to do so?

Are you willing to violate every right a woman has as a citizen in this country to protect the unborn child?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

OK so now how far will you go to make sure the government can protect that embryo to the same extent it would protect any other person?

Should every woman have to report every positive pregnancy test to the state?
Should every doctor have to tell the government the name and addresses of every pregnant patient?

After all the government can't protect the rights of a "person" if the government does not know that "person" was conceived, correct?

What if a woman refuses to get medical care while pregnant? Should the government force her to go to the doctor so the unborn person can be protected?

What if a woman refuses to eat while pregnant? Would the government be able to incarcerate her and force feed her because not feeding a child is neglect?

What if a woman who lives in a state where abortion is illegal wants to travel to a state where abortion is legal ? Can the state prevent her from travelling so as to protect the unborn person?

What if that woman wanted to engage in what the state deems "risky" behavior while pregnant? Should she be incarcerated and not allowed to do so?

Are you willing to violate every right a woman has as a citizen in this country to protect the unborn child?

There is always a very tricky balance in trying to protect everyone's rights.

There are always arguments to be made concerning any kind of crime, that government could more effectively protect us from that crime if it was given more power to violate the rights of anyone who might commit such a crime. That's a different argument, for a different thread.

The hard, undeniable fact is that abortion is the murder of an innocent human being. Anywhere that it comes to government's notice that such a murder has occurred, where it can be proven who had what willing part in it, government has the same responsibility to prosecute those murderers and accessories thereto as in any other sort of murder.

 

[Mr Natural]

Of the millions of abortions that have been performed, a certain percentage would have grown up to be deranged psychopaths capable of who knows what.

We can thank the sacrament of abortion and the courageous women for preventing what might have been.

 

[Blues Man]

There is always a very tricky balance in trying to protect everyone's rights.

There are always arguments to be made concerning any kind of crime, that government could more effectively protect us from that crime if it was given more power to violate the rights of anyone who might commit such a crime. That's a different argument, for a different thread.

The hard, undeniable fact is that abortion is the murder of an innocent human being. Anywhere that it comes to government's notice that such a murder has occurred, where it can be proven who had what willing part in it, government has the same responsibility to prosecute those murderers and accessories thereto as in any other sort if murder.

But this is a unique and untested legal and ethical problem and much more problematic for your position that a one second old human embryo is a person with all the recognized rights of a person who has already been born than any of the examples you gave.

For you to intervene for the unborn person you must violate the woman's rights in some way there is no way around it.

So how far are you willing to go?

Do you think it should be a law that every positive pregnancy test be reported to the government whether that test be done at home or in a doctor's office? Or maybe the government should mandate monthly pregnancy' tests for all females who have reached puberty.

I would think you have to say yes to this because the government cannot protect an unborn person unless it actually knows when all unborn persons are conceived.

And this is just step one into the mire of fetal rights of personhood.

How deep do you want to go?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Of the millions of abortions that have been performed, a certain percentage would have grown up to be deranged psychopaths capable of who knows what.

We can thank the sacrament of abortion and the courageous women for preventing what might have been.

And a certain other percentage would have grown up to be good, productive citizens. Some might have become great scientists, industrialists, statesmen, or other extraordinary citizens who might have greatly improved the lot of all Mankind.

We cannot know what any one person's impact on society will be until he has the chance to make that impact.

Who can say what ills among all that afflicts Mankind might have been eliminated, except that the one who was destined to find the solution to that ill was murdered via abortion before he even had the chance to take his first breath?

 

[Blues Man]

And a certain other percentage would have grown up to be good, productive citizens. Some might have become great scientists, industrialists, statesmen, or other extraordinary citizens who might have greatly improved the lot of all Mankind.

We cannot know what any one person's impact on society will be until he has the chance to make that impact.

Who can say what ills among all that afflicts Mankind might have been eliminated, except that the one who was destined to find the solution to that ill was murdered via abortion before he even had the chance to take his first breath?

Probability not possibility is the only prediction model we can live by.

It's possible to shuffle a deck of cards so that all the suits are together and in order just like when you opened the box. But how much time do you want to waste on that outcome?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

For you to intervene for the unborn person you must violate the woman's rights in some way there is no way around it.

Your argument here is solid digestive waste from a male bovine.

That a particular crime may be difficult to detect is no excuse to violate any rights of anyone who might have the opportunity to commit that crime. It just means that someone who does commit such a crime has a better chance of getting away with it in this life. (Any such offender will still be held to answer for it in the next life, after standing befor God to be judged.)

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Probability not possibility is the only prediction model we can live by.

It's possible to shuffle a deck of cards so that all the suits are together and in order just like when you opened the box. But how much time do you want to waste on that outcome?

How many innocent human beings do you want to murder in cold blood, to prevent some portion of them from growing up to be criminals?

 

[Mr Natural]

And a certain other percentage would have grown up to be good, productive citizens. Some might have become great scientists, industrialists, statesmen, or other extraordinary citizens who might have greatly improved the lot of all Mankind.

We cannot know what any one person's impact on society will be until he has the chance to make that impact.

Who can say what ills among all that afflicts Mankind might have been eliminated, except that the one who was destined to find the solution to that ill was murdered via abortion before he even had the chance to take his first breath?

Chances are, if they weren’t wanted to begin with, they probably wouldn’t have the nurturing and upbringing needed to achieve those kinds of goals.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Chances are, if they weren’t wanted to begin with, they probably wouldn’t have the upbringing to achieve those kinds of goals.

It is never justifiable to treat someone as a criminal, or even as a potential criminal, before he actually commits a crime, or at least expresses a clear intent to commit a crime.

You're arguing for the murder of thousands of innocent children every day, more than a million every year, on the excuse that some of them would have grown up to be criminals.

I doubt that those who do would have victimized nearly as many as the number of abortion victims that would have gone on to be good, productive citizens.

How many innocent human beings do you want to murder in cold blood, to eliminate how many potential criminals?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Self Determination And Self Ownership Without Collective State Determinates "

* Cloistered Twisted Sister Type Cast In Form Follows Function Of Desert Attire *

There is no right to kill dependent offspring. Pregnancy is not a crime, and women are not being assaulted by their own unborn offspring.

Get pregnant in a fictional ishmaelism country without being married and see whether being pregnant is a crime .

* Jumping To Legal Statutes Without Valid Entitlement *

And they have NO right to MURDER the result of their irresponsibility. Pro choice argument is akin to a drunk saying he has every right to get blitzed. He does. But he has NO right to drive a car impaired and possibly MURDER an innocent citizen.

Go cry for yearn gawd about mortality .

A subjective altruism from myopia , as ego , is that introspection should exist in perpetuity , throughout eternity .

A presumption of nature is that not every instance of introspection must exist in perpetuity , throughout eternity , to satisfy a subjective altruism .

A success criteria for satisfying a subjective altruism , according to a presumption of nature , is a sophisticated physical state that occurs through genetic procreation , as an emulation for a quality of infinitude , as being and becoming through some transition .

Wernher Von Braun

Agreed. I just find it fascinating thats actually on his grave, and his entire life was based on space. You know i like discussing wild shit like this lol Well, there's always this doozy from the OG quantum physicist...

www.usmessageboard.com

Wernher Von Braun

Agreed. I just find it fascinating thats actually on his grave, and his entire life was based on space. You know i like discussing wild shit like this lol Well, there's always this doozy from the OG quantum physicist...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Answering To A Literal Meaning Of An After Life "

* Claims Of Sins Inherited From The Mother *

(Any such offender will still be held to answer for it in the next life, after standing befor God to be judged.)

How detrimental to a chance for eternal life would it be for a collective clad , if one of its familial haploid instances is absent in the life to come , due to elective abortion ?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

" Answering To A Literal Meaning Of An After Life "

* Claims Of Sins Inherited From The Mother *

How detrimental to a chance for eternal life would it be for a collective clad should one of its familial haploid instances be absent in the life to come due to elective abortion ?

A common cliché has it that an infinite number of Monk-Eyes banging away at an infinite number of typewriters will reproduce all the great literature ever written. But as you often demonstrate, one Monk-Eye at one keyboard just produces nonsense.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Conjectured Consequences Of No Natural Law Against Killing "

* Murder Is Killing Without A License *

OK so now how far will you go to make sure the government can protect that embryo to the same extent it would protect any other person?

The very reason as to why a " wright to privacy " is incidental and a trifling premise for public policy on abortion is that facilities and organizations providing abortion services can be identified by public observation , and thus the abortion behavior need only be designated and legislated as a moral or public vice for a state to be able to proscribe the practice .

Logically of course , from us 14th amendment , a legitimate state interest is prohibited from protecting a wright to life of any not having met a live birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen , such that in us 10th amendment a state is prohibited from proscribing abortion .

The moral relativism of nature , along with legal positivism , stipulates that a law exists because there is an entity capable of issuing a retort for violations of its legal pretenses , and there is not a law of nature against killing , rather there is a capacity of a legal state to issue a retort .

A state is comprised of individual citizens for whom interests of a state lay ; a citizen and its constitutional protections are instantiated through a live birth requirement , and by equitable doctrine , a live birth is required for equal protections .

Without constitutional protections , killing of a fetus is not an offense against a fetus , rather any perceived offense against a fetus is an offense against the mother , and appropriate penalties can be applied , though elective abortion is a victimless crime an individual commits against themselves .

* Against Whimsical Standards For Moral Vice Through Populism For Democracy As Tyranny By Collective Majority *

A credo in a motto for e pluribus unum expects independence as individualism , with equal protection of negative liberties among individuals , within the constraints of safety and security .

 

[Concerned American]

A common cliché has it that an infinite number of Monk-Eyes banging away at an infinite number of typewriters will reproduce all the great literature ever written. But as you often demonstrate, one Monk-Eye at one keyboard just produces nonsense.

I think Monk eye ought to learn that "right" does not contain a "W"

 

[Burgermeister]

If babies aren't alive in the womb then how does abortion exist? After all, how can you kill somebody who was never alive in the first place?

Let me help you out.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And your premise is totally sickening…

Says a foul creature that is in favor of murdering thousands of innocent children every day, more than a million every year.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Do you not understand that abortion is the act of killing babies?

They know. They don't care. They're evil; they don't care how many innocents die to promote any of their sick agendas.

 

[forkup]

There is always a very tricky balance in trying to protect everyone's rights.

There are always arguments to be made concerning any kind of crime, that government could more effectively protect us from that crime if it was given more power to violate the rights of anyone who might commit such a crime. That's a different argument, for a different thread.

The hard, undeniable fact is that abortion is the murder of an innocent human being. Anywhere that it comes to government's notice that such a murder has occurred, where it can be proven who had what willing part in it, government has the same responsibility to prosecute those murderers and accessories thereto as in any other sort of murder.

There is always a very tricky balance in trying to protect everyone's rights.

There is. And you are suggesting to simply ignore that balance and give the fetus all rights and the mother none. Not to her body. Not to her future. Not to make her own medical decision. Not to travel. You are limiting the rights of a living breathing fully developed human being. To only those rights that don't interfere with her function as a breeding station.

I don't like abortion; I wish it didn't occur. I wish the government would help families enough so abortion wouldn't be such an attractive or even perceived necessary option. But taking away basic rights of one human being who has done nothing wrong, to defend those of another is several bridges to far. This if I accept (and I don't) your premise that there isn't any functional difference between a zygote, fetus, and a fully developed person.