Abortion as Murder.

[Missourian]

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.

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]

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

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]

You absolutely did...

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---- ?

Oh, so you weren't implying anything then? Righteo...IOW, you were trolling??

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]

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?

So It's have the kid or kill it eh. No other options at all.

I see.

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...

Having an abortion is not an exercize of personal responsibilkity, its the avoidance of any.

 

[jillian]

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.

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]

Because abortion is a personal matter.

so is bashing your kids in the head with a hammer... personal choice. Doesn't mean it should be legal.no. and its not BSso what?again, so fucking what?do i have to ask again? So fucking what?

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.

See the bolded part? Key word. Note you admit yours is an opinion, not fact. Tell me something I don't know.

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]

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....

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.

I favour abortion rights, but not abortion. There is a difference......

There is no difference in the result.

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

And yet abortion, under your law, doesn't meet the criteria. Case dismissed....

It doies, and I've shown how. Simple denial will not suffice.

 

[Dr Grump]

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---- ?

Oh, so you weren't implying anything then? Righteo...IOW, you were trolling??

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.

Oh, so you were trolling.
Thought so....

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

I favour abortion rights, but not abortion. There is a difference......

There is no difference in the result.

And...?

 

[Dr Grump]

So It's have the kid or kill it eh. No other options at all.

I see.

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...

Having an abortion is not an exercize of personal responsibilkity, its the avoidance of any.

In your opinion....

 

[Shogun]

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]

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.

and you've been repeatedly told that there is no "murder" unless a statute defines it as murder.

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]

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...

Having an abortion is not an exercize of personal responsibilkity, its the avoidance of any.

In your opinion....

no, thats just fact.

 

[BenNatuf]

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]

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?

Therer is only one thing that needs to be done. The congress needs to eitheoor 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)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.