Abortion as Murder.

[BenNatuf]

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....

oh, so you got nothin'...

thought so.

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

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]

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

In your opinion....

no, thats just fact.

cause *you* say so?

more of that top notch 'debatin'' there, eh?

 

[GHook93]

In your opinion....

no, thats just fact.

cause *you* say so?

more of that top notch 'debatin'' there, eh?

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]

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]

no, thats just fact.

cause *you* say so?

more of that top notch 'debatin'' there, eh?

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!

Shouldn't this post be aimed at Benny Boy?

 

[bikercat]

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]

cause *you* say so?

more of that top notch 'debatin'' there, eh?

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!

Shouldn't this post be aimed at Benny Boy?

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]

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]

now a zygote or foetus is an infant?

Don't you know? Sperm are people too!

 

[SmarterThanHick]

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.

statutes mostly

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.

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?

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.

And what comprises "human being?"

science

Supporting evidence?

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]

"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

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

the statutes do define murder.

Could you cite them, please?

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.

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]

[
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]

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]

was there even federally legal abortions when Sanger was alive?

 

[xsited1]

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]

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

link?

are you sure that was not a quote from senator Prescott Bush....nicknamed 'Rubbers', for short?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

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.