Abortion as Murder.

[JScott]

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

She wasnt a monster. Ive researched everything quoted about her and its usually been taken out of context.

 

[JScott]

[
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]YouTube - Racism & Eugenics exposed in new film "Maafa 21"[/ame]

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]

"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?

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]

Nor should the government interfere with a person's right to make a choice about the viability of a fetus.

 

[BenNatuf]

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]

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]

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

She wasnt a monster. Ive researched everything quoted about her and its usually been taken out of context.

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]

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]

In your opinion....

no, thats just fact.

cause *you* say so?

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

the same where you and others can try to tell a woman what to do with their body....

she can choose to murder all she wants, and she should be punished accordingly.

Well no, because she wont be arrested, because its not murder in the eyes of our legal system.

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]

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

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]

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.

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

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   /tʃaɪld/ Show Spelled
[chahyld] Show IPA

–noun, plural chil·dren.
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.
2. a son or daughter: All my children are married.
3. a baby or infant.
4. a human fetus.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.