Abortion as Murder.

[BenNatuf]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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.

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]

He has no "appeal to authority" at all. I wonder if Ben does have some limitations to his position.

 

[BenNatuf]

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...

point being? Of course its an opinion, thats what legal arguments are, and that would be why they call court decissions "opinions".

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.

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.

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...

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]

We are not arguing the legal points. Those are clear. If you disagree with some of them, cool. Talk to your legislator.

 

[BenNatuf]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

That is certainly your opinion, if not the law.

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

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]

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...

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^^^^

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

the little pissant can't tell the difference between his (uneducated) opinion and fact.

what a maroon...

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

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....

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 )
3.Therefore, p is true. (have decided otherwise)
This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of a claim is not related to the authority of the claimant

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

maybe I need to paste this again

Reading Comprehension

 

[Dr Grump]

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?

He has no idea what it means...obviously...