CDZ Abortion

[Bonzi]

Human is human. Whether in the mother or outside the mother. When you were a sperm and egg, you were just as human as you are now, just in a different form.

The law does not grant rights to eggs and sperm.

Well if your guide to life is the law - like I said, I'm not arguing the law, I'm just saying admit you are taking a human life. I admit the law permits this. But most moral people would not want to take a life, not at any cost.

A potential life is not the same thing as a living person. Life comes in many forms. Plants are a form of life so even vegans are taking life in order to survive. If you are wearing leather shoes another file was taken so that you would wear those shoes.

If you want to have a discussion on the morality of life that is completely off topic to your OP which simply claimed that abortion is murder.

If you are a male then all of the sperm that you have ejaculated is a form of potential "human life" that was "taken". For a female each month she "takes the life" of an egg.

Do you want everypne to admit that normal bodily functions are "taking a life" and somehow "immoral"?

Personally, I believe human life begins at conception.

You are entitled to your belief and I will defend your right to your belief.

However you don't get to impose your belief on the secular laws on this nation.

No, I sure don't! But seriously,, I have had people tell me it's not a human at 5 weeks. Somewhere in this string people said it's not a human until it takes it's first breath outside the womb!

 

[Derideo_Te]

The law does not grant rights to eggs and sperm.

Well if your guide to life is the law - like I said, I'm not arguing the law, I'm just saying admit you are taking a human life. I admit the law permits this. But most moral people would not want to take a life, not at any cost.

A potential life is not the same thing as a living person. Life comes in many forms. Plants are a form of life so even vegans are taking life in order to survive. If you are wearing leather shoes another file was taken so that you would wear those shoes.

If you want to have a discussion on the morality of life that is completely off topic to your OP which simply claimed that abortion is murder.

If you are a male then all of the sperm that you have ejaculated is a form of potential "human life" that was "taken". For a female each month she "takes the life" of an egg.

Do you want everypne to admit that normal bodily functions are "taking a life" and somehow "immoral"?

Personally, I believe human life begins at conception.

You are entitled to your belief and I will defend your right to your belief.

However you don't get to impose your belief on the secular laws on this nation.

No, I sure don't! But seriously,, I have had people tell me it's not a human at 5 weeks. Somewhere in this string people said it's not a human until it takes it's first breath outside the womb!

I suggest that you go back and reread the posts.

A fetus is not a "person" as recognized by the constitution until after it is born.

RvW allows the states to regulate abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters and the states can, within limits, bestow rights as long as in doing so they don't deprive the woman of her rights.

No state can outright ban abortion because to do so would be condemning some women to death because of fetal complications that can be resolved via an abortion.

States can grant the fetus "rights" in the event that someone murders the woman and by doing so also murders the fetus.

The rights of the woman come first and that is not going to change.

But I don't recall anyone in this thread saying that a fetus was not "human".

 

[Bonzi]

Well if your guide to life is the law - like I said, I'm not arguing the law, I'm just saying admit you are taking a human life. I admit the law permits this. But most moral people would not want to take a life, not at any cost.

A potential life is not the same thing as a living person. Life comes in many forms. Plants are a form of life so even vegans are taking life in order to survive. If you are wearing leather shoes another file was taken so that you would wear those shoes.

If you want to have a discussion on the morality of life that is completely off topic to your OP which simply claimed that abortion is murder.

If you are a male then all of the sperm that you have ejaculated is a form of potential "human life" that was "taken". For a female each month she "takes the life" of an egg.

Do you want everypne to admit that normal bodily functions are "taking a life" and somehow "immoral"?

Personally, I believe human life begins at conception.

You are entitled to your belief and I will defend your right to your belief.

However you don't get to impose your belief on the secular laws on this nation.

No, I sure don't! But seriously,, I have had people tell me it's not a human at 5 weeks. Somewhere in this string people said it's not a human until it takes it's first breath outside the womb!

I suggest that you go back and reread the posts.

A fetus is not a "person" as recognized by the constitution until after it is born.

RvW allows the states to regulate abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters and the states can, within limits, bestow rights as long as in doing so they don't deprive the woman of her rights.

No state can outright ban abortion because to do so would be condemning some women to death because of fetal complications that can be resolved via an abortion.

States can grant the fetus "rights" in the event that someone murders the woman and by doing so also murders the fetus.

The rights of the woman come first and that is not going to change.

But I don't recall anyone in this thread saying that a fetus was not "human".

I'm too lazy to go back through the threads so will assume I was confusing "person" with "human".

I understand a fundamental difference in thinking of people that go by logic/law vs. faith/God. Unresolvable.

 

[daws101]

She has a right to control any and all decisions regarding her body.

Where is the rights for the other body inside her?

those rights take a back seat to mom's rights.... at least til later in the pregnancy... as set forth in Roe v Wade.

if you have a problem with that, then exercise your right to not avail yourself of the right.

other than that, it's not government's place to butt in... or yours

I'm not trying to change laws.

I just want people to admit that at 5 weeks (or after), when a baby (or fetus) has is developing a heart, organs, features etc. that if you willingly get an abortion, it's murder. That is a living human being inside you.

why admit the obvious ?
you are the only one arguing that.

so if it's killing a human life it's OK because it's legal? I mean, is that how you feel?

when you grow up maybe you'll learn that not everything needs to be ok.

 

[Votto]

Human is human. Whether in the mother or outside the mother. When you were a sperm and egg, you were just as human as you are now, just in a different form.

The law does not grant rights to eggs and sperm.

Then none of us have rights

We grant each other rights.

Right.

So polygamists are not granted the right to marry, much like the unborn are not granted the right to life.

Got it!!

I sure to hate hypocritical scum sucking Progs.

funny, isn't cons that want to bar same sex couples from marrying who they love?

Yes, but any half brained twit would understand that the state has no business giving a thumbs up or down regarding sexual preferences.

The state should not be in the marriage business at all.

 

[Votto]

Human is human. Whether in the mother or outside the mother. When you were a sperm and egg, you were just as human as you are now, just in a different form.

The law does not grant rights to eggs and sperm.

Well if your guide to life is the law - like I said, I'm not arguing the law, I'm just saying admit you are taking a human life. I admit the law permits this. But most moral people would not want to take a life, not at any cost.

A potential life is not the same thing as a living person. Life comes in many forms. Plants are a form of life so even vegans are taking life in order to survive. If you are wearing leather shoes another file was taken so that you would wear those shoes.

If you want to have a discussion on the morality of life that is completely off topic to your OP which simply claimed that abortion is murder.

If you are a male then all of the sperm that you have ejaculated is a form of potential "human life" that was "taken". For a female each month she "takes the life" of an egg.

Do you want everypne to admit that normal bodily functions are "taking a life" and somehow "immoral"?

Personally, I believe human life begins at conception.

You are entitled to your belief and I will defend your right to your belief.

However you don't get to impose your belief on the secular laws on this nation.

Now when you say defend his right what to believe, you mean send the IRS after him, right?

 

[Votto]

I'm not trying to change laws.

I just want people to admit that at 5 weeks (or after), when a baby (or fetus) has is developing a heart, organs, features etc. that if you willingly get an abortion, it's murder. That is a living human being inside you.

No, it is a potential human being. There is no guarantee that you will have a successful pregnancy.

Human is human. Whether in the mother or outside the mother. When you were a sperm and egg, you were just as human as you are now, just in a different form.

The law does not grant rights to eggs and sperm.

Then none of us have rights

In a way that's true, rights are an imaginary construct .

So is government

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The idea that a woman has a "right" to abort her child is a belief, therefore under your analogy it is overridden.

She has a right to control any and all decisions regarding her body.

Where is the rights for the other body inside her?

those rights take a back seat to mom's rights.... at least til later in the pregnancy... as set forth in Roe v Wade.

if you have a problem with that, then exercise your right to not avail yourself of the right.

other than that, it's not government's place to butt in... or yours

I'm not trying to change laws.

I just want people to admit that at 5 weeks (or after), when a baby (or fetus) has is developing a heart, organs, features etc. that if you willingly get an abortion, it's murder. That is a living human being inside you.

You're trying to ignore the law, or exhibit your ignorant of it.

In your OP you referred to 'murder,' which is a legal term, where as a fact of law abortion is not 'murder.'

If you want to explore ways to end the practice of abortion that comport with the Constitution and its case law, that's fine; but don't attempt to contrive some nonsense about abortion being 'murder.'

 

[jillian]

The idea that a woman has a "right" to abort her child is a belief, therefore under your analogy it is overridden.

She has a right to control any and all decisions regarding her body.

Where is the rights for the other body inside her?

those rights take a back seat to mom's rights.... at least til later in the pregnancy... as set forth in Roe v Wade.

if you have a problem with that, then exercise your right to not avail yourself of the right.

other than that, it's not government's place to butt in... or yours

I'm not trying to change laws.

I just want people to admit that at 5 weeks (or after), when a baby (or fetus) has is developing a heart, organs, features etc. that if you willingly get an abortion, it's murder. That is a living human being inside you.

no. it isn't.

and you are trying to change laws. how about you believe what you want and stay out of other people's business?

ultimately, it isn't about your personal belief system, it's about what government can regulate.

funny how the small gubmint types who cry the minute we actually try to feed one of these children is all about big gubmint when it comes to shoving your personal version of morality up people's butts.

 

[jillian]

No, it is a potential human being. There is no guarantee that you will have a successful pregnancy.

Human is human. Whether in the mother or outside the mother. When you were a sperm and egg, you were just as human as you are now, just in a different form.

The law does not grant rights to eggs and sperm.

Then none of us have rights

In a way that's true, rights are an imaginary construct .

So is government

no

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, it is a potential human being. There is no guarantee that you will have a successful pregnancy.

Human is human. Whether in the mother or outside the mother. When you were a sperm and egg, you were just as human as you are now, just in a different form.

The law does not grant rights to eggs and sperm.

Well if your guide to life is the law - like I said, I'm not arguing the law, I'm just saying admit you are taking a human life. I admit the law permits this. But most moral people would not want to take a life, not at any cost.

A potential life is not the same thing as a living person. Life comes in many forms. Plants are a form of life so even vegans are taking life in order to survive. If you are wearing leather shoes another file was taken so that you would wear those shoes.

If you want to have a discussion on the morality of life that is completely off topic to your OP which simply claimed that abortion is murder.

If you are a male then all of the sperm that you have ejaculated is a form of potential "human life" that was "taken". For a female each month she "takes the life" of an egg.

Do you want everypne to admit that normal bodily functions are "taking a life" and somehow "immoral"?

Personally, I believe human life begins at conception.

But as a fact of law it is not entitled to Constitutional protections.

You're at liberty to make a subjective appeal against abortion based on religious dogma or personal beliefs, provided you understand those beliefs are legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

 

[Jroc]

Human is human. Whether in the mother or outside the mother. When you were a sperm and egg, you were just as human as you are now, just in a different form.

The law does not grant rights to eggs and sperm.

Well if your guide to life is the law - like I said, I'm not arguing the law, I'm just saying admit you are taking a human life. I admit the law permits this. But most moral people would not want to take a life, not at any cost.

A potential life is not the same thing as a living person. Life comes in many forms. Plants are a form of life so even vegans are taking life in order to survive. If you are wearing leather shoes another file was taken so that you would wear those shoes.

If you want to have a discussion on the morality of life that is completely off topic to your OP which simply claimed that abortion is murder.

If you are a male then all of the sperm that you have ejaculated is a form of potential "human life" that was "taken". For a female each month she "takes the life" of an egg.

Do you want everypne to admit that normal bodily functions are "taking a life" and somehow "immoral"?

Personally, I believe human life begins at conception.

But as a fact of law it is not entitled to Constitutional protections.

You're at liberty to make a subjective appeal against abortion based on religious dogma or personal beliefs, provided you understand those beliefs are legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

it's a scientific fact that pre-born a baby is a human life. There's no "belief" to it, it's a fact genius

 

[Votto]

Human is human. Whether in the mother or outside the mother. When you were a sperm and egg, you were just as human as you are now, just in a different form.

The law does not grant rights to eggs and sperm.

Then none of us have rights

In a way that's true, rights are an imaginary construct .

So is government

no

So let me get this straight, rights are an imaginary construct but government, who tells us what rights we do and don't have, is not an imaginary construct?

That's what they call insane.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The law does not grant rights to eggs and sperm.

Well if your guide to life is the law - like I said, I'm not arguing the law, I'm just saying admit you are taking a human life. I admit the law permits this. But most moral people would not want to take a life, not at any cost.

A potential life is not the same thing as a living person. Life comes in many forms. Plants are a form of life so even vegans are taking life in order to survive. If you are wearing leather shoes another file was taken so that you would wear those shoes.

If you want to have a discussion on the morality of life that is completely off topic to your OP which simply claimed that abortion is murder.

If you are a male then all of the sperm that you have ejaculated is a form of potential "human life" that was "taken". For a female each month she "takes the life" of an egg.

Do you want everypne to admit that normal bodily functions are "taking a life" and somehow "immoral"?

Personally, I believe human life begins at conception.

But as a fact of law it is not entitled to Constitutional protections.

You're at liberty to make a subjective appeal against abortion based on religious dogma or personal beliefs, provided you understand those beliefs are legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

it's a scientific fact that pre-born a baby is a human life. There's no "belief" to it, it's a fact genius

It's a fact of Constitutional law that an embryo/fetus is not entitled to 14th Amendment protections, which is what is at issue – the law, where those hostile to the privacy rights of women seek to violate those rights absent any legal justification.

 

[Jroc]

Well if your guide to life is the law - like I said, I'm not arguing the law, I'm just saying admit you are taking a human life. I admit the law permits this. But most moral people would not want to take a life, not at any cost.

A potential life is not the same thing as a living person. Life comes in many forms. Plants are a form of life so even vegans are taking life in order to survive. If you are wearing leather shoes another file was taken so that you would wear those shoes.

If you want to have a discussion on the morality of life that is completely off topic to your OP which simply claimed that abortion is murder.

If you are a male then all of the sperm that you have ejaculated is a form of potential "human life" that was "taken". For a female each month she "takes the life" of an egg.

Do you want everypne to admit that normal bodily functions are "taking a life" and somehow "immoral"?

Personally, I believe human life begins at conception.

But as a fact of law it is not entitled to Constitutional protections.

You're at liberty to make a subjective appeal against abortion based on religious dogma or personal beliefs, provided you understand those beliefs are legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

it's a scientific fact that pre-born a baby is a human life. There's no "belief" to it, it's a fact genius

It's a fact of Constitutional law that an embryo/fetus is not entitled to 14th Amendment protections, which is what is at issue – the law, where those hostile to the privacy rights of women seek to violate those rights absent any legal justification.

if the founders had the technology we have to see a developing baby in the womb, there would no doubt have been protections for the unborn in there . Murder is against the law people have been convicted of two murders for killing a pregnant women. the supreme court had no constitutional right to impose abortion on the entire country anyway

 

[Jroc]

The idea that a woman has a "right" to abort her child is a belief, therefore under your analogy it is overridden.

She has a right to control any and all decisions regarding her body.

Where is the rights for the other body inside her?

those rights take a back seat to mom's rights.... at least til later in the pregnancy... as set forth in Roe v Wade.

if you have a problem with that, then exercise your right to not avail yourself of the right.

other than that, it's not government's place to butt in... or yours

I'm not trying to change laws.

I just want people to admit that at 5 weeks (or after), when a baby (or fetus) has is developing a heart, organs, features etc. that if you willingly get an abortion, it's murder. That is a living human being inside you.

no. it isn't.

and you are trying to change laws. how about you believe what you want and stay out of other people's business?

ultimately, it isn't about your personal belief system, it's about what government can regulate.

funny how the small gubmint types who cry the minute we actually try to feed one of these children is all about big gubmint when it comes to shoving your personal version of morality up people's butts.

Funny how leftist have no problem believing a man who cuts off his penis and dresses like a women is a "women" but they do have a problem accepting the fact that an unborn baby is actually a human being

 

[jillian]

She has a right to control any and all decisions regarding her body.

Where is the rights for the other body inside her?

those rights take a back seat to mom's rights.... at least til later in the pregnancy... as set forth in Roe v Wade.

if you have a problem with that, then exercise your right to not avail yourself of the right.

other than that, it's not government's place to butt in... or yours

I'm not trying to change laws.

I just want people to admit that at 5 weeks (or after), when a baby (or fetus) has is developing a heart, organs, features etc. that if you willingly get an abortion, it's murder. That is a living human being inside you.

no. it isn't.

and you are trying to change laws. how about you believe what you want and stay out of other people's business?

ultimately, it isn't about your personal belief system, it's about what government can regulate.

funny how the small gubmint types who cry the minute we actually try to feed one of these children is all about big gubmint when it comes to shoving your personal version of morality up people's butts.

Funny how leftist have no problem believing a man who cuts off his penis and dresses like a women is a "women" but they do have a problem accepting the fact that an unborn baby is actually a human being

which has nothing to do with the discussion.

but nice troll post from the rightwingnut brigade.

 

[jillian]

The law does not grant rights to eggs and sperm.

Then none of us have rights

In a way that's true, rights are an imaginary construct .

So is government

no

So let me get this straight, rights are an imaginary construct but government, who tells us what rights we do and don't have, is not an imaginary construct?

That's what they call insane.

rights only exist if they are enforced.

you are confused about the difference between actual entities and philosophical constructs.

 

[PratchettFan]

I can understand that a woman has a right to control her own body; however, there is also an issue of responsibility. If a woman were to choose not to use her body to feed her new born baby and allow the baby to simply to starve to death she would most likely be charged with murder based on neglect. The woman is expected to use that body of her's (not necessarily breastfeeding ) and take care of that baby or find someone else that will.

So... bottle feeding is illegal?

The woman would still have to use her body to prepare the bottle and feed the baby. It doesn't happen by magic.

Could someone else use their body to do this?

Yes. You might want to reread my original post because this is the second thing you missed.

"The woman is expected to use that body of her's (not necessarily breastfeeding ) and take care of that baby or find someone else that will."

Not necessarily breastfeeding -- Use of her body can mean other things than breastfeeding. Holding a bottle, changing diapers, keeping the baby warm are examples.

Or find someone that will -- This responsibility can be transfer to someone else such as another relative. In some states, the parents may drop a newborn baby off at a police department, fire department, or hospital and give up a baby without being arrested for neglect. That being said, if an infant is in the custody of a woman (the mother), she is expected to use her body to care for that baby. She can't simply leave the infant to fend for itself and use the right to control her own body and her right to privacy to justify allowing the baby to die.

Then the comparison fails. Unless you can point to the medical procedure which allows a fetus to be transplanted.

 

[JoeMoma]

I can understand that a woman has a right to control her own body; however, there is also an issue of responsibility. If a woman were to choose not to use her body to feed her new born baby and allow the baby to simply to starve to death she would most likely be charged with murder based on neglect. The woman is expected to use that body of her's (not necessarily breastfeeding ) and take care of that baby or find someone else that will.

So... bottle feeding is illegal?

The woman would still have to use her body to prepare the bottle and feed the baby. It doesn't happen by magic.

Could someone else use their body to do this?

Yes. You might want to reread my original post because this is the second thing you missed.

"The woman is expected to use that body of her's (not necessarily breastfeeding ) and take care of that baby or find someone else that will."

Not necessarily breastfeeding -- Use of her body can mean other things than breastfeeding. Holding a bottle, changing diapers, keeping the baby warm are examples.

Or find someone that will -- This responsibility can be transfer to someone else such as another relative. In some states, the parents may drop a newborn baby off at a police department, fire department, or hospital and give up a baby without being arrested for neglect. That being said, if an infant is in the custody of a woman (the mother), she is expected to use her body to care for that baby. She can't simply leave the infant to fend for itself and use the right to control her own body and her right to privacy to justify allowing the baby to die.

Then the comparison fails. Unless you can point to the medical procedure which allows a fetus to be transplanted.

The commonality in the comparisons is the avoidance of responsibility in both cases which does not depend on that being possible.