Federal Judge: Late-term abortion ban unconstitutional

[Hobbit]

Ugh, finally got back on the internet for the summer after returning from Jamaica. Anyway, I believe firmly that a fetus is not part of a woman's body. He/She has different DNA, his/her own feelings, and late term babies can even survive outside the mother if given proper medical aid. Women should not have a right to just kill off their baby without some pretty extreme circumstances, certainly not with a frequency that creates demand for abortion clinics. Then again, the liberals will probably dismiss my opinion as being an irrational religious fanatic simply because I believe in all Ten Commandments and that anyone who's unwillingly pregnant only has herself and the father to blame.

Now, that said, if all I can get is that late-term abortions stay banned, then that's one more abominable practice that's illegal.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Hobbit

Ugh, finally got back on the internet for the summer after returning from Jamaica. Anyway, I believe firmly that a fetus is not part of a woman's body. He/She has different DNA, his/her own feelings, and late term babies can even survive outside the mother if given proper medical aid.

Your argument in this paragraph is without merit. Yes he/she has different DNA but so does a fish, tree or an elephant have different DNA but does that mean that they are a LIVING SOUL? What does having DNA have to do with anything?

You state that a fetus has 'feelings' do you mean sensory feelings of pain or comfort or do you mean 'emotions ' and 'feelings of self/ego?' Yes late term babies can now survive outside of the mother if given modern medical care but the difference is that late term fetuses in utero are neither outside of the mother's body nor have they been given a LIFE or SOUL until they take their first breath according to Genesis 2:7.

Women should not have a right to just kill off their baby without some pretty extreme circumstances, certainly not with a frequency that creates demand for abortion clinics. Then again, the liberals will probably dismiss my opinion as being an irrational religious fanatic simply because I believe in all Ten Commandments and that anyone who's unwillingly pregnant only has herself and the father to blame.

Please give me any one of the Ten Commandments that speaks about abortion being wrong. First you have to prove that Genesis 2:7, 7:22 or Exodus 21:22-23 is wrong before you tell me that aborting a forming fetus is killing something ALIVE and in terms of having a SOUL.

As one of the conservatives who believes in all Repbulican concepts do not believe that anyone's personal concpet of morality is Conservative Republican or any political perspective feelings of right and wrong.

What is between a man or woman and their G-d is not a political agenda.

Now, that said, if all I can get is that late-term abortions stay banned, then that's one more abominable practice that's illegal.

Late term abortions banned? Take another look since you got back from Jamaica.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/01/abortion.lawsuits.ap/

 

[dilloduck]

aj -I understand that you claim there is no life in a fetus until it is outside the womb. I disagree but will allow your point to stand temporarily. Why is it only the womans choice to abort this "vessel" that COULD become life if taken to term? This "vessel" never occurs in a woman without the cooperation from a mans sperm . What you are saying is that women should be the sole decision maker when it comes to which vessel "gets life breathed into it". In other words, women would have total control over the population of America. Others of us disagree and cite a mans right to have a decision in this matter too as he gets half the credit for the "vessel" even existing. You would deny this choice to a man. Why? (I assume you are against Scott Peterson being charged with a double murder as he only allegedly killed a vessel.)

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by dilloduck
aj -I understand that you claim there is no life in a fetus until it is outside the womb. I disagree but will allow your point to stand temporarily.

Look there is no way for anyone to know if there is a real thing called a human soul or human life just because we are able to think and reason. I am just starting from a point of view not my own. The concept of such an entity is derived solely from the Bible and before this book was written there had been no concept of any such thing as a soul or human life above other life forms.

Why is it only the womans choice to abort this "vessel" that COULD become life if taken to term? This "vessel" never occurs in a woman without the cooperation from a mans sperm . What you are saying is that women should be the sole decision maker when it comes to which vessel "gets life breathed into it". In other words, women would have total control over the population of America.

First the woman is in total possession of said 'vessel' even though made with the contribution, even if small, from the man. The vessel is formed by a very long series of events that if only one of the multiple trillions of cascading events is flawed, a non-human (stillborn) results. That 'vessel' is forming solely because there is an umbillical cord that nourishes the forming cells differentiating into different tissues. Finally, in actuality all forming 'vessels' start out as female and only after about a week and one-half does the Y chromosome begin to cause the production of testerone (for one) which starts the alternate formation of male traits and organs which becomes a male.

As long as this 'vessel' or shell is forming, the one in possession of same has the sole deciding vote of whether she wants the fetus to become life or not. The man is much like the donation giver as every time a male ejaculates more than 300,000,000 million sperm is given off. Only one or two at the most is the winner of the swim. The woman is the one who has the decision making process of that which is growing in her.

Others of us disagree and cite a mans right to have a decision in this matter too as he gets half the credit for the "vessel" even existing. You would deny this choice to a man. Why? (I assume you are against Scott Peterson being charged with a double murder as he only allegedly killed a vessel.)

Scott Peterson has not been found guilty of killing anyone as yet therefore it is similar to your opinion as to who has the right to decide on whether or not a fetus comes out of a world in which they were forming, like pods, and into the world where they take their first breaths.

Possession is 2/3rds of the law.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by ajwps

Originally posted by dilloduck
aj -I understand that you claim there is no life in a fetus until it is outside the womb. I disagree but will allow your point to stand temporarily.

Look there is no way for anyone to know if there is a real thing called a human soul or human life just because we are able to think and reason. I am just starting from a point of view not my own. The concept of such an entity is derived solely from the Bible and before this book was written there had been no concept of any such thing as a soul or human life above other life forms.

Why is it only the womans choice to abort this "vessel" that COULD become life if taken to term? This "vessel" never occurs in a woman without the cooperation from a mans sperm . What you are saying is that women should be the sole decision maker when it comes to which vessel "gets life breathed into it". In other words, women would have total control over the population of America.

First the woman is in total possession of said 'vessel' even though made with the contribution, even if small, from the man. The vessel is formed by a very long series of events that if only one of the multiple trillions of cascading events is flawed, a non-human (stillborn) results. That 'vessel' is forming solely because there is an umbillical cord that nourishes the forming cells differentiating into different tissues. Finally, in actuality all forming 'vessels' start out as female and only after about a week and one-half does the Y chromosome begin to cause the production of testerone (for one) which starts the alternate formation of male traits and organs which becomes a male.

As long as this 'vessel' or shell is forming, the one in possession of same has the sole deciding vote of whether she wants the fetus to become life or not. The man is much like the donation giver as every time a male ejaculates more than 300,000,000 million sperm is given off. Only one or two at the most is the winner of the swim. The woman is the one who has the decision making process of that which is growing in her.

Others of us disagree and cite a mans right to have a decision in this matter too as he gets half the credit for the "vessel" even existing. You would deny this choice to a man. Why? (I assume you are against Scott Peterson being charged with a double murder as he only allegedly killed a vessel.)

Scott Peterson has not been found guilty of killing anyone as yet therefore it is similar to your opinion as to who has the right to decide on whether or not a fetus comes out of a world in which they were forming, like pods, and into the world where they take their first breaths.

Possession is 2/3rds of the law.

No man=no "vessel" Hence he should have a say so if it's his sperm-Who cares about the size of zygotes??? Ridiculous argument----I didnt say he was guilty---- I said he was CHARGED. Should it be a crime to kill a vessel? Possesion is 2/3 of the law?? Where did you get your degree ??

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by dilloduck
No man=no "vessel" Hence he should have a say so if it's his sperm-Who cares about the size of zygotes??? Ridiculous argument----I didnt say he was guilty---- I said he was CHARGED. Should it be a crime to kill a vessel? Possesion is 2/3 of the law?? Where did you get your degree ??

From years of intensive study of both sides of the question.

Man = one vote

Woman = one vote

Tie breaker made by the law of the land.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by ajwps
From years of intensive study of both sides of the question.

Man = one vote

Woman = one vote

Tie breaker made by the law of the land.

This discussion IS about the law of the land and you apparently just want to be funny or you ran out of ammo---if you can't answer questions seriously, please post in the "humor" section.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by dilloduck
This discussion IS about the law of the land and you apparently just want to be funny or you ran out of ammo---if you can't answer questions seriously, please post in the "humor" section.

A bit frustrated are we? You asked questions in somewhat of a haphazard fashion and you want answers that are obvious.


Your questions:

No man=no "vessel" Hence he should have a say so if it's his sperm-

Question undeciferable....

Who cares about the size of zygotes???

What has the size of a zygote have to do with green cheese? Has your statement have anything to do with the question?

Ridiculous argument----I didnt say he was guilty---- I said he was CHARGED.

Nice but I agreed with your statement.

Should it be a crime to kill a vessel?

If you are speaking about a group of differentiating cells the answer is NO....

Possesion is 2/3 of the law??

??????

Where did you get your degree ??

A US medical school. What does that have to do with ancephalics?

It seems that your questions should relate to the subject. Otherwise you might want to just stick to the picture post thread.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by ajwps
A bit frustrated are we? You asked questions in somewhat of a haphazard fashion and you want answers that are obvious.


Your questions:

No man=no "vessel" Hence he should have a say so if it's his sperm-

Question undeciferable....

Who cares about the size of zygotes???

What has the size of a zygote have to do with green cheese? Has your statement have anything to do with the question?

Ridiculous argument----I didnt say he was guilty---- I said he was CHARGED.

Nice but I agreed with your statement.

Should it be a crime to kill a vessel?

If you are speaking about a group of differentiating cells the answer is NO....

Possesion is 2/3 of the law??

??????

Where did you get your degree ??

A US medical school. What does that have to do with ancephalics?

It seems that your questions should relate to the subject. Otherwise you might want to just stick to the picture post thread.

I don't know if you are frustrated but I am----tired of arguing with you too . You have nothing to offer me. I will try to discuss this with someone who is able.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by dilloduck
I don't know if you are frustrated but I am----tired of arguing with you too . You have nothing to offer me. I will try to discuss this with someone who is able.

That probably would be best to discuss this subject with someone on your intellectual level.....

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by ajwps
That probably would be best to discuss this subject with someone on your intellectual level.....

You ought to get off your arrogant high-horse. You are no different than the left. You believe you are right and so believe that if you repeat your ideas enough, everybody will believe you.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
You ought to get off your arrogant high-horse. You are no different than the left. You believe you are right and so believe that if you repeat your ideas enough, everybody will believe you.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
You ought to get off your arrogant high-horse. You are no different than the left. You believe you are right and so believe that if you repeat your ideas enough, everybody will believe you.

Certainity of other's positions is just egotism out of its depth.

The only one trying to convice others about concepts is you.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by ajwps
Certainity of other's positions is just egotism out of its depth.

The only one trying to convice others about concepts is you.

So I guess all your other posts on this thread was you trying to convince yourself ? Come on Dr. AJ --fess up

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by dilloduck
So I guess all your other posts on this thread was you trying to convince yourself ? Come on Dr. AJ --fess up

Actually you fit this definition more than myself? Turning yourself into a simple minded 'aping reverser' is definitive proof of your level of understanding of reality.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by ajwps
Actually you fit this definition more than myself? Turning yourself into a simple minded 'aping reverser' is definitive proof of your level of understanding of reality.

One reality here is that you deviated from the topic and resorted
to insults when you couldn't understand or answer the questions that I posed.

 

[eric]

I think some common sense is in order here; this thread has deviated into many little arguments spanning the gamut of abortion related issues.

Since the topic of when life actually begins is in itself a hot topic, can we not use some common sense and agree that when the human brain is formed and there is independent thought, that now that fetus is a human being ?

It is at this point when the mother should not have the choice anymore, unless there is a risk to the mothers life, and the option of abortion taken off the table.

I can see no reason why late term abortion should be legal, except in the case of risk.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by dilloduck
One reality here is that you deviated from the topic and resorted
to insults when you couldn't understand or answer the questions that I posed.

Apparently it wasn't I that deviated from the subject neither understood the question that you thought you posed.

You seemingly find insults, but compliments leave you baffled.

 

[dilloduck]

I have been struggling in vain to take the "when life begins " issue out of this discussion in effort to discuss the legal personal rights issue and perhaps I need to start a new thread. Thanks for the help with common sense.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by eric

I think some common sense is in order here; this thread has deviated into many little arguments spanning the gamut of abortion related issues.

Since the topic of when life actually begins is in itself a hot topic, can we not use some common sense and agree that when the human brain is formed and there is independent thought, that now that fetus is a human being ?

You say common sense and common agreement is that point when a human brain is formed and there is independent thought the fetus is then alive and in possession of what many refer to as the soul? Seems reasonable but does it?

Why?

Have you ever had independent discussions with a fetus to determine their thought processes? So do you have any idea of what a human brain is composed and how it is formed?

What if I could prove to you that every sub-atomic particle in the universe has a form of wisdom and independent thought? If proved it to you, would that mean that particles have a soul or independent human life?

It is at this point when the mother should not have the choice anymore, unless there is a risk to the mothers life, and the option of abortion taken off the table.

So you have now determined that the formation of the human brain is the point at which the choice of abortion is taken away from one or both parents? That's nice of you..

That makes it simple but it is a bit more complex than that?

I can see no reason why late term abortion should be legal, except in the case of risk.

So you are the final judge of that which you have assumed to be true. My oh my......