It's a medical fact. Life begins at conception.

[buttercup]

So in your world, freedom to make your own choice is punishment.

How very interesting, and how very authoritarian.

Funny how pro aborts never, ever say what the "choice" is for. The choice to kill. Just say it. At least be honest.

And yeah I do think it is very authoritarian of you to play God by deciding an innocent person must die for your convenience. Especially when there are many couples who try for years and years to get pregnant and cannot conceive and want nothing more than a baby. And you treat it like trash. Then again, you're just blind.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How can you approve of any exceptions if you insist abortion is the murder of innocent children?

Exceptions must be made regardless of how I feel about it. If I had my way I would make all abortion illegal. But that is not fair. It is illogical. If the woman dies because of birthing the child, that is one less woman who is capable of carrying on the genetic lineage of our species. Save the woman in hopes she can conceive again. Rape and incest however, are, I admit, more complicated subjects.

There is my personal opinion/solution and then there is the logical one.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So in your world, freedom to make your own choice is punishment.

Are you so deluded as to think all choices are made in a joyous state of mind? Choices can be forced on you without any warning. There are times when you would rather not have to make a difficult one. Being forced to make a difficult choice is punishment within itself.

 

[MarkDuffy]

How can you approve of any exceptions if you insist abortion is the murder of innocent children?

Exceptions must be made regardless of how I feel about it. If I had my way I would make all abortion illegal. But that is not fair. It is illogical. If the woman dies because of birthing the child, that is one less woman who is capable of carrying on the genetic lineage of our species. Save the woman in hopes she can conceive again. Rape and incest are, I admit, more complicated subjects.

There is my personal opinion/solution and then there is the logical one.

We are dealing with imperfect people in an imperfect world. No one is pro abortion. Sometimes it is necessary.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So in your world, freedom to make your own choice is punishment.

How very interesting, and how very authoritarian.

Funny how pro aborts never, ever say what the "choice" is for. The choice to kill. Just say it. At least be honest.

And yeah I do think it is very authoritarian of you to play God by deciding an innocent person must die for your convenience. Especially when there are many couples who try for years and years to get pregnant and cannot conceive and want nothing more than a baby. And you treat it like trash. Then again, you're just blind.

Wow. I'm impressed.

 

[mamooth]

And yeah I do think it is very authoritarian of you to play God by deciding an innocent person must die for your convenience.

The PETA cranks make the same kind of crazy rants at me. I ignore them as well.

I have trouble distinguishing Pro-Life from PETA, given how they're identical in almost all ways. Both just scream that everyone else is a murderer, based on the totally whacked-out definitions that their cult made up and then ordered the cultists to believe.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How can you approve of any exceptions if you insist abortion is the murder of innocent children?

Exceptions must be made regardless of how I feel about it. If I had my way I would make all abortion illegal. But that is not fair. It is illogical. If the woman dies because of birthing the child, that is one less woman who is capable of carrying on the genetic lineage of our species. Save the woman in hopes she can conceive again. Rape and incest are, I admit, more complicated subjects.

There is my personal opinion/solution and then there is the logical one.

We are dealing with imperfect people in an imperfect world. No one is pro abortion. Sometimes it is necessary.

Fair enough.

 

[buttercup]

Wow. I'm impressed.

?

 

[emilynghiem]

Admin closed this thread because it contained no original content. So here it is.

ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.

So, if life begins at conception, doesn't that mean that it should be protected by the 14th Amendment? The only difference between a fully grown adult and a zygote is form, not nature. They both have a unique genetic identity. They are both members of the human species.

When Human Life Begins

Sure RWNJ that's the physical form.
Now how do you expect to prove when the person's
SOUL, PERSONALITY, or SPIRIT enters the body?

the person's BEING, their CONSCIOUSNESS
that has sentience and will. How do you prove
when a person's WILL is created that is
"independent" of the mother?

If you only have the beginning of the cell development,
when that person's PHYSICAL BODY is formed,
that still does not distinguish the unique PERSON.

I believe a person's soul exists BEFORE birth
and it can enter into the body at different times during the
formation process. One person I asked about this believed
in a case where the person's soul didn't enter until AFTER
the baby or body was born!

This is completely faith based.
So that's the part that cannot be legislated, regulated
or established by govt.

but you are SAFE RWNJ
by that same token if this is YOUR belief it is ALSO
protected by law and cannot be infringed upon either
by govt laws biased against your beliefs, or that would be Unconstitutional.
The same law applies to YOUR beliefs, that govt can NEITHER
Prohibit NOR Establish such faith based beliefs, either way!

You have the right to defend, express and fully
exercise your beliefs, but cannot abuse govt
to endorse enforce or establish a faith based bias
any more than other people can impose prochoice beliefs on you!

 

[TemplarKormac]

And it isn't about convenience. It is fixing a blunder.

Begging your pardon, Mark, but in this reality choices have consequences. We are an intelligent species with the capability to make choices, and if the female insists on having unprotected sex, that is her risk and choice to take. The blunder here is trying to correct the consequence of that choice.

Basically what I am saying is this: If you, by your own free will and conscience decide to have unprotected sex, you need to be fully prepared to take care of the life that may ensue (and I'm talking both sides here). If you aren't prepared, tough luck. That is the consequence of your choice. Life is sacred, precious, not something we should be able to dole out or take away on a whim.

Abstinence is the best birth control. If you aren't ready, take contraceptives beforehand, wear a condom if you decide to give in to your animalistic instincts. But by no means should you let the child proceed in gestation until you decide to terminate the pregnancy. I see that as absolutely unacceptable.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Wow. I'm impressed.

?

By the post that was in reply to...

 

[emilynghiem]

And that’s the importance of privacy rights jurisprudence: it safeguards each individual’s right to decide for himself, consistent with his own good faith and good conscience, when life begins, free from unwarranted interference from the state, absent coercion by government.

Wow C_Clayton_Jones Thanks!
And when does this "importance of privacy rights"
and safeguards of "individual right to decide"
Apply to freedom to choose health care
without being penalized, regulated, mandated and coerced by govt?

 

[MarkDuffy]

And it isn't about convenience. It is fixing a blunder.

Begging your pardon, Mark, but in this reality choices have consequences. We are an intelligent species with the capability to make choices, and if the female insists on having unprotected sex, that is her risk and choice to take. The blunder here is trying to correct the consequence of that choice.

Basically what I am saying is this: If you, by your own free will and conscience decide to have unprotected sex, you need to be fully prepared to take care of the life that may ensue (and I'm talking both sides here). If you aren't prepared, tough luck. That is the consequence of your choice. Life is sacred, precious, not something we should be able to dole out or take away on a whim.

Abstinence is the best birth control. If you aren't ready, take contraceptives beforehand, wear a condom if you decide to give in to your animalistic instincts. But by no means should you let the child proceed in gestation until you decide to terminate the pregnancy. I see that as absolutely unacceptable.

But this is the issue. The same people who claim to be Pro-Life are not. They are usually also against helping the poor with contraceptives. They want employers to not even offer them as part of their healthcare plans. They want to end welfare and aid to the poor. Many times they say they do want to help the poor, but they only vote republican due to the party's abortion stance. They deny the rest of what they are doing. They harass women who use reproductive services. They want Planned Parenthood destroyed.

 

[emilynghiem]

And it isn't about convenience. It is fixing a blunder.

Begging your pardon, Mark, but in this reality choices have consequences. We are an intelligent species with the capability to make choices, and if the female insists on having unprotected sex, that is her risk and choice to take. The blunder here is trying to correct the consequence of that choice.

Basically what I am saying is this: If you, by your own free will and conscience decide to have unprotected sex, you need to be fully prepared to take care of the life that may ensue (and I'm talking both sides here). If you aren't prepared, tough luck. That is the consequence of your choice. Life is sacred, precious, not something we should be able to dole out or take away on a whim.

Abstinence is the best birth control. If you aren't ready, take contraceptives beforehand, wear a condom if you decide to give in to your animalistic instincts. But by no means should you let the child proceed in gestation until you decide to terminate the pregnancy. I see that as absolutely unacceptable.

But this is the issue. The same people who claim to be Pro-Life are not. They are usually also against helping the poor with contraceptives. They want employers to not even offer them as part of their healthcare plans. They want to end welfare and aid to the poor. Many times they say they do want to help the poor, but they only vote republican due to the party's abortion stance. They deny the rest of what they are doing. They harass women who use reproductive services. They want Planned Parenthood destroyed.

????
MarkDuffy
"helping the poor with contraceptives" is not the only criteria for being prolife!

Would you judge Buddhists who do not buy "Big Macs" to feed people as wanting them to suffer and starve, when Buddhists
believe in sustaining health and populations with natural diets?

What liberals fail to understand is just because Conservatives don't believe in GOVT RUN health care,
doesn't mean they don't believe in providing it to the poor.
Many believe that charities and church hospitals do a better job than govt can do, and don't believe federal govt has such authority under the Constitution anyway, especially not to "FORCE taxpayers to pay into charity or businesses".

Believing in free choice is not the same as depriving help, health care or life to others!

MarkDuffy that is as ignorant as saying that liberal Democrats who believe in "free choice" not to be penalized for the choice of abortion "believe in killing babies."

Forcing health care through govt and banning other choices
is NOT the only way to provide for life or health care for others.

Just like "banning abortion" is NOT the only way to prevent it.
We can have "free choice" and still REDUCE or prevent abortion.

People can have free choice, and CHOOSE to help through churches charities nonprofits schools or other private business or civic programs, and do more to help people sustain life and health without going through govt or 'birth control' etc.
That's not the only choice, and some of it is against people's beliefs who take and share social responsibility in other ways.

 

[TemplarKormac]

They want Planned Parenthood destroyed.

Because as some see it, it is more of a political apparatus than a reproductive service. I tend to agree. Do I want to deny a woman the right to an abortion? No, but I simply think there should be limitations to the circumstances in which she has it. For me, convenience is not an acceptable reason or circumstance behind getting an abortion.

They are usually also against helping the poor with contraceptives.

I can understand why. What is the use of making other poor people pay for other poor people's contraceptives through government programs? Poor people have the same capability to make a judgment call in a sexual situation as the middle class and rich do. Why make a decision that will make you even poorer? Curious, do you want to force people to provide for contraceptives in a healthcare plan? Do you want to force compassion? Because forced compassion isn't compassion, it's tyranny.

They want to end welfare and aid to the poor

That's an overly broad statement to make. In some cases I want the poor to look after their own welfare, not have it given to them on a silver platter. If it is truly and desperately needed, I want that aid and welfare to be provided through charity, not off the backs of other taxpayers. Not via the government.

Many times they say they do want to help the poor, but they only vote republican due to the party's abortion stance.

That is pretty much a single minded approach to voting, I agree. But being Republican does not always mean you are averse to helping the poor or needy. Sometimes I don't consider the abortion stances of those who I vote for. I vote based on their ability to affect the current circumstances I'm experiencing at the time... but I digress.

They harass women who use reproductive services.

The misconception I see here is that reproductive services means only abortion. It doesn't. Sometimes a healthy pregnant woman may need some other type of reproductive care.

 

[buttercup]

What liberals fail to understand is just because Conservatives don't believe in GOVT RUN health care,
doesn't mean they don't believe in providing it to the poor.

EXACTLY, thank you! That's almost word for word what I was going to say to him earlier, but I didn't, because I felt it would probably fall on deaf ears. But I am so glad that there are some Democrats like you who understand these things.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Well, then, why can a doctor be sued if he harms a fetus?

The same way a doctor can be sued for any medical malpractice.

Why can a person be charged with two murders for killing a pregnant woman if the baby is not a person?

A wanted pregnancy is different from an unwanted pregnancy.

There is no difference in the baby that is in the womb.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Again it is all about the woman's rights. If she wants the child, then taking the child is murder. If she does not, it is not murder.

If you contards were not so binary, you would be able to understand complex phenomena.

I love this site. 20 times a day I am accused of being a liberal due to my dislike of Trump and now it is just the opposite due to my view on this one issue. And then the irony of you calling me binary when you cannot see past the Con/Lib battle. What a joke.

But I am glad we do agree that there is no difference in the baby in the womb, the only difference lies in the mood of the mother. So, taking a life or not is based upon mood and not science.

Also, your post is wrong. If a mother who does not want the baby on the way to get an abortion was killed the person would still be charged with two murders, even if the mother did not want the baby.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And that’s the importance of privacy rights jurisprudence: it safeguards each individual’s right to decide for himself, consistent with his own good faith and good conscience, when life begins, free from unwarranted interference from the state, absent coercion by government.

Wow C_Clayton_Jones Thanks!
And when does this "importance of privacy rights"
and safeguards of "individual right to decide"
Apply to freedom to choose health care
without being penalized, regulated, mandated and coerced by govt?

Americans can decide to have as much or as little healthcare insurance as they want.

 

[emilynghiem]

And that’s the importance of privacy rights jurisprudence: it safeguards each individual’s right to decide for himself, consistent with his own good faith and good conscience, when life begins, free from unwarranted interference from the state, absent coercion by government.

Wow C_Clayton_Jones Thanks!
And when does this "importance of privacy rights"
and safeguards of "individual right to decide"
Apply to freedom to choose health care
without being penalized, regulated, mandated and coerced by govt?

Americans can decide to have as much or as little healthcare insurance as they want.

????
Nope NYcarbineer
there are fines and penalties attached if the insurance level or health shares group "doesn't meet federally approved requirements"

If you and C_Clayton_Jones insist that "tax penalties and federal regulations of exemptions" doesn't affect "free choice":
Then let's apply these fines to Abortion and birth control: if people pay for abortion or birth control then an ADDED tax fine will be taken from their income / tax returns and go into a fund for "right to life programs".

That's the equivalent of govt fining choices (including whether to buy insurance or what type or level to buy) other than the choices approved and regulated by federal govt.

NYcarbineer are you following this parallel argument?

C_Clayton_Jones can you explain the difference between govt- regulated tax fines on the "free choice" of abortion or birth control and on the "free choice" of health care or insurance ???

Thanks for your help!

If you can explain the difference, you are truly the best. Show me you can, I have faith if anyone can resolve this you can. Thanks!

 

[NYcarbineer]

And that’s the importance of privacy rights jurisprudence: it safeguards each individual’s right to decide for himself, consistent with his own good faith and good conscience, when life begins, free from unwarranted interference from the state, absent coercion by government.

Wow C_Clayton_Jones Thanks!
And when does this "importance of privacy rights"
and safeguards of "individual right to decide"
Apply to freedom to choose health care
without being penalized, regulated, mandated and coerced by govt?

Americans can decide to have as much or as little healthcare insurance as they want.

????
Nope NYcarbineer
there are fines and penalties attached if the insurance level or health shares group "doesn't meet federally approved requirements"

!

Dead wrong. The Supreme Court ruled the so-called penalty to be a TAX. You can be exempt from the tax if you prove you have insurance.
That is no different than, for example. the child tax credit, where you must pay X amount of taxes unless you have children, which you can use to exempt yourself from X amount per child.