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

[MarkDuffy]

W/o law you have no rights

Do you honestly believe that? This is getting into a different topic, but you are wrong. There is such a thing as natural law. Our founding documents like the Declaration of Independence support that. But even if they didn't state that, it would still be true.

Natural law, you mean for the good of society as the philosophers taught.

Like care for the poor, the sick and the hungry. The rich pay more.

Yeah, when will you contards start wanting natural law?

 

[mamooth]

You just can't win this argument. After all, there were people who actually witnessed the miracles of Christ, yet still rejected Him. No amount of facts will convince someone who is determined to believe differently.

Oh, so you're a totally brainwashed religious nutter who is basing everything entirely on what his religious leaders told him, even though the Bible actually says the opposite. You just faked caring about the science to justify your jihad.

Not that we didn't know that. After all, almost all pro-lifers are religious fanatics. It does confirm that there's not point in wasting further time with you.

 

[MarkDuffy]

privacy rights of women.

There's no such thing as women's rights. Rights don't come as groups.

When only one group can get pregnant, yes they do

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are you drunk?

Fat, not drunk. Why? Ohhh I see.

Seriously, are you drunk? You may have thought that made some kind of sense, but it didn't.

Well of course it doesn't make sense to you, science that doesn't mesh with your political beliefs never will.

And seriously, the best way to get wasted is to eat yourself into a near coma. Better than getting drunk I'd say.

As your bizarre conclusion depended on drunken rambling, it really isn't valid.

On what basis is it not valid? Or is it not valid because you say so? Is your scientific knowledge based off of actual science, or political biases? If it's the latter, it is you and your conclusions that are bizarre and invalid.

 

[MarkDuffy]

No, it’s about the law.

For more than 40 years civil rights advocates have battled with authoritarian conservatives hostile to the privacy rights of women.

This thread’s premise is one of the social right’s more tedious and inane tactics.

Conservatives are as dishonest as they are reprehensible.

Don't you think that the person who started this thread would know what his thread is about? It's about life beginning at conception. Not the law

Ahem, from the OP

So, if life begins at conception, doesn't that mean that it should be protected by the 14th Amendment?

Is the 14th a .... wait fer it .... R U Ready? ..... LAW ?

 

[buttercup]

Natural law, you mean for the good of society as the philosophers taught.

Like care for the poor, the sick and the hungry. The rich pay more.

Yeah, when will you contards start wanting natural law?

The fact that you use schoolyard words like "contards" shows your level of maturity.

It's off-topic, but to reply to what you said… You do not know me at all. I've been involved with missions work since 2005. I've been a part of an organization that builds homes for poor families in Mexico, brings food to the homeless, brings books and tutoring to poor children, etc. But again, this is off-topic and has absolutely zero to do with the topic at hand, which is when human life begins.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

And for your side it’s about the authoritarian conservative who wants to compel conformity, contempt for the rights of the individual, and the unwarranted anger common to most rightists that anyone dare disagree with you.

So much for ‘small government’ conservatives.

Wrong, because I know full well that hearts and minds need to be changed first before laws are changed. All I'm doing is trying to get people to wake up and see that human life does not begin the moment the head pops out of the birth canal. And that human life is precious, at every stage.

The law is confused on this. Who was that woman who killed her 30 week old baby after it was born and went to prison for murder? If it was murdered in the womb at 30 weeks, it's perfectly legal. How did that one get past the jury?

A fetus does not meet the law. A post-birth child does.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Welcome to freedom, individual liberty, personal responsibility, apple pie and the American Way!

If you actually think about what you are celebrating, it is truly ugly and nauseating. It's certainly not true liberty. Libertinism, maybe.

Yes, abortion is ugly. The woman suffers a lot emotionally when she has one. However, it is necessary to remain safe legal and rare. The woman has the personal responsibility to make her decision quickly before it becomes a child.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The fact that you use schoolyard words like "contards" shows your level of maturity.

It's off-topic, but to reply to what you said… You do not know me at all. I've been involved with missions work since 2005. I've been a part of an organization that builds homes for poor families in Mexico, brings food to the homeless, brings books and tutoring to poor children, etc. But again, this is off-topic and has absolutely zero to do with the topic at hand, which is when human life begins.

You're dealing with fully indoctrinated cultural Marxists here. Don't waste your time. They'd probably eat the asshole out of a dead horse, judging by the nasty tenor of their communications, much less care about human life. lol. Dust your feet. Move on.

 

[buttercup]

Ahem, from the OP

So, if life begins at conception, doesn't that mean that it should be protected by the 14th Amendment?

Is the 14th a .... wait fer it .... R U Ready? ..... LAW ?

I'm pretty sure he added that later,. But either way, I told the other guy at least six or seven times that I was not interested in discussing the legal aspect of it. He can feel free to discuss it with others.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Unwanted children can destroy lives and become a burden on society.

You republicans keep wanting to eliminate any care for children after they are born.

You have no standing to argue abortion.

There is no such thing as an unwanted child. Just an unwanted pregnancy. But even if what you were saying is true, which it isn't, that still would not justify the taking of an innocent human life. Logical fallacies all over the place there.

An unwanted pregnancy is not innocent. It is a foreign invader that needs to be removed. It is a criminal trying to destroy the house. If you are a gunnut, you would claim self defense and shoot the baby for trespassing.

 

[buttercup]

You're dealing with fully indoctrinated cultural Marxists here. Don't waste your time. They'd probably eat the asshole out of a dead horse, much less care about human life. lol.

lol. I've said this before, but I think that this whole issue involves a form of blindness. I know, because I was once on the other side of this debate. But anyway, you may be right that some are hopeless.

 

[mamooth]

Is your scientific knowledge based off of actual science,

Obviously, yes. But it's not really the issue here, being "human being" is not defined by science.

Evidence? Humanity knew what a human being was long before humanity knew about the science. That means the definition could not have been based on the science. If people didn't know what conception was, they couldn't base a definition on it.

Like so much law and custom, the definition was based largely on practicality. Birth is a very practical standard to use.

If you're saying the definition changed somewhere, it's up to you to provide evidence. That means more than opinion pieces. You need to show, for example, how society now bases rights on conception instead of birth. Which ... it doesn't do.

 

[MarkDuffy]

You need to stop editing posts (removing previous statements). It is dishonest.

What the heck are you talking about? I'm pretty sure I didn't remove anything. I often edit my posts because I have to use the dictation feature on my laptop… because I have a bunch of keys that don't work.

You just did it again

 

[Natural Citizen]

You're dealing with fully indoctrinated cultural Marxists here. Don't waste your time. They'd probably eat the asshole out of a dead horse, much less care about human life. lol.

lol. I've said this before, but I think that this whole issue involves a form of blindness. I know, because I was once on the other side of this debate. But anyway, you may be right that some are hopeless.

Yeah. I agree. But, you know, the greatest sin of all is the lost consciousness of sin. Some people were just meant to burn. So I say let em. You can't say you didn't try.

 

[radical right]

An unwanted pregnancy is not innocent. It is a foreign invader that needs to be removed. It is a criminal trying to destroy the house. If you are a gunnut, you would claim self defense and shoot the baby for trespassing.

If a fertilized egg is protected by the 14th amendment, any woman who has a miscarriage, could be charged with murder.

 

[buttercup]

An unwanted pregnancy is not innocent. It is a foreign invader that needs to be removed. It is a criminal trying to destroy the house. If you are a gunnut, you would claim self defense and shoot the baby for trespassing.

An invader? lolololololol. Do you understand how babies are made? They don't just pop into the belly suddenly to intentionally "invade" like an evil trespasser. When you have sex, you know (unless one is retarded) that there is a chance you're going to get pregnant. So it is almost an implicit invitation. It definitely is not the baby's fault. The baby did not bring itself into the world, the actions of the mother and father brought the baby into the world.

Here's something that liberals typically don't like… There's something called personal responsibility and accountability for one's actions. Taking responsibility doesn't mean killing your own child.

 

[Natural Citizen]

W/o law you have no rights

This right here sums up the level of stupidity we're dealing with in society.

 

[buttercup]

If a fertilized egg is protected by the 14th amendment, any woman who has a miscarriage, could be charged with murder.

A miscarriage happens by accident, it is something that happens to the mother, out of her control. Abortion is the intentional killing of the pre- born baby, completely different situation.

 

[mamooth]

The baby did not bring itself into the world, the actions of the mother and father brought the baby into the world.

So you're a punishment freak. Got it. A standard pro-lifer.

Here's something that liberals typically don't like… There's something called personal responsibility and accountability for one's actions.

And abortion is responsible.

You pro-lifers will just have to learn to deal with that. The world does not have to bow down to you, your precious church, or your very, very precious big authoritarian government.