Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More ignorance of the law.It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
The Fetal Protection Act is upheld in 39 states, and the Unborn Victim Violence Act is upheld in 29 states.
There is also a Preborn Victims of Violence Act.
You're confusing civil law with criminal law, where the right to privacy is the former and prohibiting violence against women is the latter.
In both cases the woman is the victim, her rights violated by the state when it seeks to compel her to give birth against her will; her right to give birth should she so desire violated by the individual who caused the end of the pregnancy through his criminal act.
None of these laws confer 'personhood' upon an embryo/fetus, or acknowledge the 'rights' of an embryo/fetus – as they in fact possess neither.
Last, each of these laws contain provisions excluding doctors who perform abortions and women who have abortions pursuant to their right to privacy.
You really really miss the point. Point being these were all laws/or positive and negative rights at one point, and were thought to be completely righteous at the time by a lot of people. Positive in the fact that I have the right to own slaves, which was argued that right to property ownership trumped the others right to freedom. Much like you say right to privacy trumps the right to life. Negative in the sense that as a black, you by LAW do not have the right to go/sit certain places even in the public realm. You want to place the constitution and BOR up as justification for this, but forget that they are negative rights imposed on the government, not citizens, which is the foundation of our constitutional Republic (NOT DEMOCRACY!! ), you seem to be confusing the two. Ever hear the phrases, right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness(was originally going to be property instead of POH, but was changed to not give slave owners a foothold in the future), or government shall make no law concerning? The constitution and BOR was also cherry picked to by slave owners and segregationist to show why it was justified to do what they are doing.At least you''re consistent in your ignorance of the law.So was Jim Crow and slavery so I guess that wasn't wrong then if that's how you base your viewsIt's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
Slavery and Jim Crow were violations of the rights of persons by the state, as is the state seeking to compel a woman to give birth against her will.
The right to privacy concerns the protected liberty of the woman, whose rights are paramount, immune from attack by the state.
Not in regular everyday abortions, it may be complicated to you because it presents a conflict. Conflict being that based on being unwanted the fetus looses it's right to life, as opposed to the wanted fetus who if they were to die at the hands of someone while still inside the womb, that person gets tried for murder. But that is your progressive thinking is unable to decipher why one has right to life and the other does not based on desire of the mother (up to a certain time period I might add). I can answer that question that yes, that fetus has as much value as the wanted fetus, but how am I able to answer that question if I am so stuck in my ways? Am I the one stuck in my ways by being able to answer that without conflict of my other values?I'm not talking about the ten year old either. There are some things that you can't dumb down to a yes or no answer. Did you read my post?I'm not talking about a 10 year old rape girl. I'm talking about your every day abortion. Does that fetus have value?It's a little complicated if you can deal with it. See post 1486 Huckabee Backs Denying Abortion To 10-Year-Old Raped By Stepfather | Page 149 | US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumIt was lawful to segregate, and enslave because those people we're not seen to have value. Does a fetus have value?Multiple States Have Now Cleared Planned Parenthood Of Any Illegal Activity Multiple States Have Now Cleared Planned Parenthood Of Any Illegal Activity
Although donation of fetal tissue is lawful under the Abortion Control Act and federal law, our review has found that Planned Parenthood facilities in Pennsylvania do not participate in this practice,” Pennsylvania Secretary of Health Karen Murphy wrote in a letter to a state legislator. “Moreover, there is no evidence that any Planned Parenthood site in this Commonwealth is involved in the buying or selling of fetal tissue.”
Murphy said that she’s never found a “violation … regarding the procurement or use of fetal tissue.”
Actually, there is evidence that PP clinics are selling fetal tissue. When you have 4 separate bigwigs talking about how to get the most for fetal tissue, and how to protect it during harvest, and how they don't want to "low ball" the price, and how they want to buy a lamborgini using those funds....that's evidence that they are selling fetal tissue. So you can shut the fuck up with your pro-baby killing, pro-dead baby selling lies. What are you, a dead baby buyer's rep?It is not legal to sell fetal tissue and there is no evidence that anyone did sell fetal tissue. But, since you agree that it is appropriate to use fetal tissue for research, the next question is who should pay for the cost of removing, preserving and transporting such tissue? The Center for Organ Recovery will pay hospitals for the cost of removing, storing and transporting organs for transplant. Does that mean that hospitals are profiting from the "sale of human organs." ?
You conflate the issues.
Nobody is saying that fetal tissue may never be used for research.
What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be allowed to SELL fetal tissue for anything..and it is indeed illegal. What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be authorized to CHANGE TREATMENT of women in order to increase profit they get from the sale of fetal tissue. What is TRUE is that abortion-on-demand creates multiple human rights violations, and should be stopped.
Third Video Shows Planned Parenthood Director Standing Over Dead Fetuses Discussing Prices - YouTube
Shove your edited, misleading videotapes up your ass.
More lies. You are tiresome.DEFINITE BIAS Only ONE conservative group granted tax-exemption under Lois Lerner - Politics Policy - News - Catholic OnlineBut yet only 3 conservative groups got approved from Lois learner over like 2 yearsThe IRS did not admit to targeting any conservatives groups in the manner that Nixon did. Nixon demanded that groups on his enemy list be audited or subject to other unusual scrutiny. All that has been established is that the IRS, in vetting the huge influx of applications for tax exempt political groups following the Citizen's United decision, used certain phrases associated with conservative politics to try to find out if they were truly non-partisan. They did not harass any such groups; did not subject them to audits or take any enforcement actions. More importantly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the White House gave a rat's ass about all of the Tea party groups popping up or gave any instruction to the IRS to do anything.Nope lunch break was over. And it's because we have an activist justice department. We rightfully impeached Nixon for having a list of 100 targeted people...but the IRS admittedly targets 1000 of conservative groups with millions of members or potential members, then destroys evidence of that targeting, evidence that they knew was going to be under investigation, and no one gets on trouble? That's just some right wing conspiracy?
Which 2 years.
They were edited so assholes like you would use them in your ear on reproductive freedom.So you have a copy of them before they were edited??
You say they are edited, if you have not seen the originals with your own eyes how do you know??
Even if there is some editing how do you justify morally anything we have seen.
This editing, what would it have changed??
I mean it seems to be the crux of your assertion, that they are edited.
So tell us all, how and for what reason??
sorry you have just joined the conversation now but I have always been saying that if that is how you feel about abortion, then yea go ahed and donate the tissue. But if you don't feel that way, than this is a very black eye on our society. America has felt very right about things we have done in the past; slavery, Jim Crow, manifest destiny, interment camps... Are we that daft to think we are any better than those that came before?
So on to my question
What did your response have to do with my question? Let me dumb it down for you. Why have they not put Hilary and someone from PP in prison for their deeds?
Not in regular everyday abortions, it may be complicated to you because it presents a conflict. Conflict being that based on being unwanted the fetus looses it's right to life, as opposed to the wanted fetus who if they were to die at the hands of someone still inside the womb, that person gets tried for murder. But that is your progressive thinking is unable to decipher why one has right to life and the other does not based on desire of the mother (up to a certain time period I might add). I can answer that question that yes, that fetus has as much value as the wanted fetus, but how am I able to answer that question if I am so stuck in my ways? Am I the one stuck in my ways by being able to answer that without conflict of my other values?I'm not talking about the ten year old either. There are some things that you can't dumb down to a yes or no answer. Did you read my post?I'm not talking about a 10 year old rape girl. I'm talking about your every day abortion. Does that fetus have value?It's a little complicated if you can deal with it. See post 1486 Huckabee Backs Denying Abortion To 10-Year-Old Raped By Stepfather | Page 149 | US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumIt was lawful to segregate, and enslave because those people we're not seen to have value. Does a fetus have value?Multiple States Have Now Cleared Planned Parenthood Of Any Illegal Activity Multiple States Have Now Cleared Planned Parenthood Of Any Illegal Activity
Although donation of fetal tissue is lawful under the Abortion Control Act and federal law, our review has found that Planned Parenthood facilities in Pennsylvania do not participate in this practice,” Pennsylvania Secretary of Health Karen Murphy wrote in a letter to a state legislator. “Moreover, there is no evidence that any Planned Parenthood site in this Commonwealth is involved in the buying or selling of fetal tissue.”
Murphy said that she’s never found a “violation … regarding the procurement or use of fetal tissue.”
So am I correct in the fact that the fetus gains it's value strictly based on the desire of the mother to birth it or not?
Let me present another question. If there was a hypothetical test to see if your child, while still in the womb, we're to be gay or straight, would it be ok for the mother to abort the gay fetus based on the fact it will be gay in the future?
Actually, there is evidence that PP clinics are selling fetal tissue. When you have 4 separate bigwigs talking about how to get the most for fetal tissue, and how to protect it during harvest, and how they don't want to "low ball" the price, and how they want to buy a lamborgini using those funds....that's evidence that they are selling fetal tissue. So you can shut the fuck up with your pro-baby killing, pro-dead baby selling lies. What are you, a dead baby buyer's rep?It is not legal to sell fetal tissue and there is no evidence that anyone did sell fetal tissue. But, since you agree that it is appropriate to use fetal tissue for research, the next question is who should pay for the cost of removing, preserving and transporting such tissue? The Center for Organ Recovery will pay hospitals for the cost of removing, storing and transporting organs for transplant. Does that mean that hospitals are profiting from the "sale of human organs." ?You conflate the issues.
Nobody is saying that fetal tissue may never be used for research.
What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be allowed to SELL fetal tissue for anything..and it is indeed illegal. What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be authorized to CHANGE TREATMENT of women in order to increase profit they get from the sale of fetal tissue. What is TRUE is that abortion-on-demand creates multiple human rights violations, and should be stopped.
Third Video Shows Planned Parenthood Director Standing Over Dead Fetuses Discussing Prices - YouTube
Shove your edited, misleading videotapes up your ass.
That must have been one convincing talking points memo they sent you this week.
No, you have no 'point,' just ignorance of the law and a desire to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.You really really miss the point. Point being these were all laws/or positive and negative rights at one point, and were thought to be completely righteous at the time by a lot of people. Positive in the fact that I have the right to own slaves, which was argued that right to property ownership trumped the others right to freedom. Much like you say right to privacy trumps the right to life. Negative in the sense that as a black, you by LAW do not have the right to go/sit certain places even in the public realm. You want to place the constitution and BOR up as justification for this, but forget that they are negative rights imposed on the government, not citizens, which is the foundation of our constitutional Republic (NOT DEMOCRACY!! ), you seem to be confusing the two. Ever hear the phrases, right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness(was originally going to be property instead of POH, but was changed to not give slave owners a foothold in the future), or government shall make no law concerning? The constitution and BOR was also cherry picked to by slave owners and segregationist to show why it was justified to do what they are doing.At least you''re consistent in your ignorance of the law.So was Jim Crow and slavery so I guess that wasn't wrong then if that's how you base your viewsIt's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
Slavery and Jim Crow were violations of the rights of persons by the state, as is the state seeking to compel a woman to give birth against her will.
The right to privacy concerns the protected liberty of the woman, whose rights are paramount, immune from attack by the state.
After analysis of the full "unedited" recordings revealed they were in fact edited, CMP admitted it. Their defense is that they only edited out scenes they deemed inconsequential.They were edited so assholes like you would use them in your ear on reproductive freedom.So you have a copy of them before they were edited??
You say they are edited, if you have not seen the originals with your own eyes how do you know??
Even if there is some editing how do you justify morally anything we have seen.
This editing, what would it have changed??
I mean it seems to be the crux of your assertion, that they are edited.
So tell us all, how and for what reason??
Prove it. And no, a copy of your marching orders from the Left will not constitute "proof".
So it does not have value unless it is wanted, just like blacks did not have value unless they were born in the north. The slave owners right to property trumps the slaves right to liberty. Just like the mothers right to "privacy" trumps the fetus right to life. The fetus is not a human, and it is alive, try to prove that it isn't. If not, then anybody with the power of attorney should be able to terminate someone on life support no matter the prognosis.Not in regular everyday abortions, it may be complicated to you because it presents a conflict. Conflict being that based on being unwanted the fetus looses it's right to life, as opposed to the wanted fetus who if they were to die at the hands of someone still inside the womb, that person gets tried for murder. But that is your progressive thinking is unable to decipher why one has right to life and the other does not based on desire of the mother (up to a certain time period I might add). I can answer that question that yes, that fetus has as much value as the wanted fetus, but how am I able to answer that question if I am so stuck in my ways? Am I the one stuck in my ways by being able to answer that without conflict of my other values?I'm not talking about the ten year old either. There are some things that you can't dumb down to a yes or no answer. Did you read my post?I'm not talking about a 10 year old rape girl. I'm talking about your every day abortion. Does that fetus have value?It's a little complicated if you can deal with it. See post 1486 Huckabee Backs Denying Abortion To 10-Year-Old Raped By Stepfather | Page 149 | US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumIt was lawful to segregate, and enslave because those people we're not seen to have value. Does a fetus have value?
So am I correct in the fact that the fetus gains it's value strictly based on the desire of the mother to birth it or not?
Let me present another question. If there was a hypothetical test to see if your child, while still in the womb, we're to be gay or straight, would it be ok for the mother to abort the gay fetus based on the fact it will be gay in the future?
I went in to great detail about my thoughts on the fetus in the post that I directed you to. No, the values of the fetus is not based on whether or not the mother wants it. However, the mother does have a good deal to say about the fate of the fetus. If the woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy before it is viable that is not murder because there are legitimate questions-which I raised -as to whether or not it is a human life AND because the rights of the mother count also. If a third party kills an unborn child, that may be a different story. I don't know under what circumstances that child-to-be would be considered a murder victim, but if it is viable at that point it certainly should be. No to complicated for my liberal mind at all.
It is beyond me what you are bringing up the question of homosexuality at this point. That is like asking if the parent wanted a male and was carrying a female. I would consider both to be frivolous reasons to abort. However, she does have a right to privacy and control of her body.
I have no desire to expand and increase authority of the government over individuals, in fact I want the authority it has currently rolled back. Especially when it gives one group the power over another group.No, you have no 'point,' just ignorance of the law and a desire to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.You really really miss the point. Point being these were all laws/or positive and negative rights at one point, and were thought to be completely righteous at the time by a lot of people. Positive in the fact that I have the right to own slaves, which was argued that right to property ownership trumped the others right to freedom. Much like you say right to privacy trumps the right to life. Negative in the sense that as a black, you by LAW do not have the right to go/sit certain places even in the public realm. You want to place the constitution and BOR up as justification for this, but forget that they are negative rights imposed on the government, not citizens, which is the foundation of our constitutional Republic (NOT DEMOCRACY!! ), you seem to be confusing the two. Ever hear the phrases, right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness(was originally going to be property instead of POH, but was changed to not give slave owners a foothold in the future), or government shall make no law concerning? The constitution and BOR was also cherry picked to by slave owners and segregationist to show why it was justified to do what they are doing.At least you''re consistent in your ignorance of the law.So was Jim Crow and slavery so I guess that wasn't wrong then if that's how you base your viewsIt's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
Slavery and Jim Crow were violations of the rights of persons by the state, as is the state seeking to compel a woman to give birth against her will.
The right to privacy concerns the protected liberty of the woman, whose rights are paramount, immune from attack by the state.
That Slavery and Jim Crow were once legal and rendered void by Constitutional amendment has no bearing on the fact that an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections.
You're attempting to conflate two completely different issues, one having nothing to do with another.
You're also at liberty to seek to 'amend' the Constitution to repeal the 14th Amendment, thus voiding its jurisprudence, and 'amending' the Constitution again making an embryo/fetus a 'person.'
Until you realize that 'goal,' however, it remains a fact of Constitutional law that an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
So it does not have value unless it is wanted, just like blacks did not have value unless they were born in the north. The slave owners right to property trumps the slaves right to liberty. Just like the mothers right to "privacy" trumps the fetus right to life. The fetus is not a human, and it is alive, try to prove that it isn't. If not, then anybody with the power of attorney should be able to terminate someone on life support no matter the prognosis.Not in regular everyday abortions, it may be complicated to you because it presents a conflict. Conflict being that based on being unwanted the fetus looses it's right to life, as opposed to the wanted fetus who if they were to die at the hands of someone still inside the womb, that person gets tried for murder. But that is your progressive thinking is unable to decipher why one has right to life and the other does not based on desire of the mother (up to a certain time period I might add). I can answer that question that yes, that fetus has as much value as the wanted fetus, but how am I able to answer that question if I am so stuck in my ways? Am I the one stuck in my ways by being able to answer that without conflict of my other values?I'm not talking about the ten year old either. There are some things that you can't dumb down to a yes or no answer. Did you read my post?I'm not talking about a 10 year old rape girl. I'm talking about your every day abortion. Does that fetus have value?It's a little complicated if you can deal with it. See post 1486 Huckabee Backs Denying Abortion To 10-Year-Old Raped By Stepfather | Page 149 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
So am I correct in the fact that the fetus gains it's value strictly based on the desire of the mother to birth it or not?
Let me present another question. If there was a hypothetical test to see if your child, while still in the womb, we're to be gay or straight, would it be ok for the mother to abort the gay fetus based on the fact it will be gay in the future?
I went in to great detail about my thoughts on the fetus in the post that I directed you to. No, the values of the fetus is not based on whether or not the mother wants it. However, the mother does have a good deal to say about the fate of the fetus. If the woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy before it is viable that is not murder because there are legitimate questions-which I raised -as to whether or not it is a human life AND because the rights of the mother count also. If a third party kills an unborn child, that may be a different story. I don't know under what circumstances that child-to-be would be considered a murder victim, but if it is viable at that point it certainly should be. No to complicated for my liberal mind at all.
It is beyond me what you are bringing up the question of homosexuality at this point. That is like asking if the parent wanted a male and was carrying a female. I would consider both to be frivolous reasons to abort. However, she does have a right to privacy and control of her body.
You misrepresent what I say when referring to slavery. I'm not comparing slave to fetus, I'm comparing the ARGUMENT to owning slaves and right of property, with the ARGUMENT of right to privacy and termination of an unwanted fetus. I think that was obvious.So it does not have value unless it is wanted, just like blacks did not have value unless they were born in the north. The slave owners right to property trumps the slaves right to liberty. Just like the mothers right to "privacy" trumps the fetus right to life. The fetus is not a human, and it is alive, try to prove that it isn't. If not, then anybody with the power of attorney should be able to terminate someone on life support no matter the prognosis.Not in regular everyday abortions, it may be complicated to you because it presents a conflict. Conflict being that based on being unwanted the fetus looses it's right to life, as opposed to the wanted fetus who if they were to die at the hands of someone still inside the womb, that person gets tried for murder. But that is your progressive thinking is unable to decipher why one has right to life and the other does not based on desire of the mother (up to a certain time period I might add). I can answer that question that yes, that fetus has as much value as the wanted fetus, but how am I able to answer that question if I am so stuck in my ways? Am I the one stuck in my ways by being able to answer that without conflict of my other values?I'm not talking about the ten year old either. There are some things that you can't dumb down to a yes or no answer. Did you read my post?I'm not talking about a 10 year old rape girl. I'm talking about your every day abortion. Does that fetus have value?
So am I correct in the fact that the fetus gains it's value strictly based on the desire of the mother to birth it or not?
Let me present another question. If there was a hypothetical test to see if your child, while still in the womb, we're to be gay or straight, would it be ok for the mother to abort the gay fetus based on the fact it will be gay in the future?
I went in to great detail about my thoughts on the fetus in the post that I directed you to. No, the values of the fetus is not based on whether or not the mother wants it. However, the mother does have a good deal to say about the fate of the fetus. If the woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy before it is viable that is not murder because there are legitimate questions-which I raised -as to whether or not it is a human life AND because the rights of the mother count also. If a third party kills an unborn child, that may be a different story. I don't know under what circumstances that child-to-be would be considered a murder victim, but if it is viable at that point it certainly should be. No to complicated for my liberal mind at all.
It is beyond me what you are bringing up the question of homosexuality at this point. That is like asking if the parent wanted a male and was carrying a female. I would consider both to be frivolous reasons to abort. However, she does have a right to privacy and control of her body.
You asked a question about whether or not I thought that a fetus has value. I responded by pointing to the complexity of that issue and basically saying that the value is relative and it is not a simple yes of no answer. I also redirected you-for the third time to my previous post , in which I discussed that issue at length but apparently you still have not read it and if you did, you didn't understand it. Instead, you again misrepresent me by claiming that I am saying that the fetus has no value.
Your comparing the value of the fetus to that of slaves is ridiculous. It is a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency designed to obfuscate the issue. A black person has value regardless of where they worn born. A zygote or a fetus cannot be compared to a person.
You misrepresent what I say when referring to slavery. I'm not comparing slave to fetus, I'm comparing the ARGUMENT to owning slaves and right of property, with the ARGUMENT of right to privacy and termination of an unwanted fetus. I think that was obvious.So it does not have value unless it is wanted, just like blacks did not have value unless they were born in the north. The slave owners right to property trumps the slaves right to liberty. Just like the mothers right to "privacy" trumps the fetus right to life. The fetus is not a human, and it is alive, try to prove that it isn't. If not, then anybody with the power of attorney should be able to terminate someone on life support no matter the prognosis.Not in regular everyday abortions, it may be complicated to you because it presents a conflict. Conflict being that based on being unwanted the fetus looses it's right to life, as opposed to the wanted fetus who if they were to die at the hands of someone still inside the womb, that person gets tried for murder. But that is your progressive thinking is unable to decipher why one has right to life and the other does not based on desire of the mother (up to a certain time period I might add). I can answer that question that yes, that fetus has as much value as the wanted fetus, but how am I able to answer that question if I am so stuck in my ways? Am I the one stuck in my ways by being able to answer that without conflict of my other values?I'm not talking about the ten year old either. There are some things that you can't dumb down to a yes or no answer. Did you read my post?
So am I correct in the fact that the fetus gains it's value strictly based on the desire of the mother to birth it or not?
Let me present another question. If there was a hypothetical test to see if your child, while still in the womb, we're to be gay or straight, would it be ok for the mother to abort the gay fetus based on the fact it will be gay in the future?
I went in to great detail about my thoughts on the fetus in the post that I directed you to. No, the values of the fetus is not based on whether or not the mother wants it. However, the mother does have a good deal to say about the fate of the fetus. If the woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy before it is viable that is not murder because there are legitimate questions-which I raised -as to whether or not it is a human life AND because the rights of the mother count also. If a third party kills an unborn child, that may be a different story. I don't know under what circumstances that child-to-be would be considered a murder victim, but if it is viable at that point it certainly should be. No to complicated for my liberal mind at all.
It is beyond me what you are bringing up the question of homosexuality at this point. That is like asking if the parent wanted a male and was carrying a female. I would consider both to be frivolous reasons to abort. However, she does have a right to privacy and control of her body.
You asked a question about whether or not I thought that a fetus has value. I responded by pointing to the complexity of that issue and basically saying that the value is relative and it is not a simple yes of no answer. I also redirected you-for the third time to my previous post , in which I discussed that issue at length but apparently you still have not read it and if you did, you didn't understand it. Instead, you again misrepresent me by claiming that I am saying that the fetus has no value.
Your comparing the value of the fetus to that of slaves is ridiculous. It is a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency designed to obfuscate the issue. A black person has value regardless of where they worn born. A zygote or a fetus cannot be compared to a person.
You say that no, the fetus does not have protection under constitutional rights...correct?
And I assume that you believe that the murderer of the pregnant mother should be tried as a double homicide if the mother wants the fetus...correct?
You also state that value is relative correct? Relative to what exactly?
Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.You misrepresent what I say when referring to slavery. I'm not comparing slave to fetus, I'm comparing the ARGUMENT to owning slaves and right of property, with the ARGUMENT of right to privacy and termination of an unwanted fetus. I think that was obvious.So it does not have value unless it is wanted, just like blacks did not have value unless they were born in the north. The slave owners right to property trumps the slaves right to liberty. Just like the mothers right to "privacy" trumps the fetus right to life. The fetus is not a human, and it is alive, try to prove that it isn't. If not, then anybody with the power of attorney should be able to terminate someone on life support no matter the prognosis.Not in regular everyday abortions, it may be complicated to you because it presents a conflict. Conflict being that based on being unwanted the fetus looses it's right to life, as opposed to the wanted fetus who if they were to die at the hands of someone still inside the womb, that person gets tried for murder. But that is your progressive thinking is unable to decipher why one has right to life and the other does not based on desire of the mother (up to a certain time period I might add). I can answer that question that yes, that fetus has as much value as the wanted fetus, but how am I able to answer that question if I am so stuck in my ways? Am I the one stuck in my ways by being able to answer that without conflict of my other values?
So am I correct in the fact that the fetus gains it's value strictly based on the desire of the mother to birth it or not?
Let me present another question. If there was a hypothetical test to see if your child, while still in the womb, we're to be gay or straight, would it be ok for the mother to abort the gay fetus based on the fact it will be gay in the future?
I went in to great detail about my thoughts on the fetus in the post that I directed you to. No, the values of the fetus is not based on whether or not the mother wants it. However, the mother does have a good deal to say about the fate of the fetus. If the woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy before it is viable that is not murder because there are legitimate questions-which I raised -as to whether or not it is a human life AND because the rights of the mother count also. If a third party kills an unborn child, that may be a different story. I don't know under what circumstances that child-to-be would be considered a murder victim, but if it is viable at that point it certainly should be. No to complicated for my liberal mind at all.
It is beyond me what you are bringing up the question of homosexuality at this point. That is like asking if the parent wanted a male and was carrying a female. I would consider both to be frivolous reasons to abort. However, she does have a right to privacy and control of her body.
You asked a question about whether or not I thought that a fetus has value. I responded by pointing to the complexity of that issue and basically saying that the value is relative and it is not a simple yes of no answer. I also redirected you-for the third time to my previous post , in which I discussed that issue at length but apparently you still have not read it and if you did, you didn't understand it. Instead, you again misrepresent me by claiming that I am saying that the fetus has no value.
Your comparing the value of the fetus to that of slaves is ridiculous. It is a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency designed to obfuscate the issue. A black person has value regardless of where they worn born. A zygote or a fetus cannot be compared to a person.
You say that no, the fetus does not have protection under constitutional rights...correct?
And I assume that you believe that the murderer of the pregnant mother should be tried as a double homicide if the mother wants the fetus...correct?
You also state that value is relative correct? Relative to what exactly?
You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.
Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.You misrepresent what I say when referring to slavery. I'm not comparing slave to fetus, I'm comparing the ARGUMENT to owning slaves and right of property, with the ARGUMENT of right to privacy and termination of an unwanted fetus. I think that was obvious.So it does not have value unless it is wanted, just like blacks did not have value unless they were born in the north. The slave owners right to property trumps the slaves right to liberty. Just like the mothers right to "privacy" trumps the fetus right to life. The fetus is not a human, and it is alive, try to prove that it isn't. If not, then anybody with the power of attorney should be able to terminate someone on life support no matter the prognosis.I went in to great detail about my thoughts on the fetus in the post that I directed you to. No, the values of the fetus is not based on whether or not the mother wants it. However, the mother does have a good deal to say about the fate of the fetus. If the woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy before it is viable that is not murder because there are legitimate questions-which I raised -as to whether or not it is a human life AND because the rights of the mother count also. If a third party kills an unborn child, that may be a different story. I don't know under what circumstances that child-to-be would be considered a murder victim, but if it is viable at that point it certainly should be. No to complicated for my liberal mind at all.
It is beyond me what you are bringing up the question of homosexuality at this point. That is like asking if the parent wanted a male and was carrying a female. I would consider both to be frivolous reasons to abort. However, she does have a right to privacy and control of her body.
You asked a question about whether or not I thought that a fetus has value. I responded by pointing to the complexity of that issue and basically saying that the value is relative and it is not a simple yes of no answer. I also redirected you-for the third time to my previous post , in which I discussed that issue at length but apparently you still have not read it and if you did, you didn't understand it. Instead, you again misrepresent me by claiming that I am saying that the fetus has no value.
Your comparing the value of the fetus to that of slaves is ridiculous. It is a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency designed to obfuscate the issue. A black person has value regardless of where they worn born. A zygote or a fetus cannot be compared to a person.
You say that no, the fetus does not have protection under constitutional rights...correct?
And I assume that you believe that the murderer of the pregnant mother should be tried as a double homicide if the mother wants the fetus...correct?
You also state that value is relative correct? Relative to what exactly?
You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.
And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?
You're the only one making the comparison of a slave to a fetus. And to prove my point, when did I start use that argument? I'll give you a hint, I wasn't saying that anybody owns fetuses. So answer that with what I was responding to, and how I said it, you'll get your answer there. And yea I guess you won your imaginary argument with me, that you can't compare a fetus to a slave...except for the fact that they are both undeniably HUMAN LIFE. I can win imaginary arguments too.Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.You misrepresent what I say when referring to slavery. I'm not comparing slave to fetus, I'm comparing the ARGUMENT to owning slaves and right of property, with the ARGUMENT of right to privacy and termination of an unwanted fetus. I think that was obvious.So it does not have value unless it is wanted, just like blacks did not have value unless they were born in the north. The slave owners right to property trumps the slaves right to liberty. Just like the mothers right to "privacy" trumps the fetus right to life. The fetus is not a human, and it is alive, try to prove that it isn't. If not, then anybody with the power of attorney should be able to terminate someone on life support no matter the prognosis.
You asked a question about whether or not I thought that a fetus has value. I responded by pointing to the complexity of that issue and basically saying that the value is relative and it is not a simple yes of no answer. I also redirected you-for the third time to my previous post , in which I discussed that issue at length but apparently you still have not read it and if you did, you didn't understand it. Instead, you again misrepresent me by claiming that I am saying that the fetus has no value.
Your comparing the value of the fetus to that of slaves is ridiculous. It is a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency designed to obfuscate the issue. A black person has value regardless of where they worn born. A zygote or a fetus cannot be compared to a person.
You say that no, the fetus does not have protection under constitutional rights...correct?
And I assume that you believe that the murderer of the pregnant mother should be tried as a double homicide if the mother wants the fetus...correct?
You also state that value is relative correct? Relative to what exactly?
You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.
And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?
It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap
A fetus is not a person . A born human being is a person and can't be owned
A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.
End of story
