Rape does not justify abortion

[Vidi]

We tried Hollands version during the sixties, and isn't that where the baby boomers came from ?

Ummmm, no. The boomers come from their parents from WWII who celebrated surviving the war by fornicating up a storm.

The baby boom was caused by the economic boom.

No the baby boom was caused by a bunch of guys getting home from war and celebrating the fact they werent dead.

 

[Vidi]

heres the thing folks:

The argument Im seeing throughout this thread is Life Begins at Conception vs Life begins sometime AFTER conception.

No one has yet defined "conception". Lets start there.

Is it fertilization? Implantation? What biological process is conception exactly?

Points will be deducted from those who do not understand the biological process by which we are created.

 

[beagle9]

Again one more time for the challenged here: The prolifer values the sanctity of life at all stages necessary to that life. And the longer the life can stay in the womb for the period of gestation necessary for human life, the better off that person is going to be. Because of that the prolifer considers two lives: that of the mother and that of the child.

The pro-abortion crowd, at least those with any conscience at all, has to believe that the unborn is not a human life, is less than a person, in order to justify killing it. That allows the only consideration to be whatever the choice of the mother might be to be acceptable and not to be challenged.

And that is the discussion that the proabortion crowd seems unwilling to have.

The pro-lifer has every right to make whatever decision she wishes with a fetus inside her body. She just doesn't have a right to force her values on other people. The legal abortion crowd is perfectly willing to respect your choices, but understands that your right to control our choices ends at your nose.

Changing the above in red to just (A woman) instead of a pro-lifer, makes me think that this is not right at all be it morally or ethically by what is written above and is highlighted in red, and it shouldn't be right lawfully either, where as just because a life exist inside of a womans body, she should not be allowed to do anything she wants to it, and if she does do anything she wants to it, then she should be charged accordingly to the acts that she then would have committed on said life that existed within her body/womb.

When Sharon Tates baby was cut out of her womb by one of Charles Mansons followers, in which she was also killed by the vile evil creature at the time that it had happened, well the nation at that time was sickened badly by these hurendous and traggic unheard of happenings or crimes that had taken place so many years ago now.

Now these days, I ask what is the difference between Sharon Tates baby in the womb and any other womans baby in the womb ? We placed the perp at that time in prison for life, and this is where she died because the nation couldnot wrap their minds around such a traggic situation, that involved the cutting out of a womans womb her baby, in which should be looked at the same when a woman thinks that she can do anything that she wants with her baby or fetus, by disposing of it like it is nothing, just as the perp thought of Sharon Tates baby when it was removed from her body like it was nothing. Is there really much of a difference when one thinks about it ? Killing is killing, but somehow we have turned a blind eye or figured out how to justify killing babies just because they havn't made it to the light yet, but this makes them no less alive because of.

Have we all in these latter days, become sympothetic to allowing people to be judge and jury over that which is defenseless in the womb, where as they can render a sentence of death, and then carry it out against a defenseless fetus or even a baby without any counciling or intervention involved ? I can't figure out how some of this stuff was not pure illegal to do, but somehow it was being justified...WOW!!

 

[Ravi]

I would love to see the pro lifers prove how much they care about children by adopting one. But they won't.

Or better yet, incubating one. Why isn't there a registry of these women that want to take away someone's rights on file somewhere waiting and ready to incubate the fetus? And a register of men waiting to pay for it's care?

Ohhh, because if you get pregnant without meaning to then you must be punished!

I suspect that is the truth. They don't care about the fetus, they care about shaming and/or punishing the woman. Even if she was raped.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The pro-lifer has every right to make whatever decision she wishes with a fetus inside her body. She just doesn't have a right to force her values on other people. The legal abortion crowd is perfectly willing to respect your choices, but understands that your right to control our choices ends at your nose.

She has every bit as much right to care about an innocent life as she has every right to care about anything else though. To speak one's convictions and argue a defense for the defenseless is also a woman's choice. To argue a case that the unborn reprsents a human life is also a woman's choice. And to argue that case forces nothing on anybody.

How much leeway does a woman have when it comes to another life? Can she choose to do whatever to the child she has given birth to and has full responsibility for? Or does the state have some interest in that? How far does her right to choose go there?

Her right to choose begins when she becomes pregnant and ends when she gives birth.

Completely pro abortion, and people keep telling me you don't exist.

 

[Foxfyre]

heres the thing folks:

The argument Im seeing throughout this thread is Life Begins at Conception vs Life begins sometime AFTER conception.

No one has yet defined "conception". Lets start there.

Is it fertilization? Implantation? What biological process is conception exactly?

Points will be deducted from those who do not understand the biological process by which we are created.

It doesn't really matter. It all comes down to one's conscience and appreciation for human life. It all comes down to whether one can rationalize it in a way that a human life can be casually discarded at the whim of the woman who is told over and over that it is a bunch of cells and therefore is inconsequential. Or whether we return to a time in which there is no part of a human life that is any less important than any other from the time the woman becomes pregnant until the baby exits her body and begins to breathe on its own and then, with even more help of responsibile people, procceeds on to become an adult and all the stages of life involved in that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is not true and it has never been true.

I love it when people say things like this, it shows how desperate they are to pretend they have the moral high ground. they are even willing to lie to themselves in order to keep their delusion.

I'm not the one lying here, sweetheart.

Never happened? Why would they revoke the medical license of a doctor over something that never happens?

Doctor loses license in live birth abortion case - CNN

 

[Dr Grump]

heres the thing folks:

The argument Im seeing throughout this thread is Life Begins at Conception vs Life begins sometime AFTER conception.

No one has yet defined "conception". Lets start there.

Is it fertilization? Implantation? What biological process is conception exactly?

Points will be deducted from those who do not understand the biological process by which we are created.

It doesn't really matter. It all comes down to one's conscience and appreciation for human life. It all comes down to whether one can rationalize it in a way that a human life can be casually discarded at the whim of the woman who is told over and over that it is a bunch of cells and therefore is inconsequential. Or whether we return to a time in which there is no part of a human life that is any less important than any other from the time the woman becomes pregnant until the baby exits her body and begins to breathe on its own and then, with even more help of responsibile people, procceeds on to become an adult and all the stages of life involved in that.

But if one doesn't see a 6-8 week old foetus as a human life, that doesn't mean they don't appreciate human life.

You call it rationalisation, but one has to wonder how a group of cells that have no cognitive responses can be seen as human.

A anti-abortionist isn't in any way morally superior or more 'switched on' than a pro-choice person. In my experience, the vast majority (but not all I'll concede) of anti-abortionists have a religious bent attached to their ideals. And once they do that, they lose me...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution. z

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.

Sorry but fetuses are not persons and hence not protected by the 14th amendment.

Since I never actually argued that a fetus is a person, I can understand why you want to jump on that definition to make your point. One thing I have already pointed out though, the legal definition of person, which excludes fetuses, actually includes corporations. That is why I chose to make my argument on the basis of a fetus being alive.

 

[Dr Grump]

She has every bit as much right to care about an innocent life as she has every right to care about anything else though. To speak one's convictions and argue a defense for the defenseless is also a woman's choice. To argue a case that the unborn reprsents a human life is also a woman's choice. And to argue that case forces nothing on anybody.

How much leeway does a woman have when it comes to another life? Can she choose to do whatever to the child she has given birth to and has full responsibility for? Or does the state have some interest in that? How far does her right to choose go there?

Her right to choose begins when she becomes pregnant and ends when she gives birth.

Completely pro abortion, and people keep telling me you don't exist.

It's called being pro choice, not pro abortion.

Me? I'm both pro choice and anti-abortion....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So QW wants a world where even though a rapist may go to prison, he gets to continue to victimize his victim with the aid of a government that forces his victim - at point of a gun if necessary - to bear his offspring. And while the rapist sits in prison having his needs taken care of by the people's taxes, QW favors a world where the government programs that may have helped his victim raise his child have been defunded to nothing, so she has to beg on the streets to put food into her rapsit's child's mouth.

So to QW - "small government" means government teaming up with rapists to force women to bear children against their will - and then casting them off into the world without any help at all to raise the child the rapist and government forced them to have.



I'm guessing QW has no daughters.

Is using strawmen the only way you can counter my argument? I guess my position is a lot stronger than I thought.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No rapist has the right to impose the final victimization of his victim: forcing her to bear this child.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We tried Hollands version during the sixties, and isn't that where the baby boomers came from ?

Ummmm, no. The boomers come from their parents from WWII who celebrated surviving the war by fornicating up a storm.

The baby boom was caused by the economic boom.

Funny, that is not what Wikipedia says.

 

[Ravi]

I love it when people say things like this, it shows how desperate they are to pretend they have the moral high ground. they are even willing to lie to themselves in order to keep their delusion.

I'm not the one lying here, sweetheart.

Never happened? Why would they revoke the medical license of a doctor over something that never happens?

Doctor loses license in live birth abortion case - CNN

That has nothing to do with Obama, dummy

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Look up the definition of the word 'soul' then get back to me..

I prefer the biblical definition, which is the entire self. Come to think of it, that is one of the definitions that you will find in the dictionary.

Um, no it's not....And in any definition, it is something that is claimed to make up PART of the self, not the entirety...

Really?

1: the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life
2a : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe b capitalized Christian Science : god 1b

3: a person's total self

Soul - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Quantum Windbag]

heres the thing folks:

The argument Im seeing throughout this thread is Life Begins at Conception vs Life begins sometime AFTER conception.

No one has yet defined "conception". Lets start there.

Is it fertilization? Implantation? What biological process is conception exactly?

Points will be deducted from those who do not understand the biological process by which we are created.

This is irrelevant to the thread, despite the attempts of several people to make it the object of discussion. go start your own thread.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

heres the thing folks:

The argument Im seeing throughout this thread is Life Begins at Conception vs Life begins sometime AFTER conception.

No one has yet defined "conception". Lets start there.

Is it fertilization? Implantation? What biological process is conception exactly?

Points will be deducted from those who do not understand the biological process by which we are created.

It doesn't really matter. It all comes down to one's conscience and appreciation for human life. It all comes down to whether one can rationalize it in a way that a human life can be casually discarded at the whim of the woman who is told over and over that it is a bunch of cells and therefore is inconsequential. Or whether we return to a time in which there is no part of a human life that is any less important than any other from the time the woman becomes pregnant until the baby exits her body and begins to breathe on its own and then, with even more help of responsibile people, procceeds on to become an adult and all the stages of life involved in that.

But if one doesn't see a 6-8 week old foetus as a human life, that doesn't mean they don't appreciate human life.

You call it rationalisation, but one has to wonder how a group of cells that have no cognitive responses can be seen as human.

A anti-abortionist isn't in any way morally superior or more 'switched on' than a pro-choice person. In my experience, the vast majority (but not all I'll concede) of anti-abortionists have a religious bent attached to their ideals. And once they do that, they lose me...

How can a man in a come be called human? He has no cognitive response either, but no one ever questions his humanity because of that.

 

[Dr Grump]

I prefer the biblical definition, which is the entire self. Come to think of it, that is one of the definitions that you will find in the dictionary.

Um, no it's not....And in any definition, it is something that is claimed to make up PART of the self, not the entirety...

Really?

1: the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life
2a : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe b capitalized Christian Science : god 1b

3: a person's total self

Soul - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

And yet one and two don't support your argument..

1.
the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
2.
the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come: arguing the immortality of the soul.
3.
the disembodied spirit of a deceased person: He feared the soul of the deceased would haunt him.
4.
the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.
5.
a human being; person.

Five does here, but 1-4 don't. Shrug..

I've never seen a soul referred to as a person in any way shape of form. The embodiment of what some think make up in the intangible part of the human - thinking, thought processes etc - sure. But a human being itself? Nope...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Her right to choose begins when she becomes pregnant and ends when she gives birth.

Completely pro abortion, and people keep telling me you don't exist.

It's called being pro choice, not pro abortion.

Me? I'm both pro choice and anti-abortion....

They call Romney a conservative, doesn't make him one anymore than calling a pro abortion person pro choice makes them not pro abortion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not the one lying here, sweetheart.

Never happened? Why would they revoke the medical license of a doctor over something that never happens?

Doctor loses license in live birth abortion case - CNN

That has nothing to do with Obama, dummy

My thread has nothing to do with Obama either. what's your point?