The abortion debate

[code1211]

I'd be most interested in your interpretation of the distinction, since the 6th Commandment states "Thou shalt not kill."

My interpretation makes abslutely no difference in a legal sense. I was simply pointing to the dichotomy in our laws. This is the result of the pragamatism that has given such gems as Dred Scott, Plessy and Roe.

However, the difference to me is that killing is something that ends a life. Murder is something that ends a human life. If I cause my lawn to die, I killed it. If I cause my neighbor to die, I murdered him. Is that an accurate understanding? I'm no lawyer, it's just what I think.

Under our law, if we stop the developement of a fetus and the Mother to be disagrees with that goal, we have murdered her baby to be.

If she does agree with it, we have ended the developement. Is that killing it? A whole new can of worms.

One might just as easily argue that you murdered your lawn. Every living thing that performs the 8 vital functions can be called an organism, grass is an organism, therefore grass is subject to the interpretation that killing is murder.

I'm not here, right now, to get into the can of worms. Been there, done that. It's amusing to me, though, how this particular argument/justification is used when attempting to make the point in the abortion debate. When there's a tendency to blur the lines in the interpretation of "kill", how on earth is the rest of the argument to be taken seriously?

The positions of the two sides is amusing. I was arguing on a board once and a rigid femenist attacked me as a male who was trying to tell her what to do with her body. Her choice of words was somewhere in a range between vile and profain. In my response to her, I informed that since I could not come up with a good way to care for the unwanted infant, I supported the right to choose, I just disagreed with the whole debating approach the Choice advocates take.

Her resonse to that was something akin to "Well, alright then."

It is inconvenient and that's it. If it was convenient, there would be no argument.

Since I am not willing or capable of either bringing the unborn to term or caring for that infant until it is adult, I don't feel that I am qualified to demand that someone else do so.

 

[DamnYankee]

[/COLOR]

My interpretation makes abslutely no difference in a legal sense. I was simply pointing to the dichotomy in our laws. This is the result of the pragamatism that has given such gems as Dred Scott, Plessy and Roe.

However, the difference to me is that killing is something that ends a life. Murder is something that ends a human life. If I cause my lawn to die, I killed it. If I cause my neighbor to die, I murdered him. Is that an accurate understanding? I'm no lawyer, it's just what I think.

Under our law, if we stop the developement of a fetus and the Mother to be disagrees with that goal, we have murdered her baby to be.

If she does agree with it, we have ended the developement. Is that killing it? A whole new can of worms.

One might just as easily argue that you murdered your lawn. Every living thing that performs the 8 vital functions can be called an organism, grass is an organism, therefore grass is subject to the interpretation that killing is murder.

I'm not here, right now, to get into the can of worms. Been there, done that. It's amusing to me, though, how this particular argument/justification is used when attempting to make the point in the abortion debate. When there's a tendency to blur the lines in the interpretation of "kill", how on earth is the rest of the argument to be taken seriously?

The positions of the two sides is amusing. I was arguing on a board once and a rigid femenist attacked me as a male who was trying to tell her what to do with her body. Her choice of words was somewhere in a range between vile and profain. In my response to her, I informed that since I could not come up with a good way to care for the unwanted infant, I supported the right to choose, I just disagreed with the whole debating approach the Choice advocates take.

Her resonse to that was something akin to "Well, alright then."

It is inconvenient and that's it. If it was convenient, there would be no argument.

Since I am not willing or capable of either bringing the unborn to term or caring for that infant until it is adult, I don't feel that I am qualified to demand that someone else do so.

I'm far from demanding anything other than some compromise between the two sides. Unfortunately, I see little hope of that.

 

[Ralph]

The major question is not the fact of a fetus being ALIVE and an example of life within the species of man merely in a state of pre-birth gestation, as Physical Science has established the fact that once conception has occurred, that life form is proven to be an Individual with his/her own unique DNA signature (containing genetic traits and partial DNA codes from BOTH MOTHER AND FATHER, yet individually distinct from either, as a DNA sample taken from the mother anywhere on her body would not match the DNA signature of the gestating child ....thus what is being debated is the value of human life in a state of gestation. Its merely a deflection to argue whether or not the act of willfully ending that example of human life is murder or not. But most certainly that life is being ended without consideration of any charge of crimes against humanity being levied against it , as it is being ended under the pretense of the right to privacy.....without consideration to the FATHERS claim to parenthood, as proven, the fathers right of parenthood is clearly established by the DNA signature. One day soon the US COURT system will catch up to the 21st century technology and clearly establish the right of the FATHER in all cases where abortion is being considered.

 

[code1211]

One might just as easily argue that you murdered your lawn. Every living thing that performs the 8 vital functions can be called an organism, grass is an organism, therefore grass is subject to the interpretation that killing is murder.

I'm not here, right now, to get into the can of worms. Been there, done that. It's amusing to me, though, how this particular argument/justification is used when attempting to make the point in the abortion debate. When there's a tendency to blur the lines in the interpretation of "kill", how on earth is the rest of the argument to be taken seriously?

The positions of the two sides is amusing. I was arguing on a board once and a rigid femenist attacked me as a male who was trying to tell her what to do with her body. Her choice of words was somewhere in a range between vile and profain. In my response to her, I informed that since I could not come up with a good way to care for the unwanted infant, I supported the right to choose, I just disagreed with the whole debating approach the Choice advocates take.

Her resonse to that was something akin to "Well, alright then."

It is inconvenient and that's it. If it was convenient, there would be no argument.

Since I am not willing or capable of either bringing the unborn to term or caring for that infant until it is adult, I don't feel that I am qualified to demand that someone else do so.

I'm far from demanding anything other than some compromise between the two sides. Unfortunately, I see little hope of that.

I see no hope of that. One side is arguing morality and the other side is arguing freedom. Until the two sides can agree on what they are dicussing, there will be no discussion, just this shouting match of hatred.

 

[DamnYankee]

[/COLOR]

The positions of the two sides is amusing. I was arguing on a board once and a rigid femenist attacked me as a male who was trying to tell her what to do with her body. Her choice of words was somewhere in a range between vile and profain. In my response to her, I informed that since I could not come up with a good way to care for the unwanted infant, I supported the right to choose, I just disagreed with the whole debating approach the Choice advocates take.

Her resonse to that was something akin to "Well, alright then."

It is inconvenient and that's it. If it was convenient, there would be no argument.

Since I am not willing or capable of either bringing the unborn to term or caring for that infant until it is adult, I don't feel that I am qualified to demand that someone else do so.

I'm far from demanding anything other than some compromise between the two sides. Unfortunately, I see little hope of that.

I see no hope of that. One side is arguing morality and the other side is arguing freedom. Until the two sides can agree on what they are dicussing, there will be no discussion, just this shouting match of hatred.

Well.... At least we have agreed.

 

[Care4all]

The major question is not the fact of a fetus being ALIVE and an example of life within the species of man merely in a state of pre-birth gestation, as Physical Science has established the fact that once conception has occurred, that life form is proven to be an Individual with his/her own unique DNA signature (containing genetic traits and partial DNA codes from BOTH MOTHER AND FATHER, yet individually distinct from either, as a DNA sample taken from the mother anywhere on her body would not match the DNA signature of the gestating child ....thus what is being debated is the value of human life in a state of gestation. Its merely a deflection to argue whether or not the act of willfully ending that example of human life is murder or not. But most certainly that life is being ended without consideration of any charge of crimes against humanity being levied against it , as it is being ended under the pretense of the right to privacy.....without consideration to the FATHERS claim to parenthood, as proven, the fathers right of parenthood is clearly established by the DNA signature. One day soon the US COURT system will catch up to the 21st century technology and clearly establish the right of the FATHER in all cases where abortion is being considered.

1. Do you think most women that abort have not discussed their pregnancy with the fathers?

2. How do you envision the 'father's right to parenthood' would play out?

Care

 

[Ralph]

The major question is not the fact of a fetus being ALIVE and an example of life within the species of man merely in a state of pre-birth gestation, as Physical Science has established the fact that once conception has occurred, that life form is proven to be an Individual with his/her own unique DNA signature (containing genetic traits and partial DNA codes from BOTH MOTHER AND FATHER, yet individually distinct from either, as a DNA sample taken from the mother anywhere on her body would not match the DNA signature of the gestating child ....thus what is being debated is the value of human life in a state of gestation. Its merely a deflection to argue whether or not the act of willfully ending that example of human life is murder or not. But most certainly that life is being ended without consideration of any charge of crimes against humanity being levied against it , as it is being ended under the pretense of the right to privacy.....without consideration to the FATHERS claim to parenthood, as proven, the fathers right of parenthood is clearly established by the DNA signature. One day soon the US COURT system will catch up to the 21st century technology and clearly establish the right of the FATHER in all cases where abortion is being considered.

1. Do you think most women that abort have not discussed their pregnancy with the fathers?

2. How do you envision the 'father's right to parenthood' would play out?

Care

One does not have to envision anything, all one need do is examine the bias that is clearly established in the court system as totally bowing to the whims of feminism. And MOST is a moot point, as ONE father that is denied his parental right of parenthood is ONE to many. I never could understand the logic of birth control being espoused as a "joint" responsibility between the genders, but once a mistake is made due to carelessness or just plain and simple stupidity that which was at first a JOINT RESPONSIBILITY becomes the soul property of the female as if the father does not matter....and once the female decides to either kill or allow the gestation of that life....it once again becomes a JOINT RESPONSIBILITY. There indeed must be MAGIC at the entrance to the female birth canal as that is the magical place where the decision of life or death rests in our court system. But once that life is allowed to live....The father will go to jail if he decides he no longer wants any responsibility. The merry go round is more than confusing.....the male is responsible, then the male is taken out of the loop....then magically is reinserted once gestation is complete. Yet, clearly Science proves beyond doubt that child is a part of the father as well as the mother, and is individually unique to either with a life of its own.

A parallel to such would be mandating that someone who might be a property owner and leases or rents to another individual has the right to KILL the tenant to make him/her vacate the private property. As clearly demonstrated, that gestating life is not private property as the father shares in the responsibility thereof.

Fathers for Life

 

[Father Time]

I have very little respect for feminism (or at least some of it as the term has been manipulated to ridiculous lengths), but any site that calls gay rights 'the marketing of evil' and uses worldnetdaily as a source is clearly far too biased to be of any real use.

Although if abortion is allowed if the father still wants the child, than potential fathers should be allowed to opt out of child support, that and mothers of unwanted children who don't want abortion should also be allowed to opt out.

Solves that problem, and it avoids the never ending debate of abortion.

 

[Care4all]

The major question is not the fact of a fetus being ALIVE and an example of life within the species of man merely in a state of pre-birth gestation, as Physical Science has established the fact that once conception has occurred, that life form is proven to be an Individual with his/her own unique DNA signature (containing genetic traits and partial DNA codes from BOTH MOTHER AND FATHER, yet individually distinct from either, as a DNA sample taken from the mother anywhere on her body would not match the DNA signature of the gestating child ....thus what is being debated is the value of human life in a state of gestation. Its merely a deflection to argue whether or not the act of willfully ending that example of human life is murder or not. But most certainly that life is being ended without consideration of any charge of crimes against humanity being levied against it , as it is being ended under the pretense of the right to privacy.....without consideration to the FATHERS claim to parenthood, as proven, the fathers right of parenthood is clearly established by the DNA signature. One day soon the US COURT system will catch up to the 21st century technology and clearly establish the right of the FATHER in all cases where abortion is being considered.

1. Do you think most women that abort have not discussed their pregnancy with the fathers?

2. How do you envision the 'father's right to parenthood' would play out?

Care

One does not have to envision anything, all one need do is examine the bias that is clearly established in the court system as totally bowing to the whims of feminism. And MOST is a moot point, as ONE father that is denied his parental right of parenthood is ONE to many. I never could understand the logic of birth control being espoused as a "joint" responsibility between the genders, but once a mistake is made due to carelessness or just plain and simple stupidity that which was at first a JOINT RESPONSIBILITY becomes the soul property of the female as if the father does not matter....and once the female decides to either kill or allow the gestation of that life....it once again becomes a JOINT RESPONSIBILITY. There indeed must be MAGIC at the entrance to the female birth canal as that is the magical place where the decision of life or death rests in our court system. But once that life is allowed to live....The father will go to jail if he decides he no longer wants any responsibility. The merry go round is more than confusing.....the male is responsible, then the male is taken out of the loop....then magically is reinserted once gestation is complete. Yet, clearly Science proves beyond doubt that child is a part of the father as well as the mother, and is individually unique to either with a life of its own.

A parallel to such would be mandating that someone who might be a property owner and leases or rents to another individual has the right to KILL the tenant to make him/her vacate the private property.

Fathers for Life

-
-Do you think that most men want to be part of the decision process on what the pregnant female chooses to do?

-the "whims of feminism" are not the reasons the courts have ruled the way they have on this.....it should not be confusing to you on why the male gets taken out of the picture when it comes to the 9 month time period, because the male, due to God's choosing, can not bear or carry or gestate a child....they can't get pregnant?

there is a scientific and physical difference between the male and female role in how the baby comes to be born....certainly this is evident? Although both are the parents, they do not have equal rolls or risks during gestation....and it is put in to the hands of the person who does. When the child of both is born, or even viable in my humble opinion, then the father to be should have more say again...

and as far as I am aware, it sounds as though you really have blown dead beat dads and what happens to them out of proportion?

I don't know of any that are in jail, but I do know of some whose paycheck is being garnished for the child support they owe, once that were finally caught up with by the law.

and also, I am not aware of any test that can be done or that is able to be done without harm, that can easily be a paternity test in the womb, are you? And if there isn't one, how do you envision the father to be claiming rights that can't be proven that he even has yet?

Not to be disrespectful, but it appears to me that although what you said about all of this "sounds good to the immediate ear", it hasn't been very well thought through and shows your male bias on this issue imo.

Care

 

[DamnYankee]

quote=Care4all;1277261]1. Do you think most women that abort have not discussed their pregnancy with the fathers?

2. How do you envision the 'father's right to parenthood' would play out?

Care

One does not have to envision anything, all one need do is examine the bias that is clearly established in the court system as totally bowing to the whims of feminism. And MOST is a moot point, as ONE father that is denied his parental right of parenthood is ONE to many. I never could understand the logic of birth control being espoused as a "joint" responsibility between the genders, but once a mistake is made due to carelessness or just plain and simple stupidity that which was at first a JOINT RESPONSIBILITY becomes the soul property of the female as if the father does not matter....and once the female decides to either kill or allow the gestation of that life....it once again becomes a JOINT RESPONSIBILITY. There indeed must be MAGIC at the entrance to the female birth canal as that is the magical place where the decision of life or death rests in our court system. But once that life is allowed to live....The father will go to jail if he decides he no longer wants any responsibility. The merry go round is more than confusing.....the male is responsible, then the male is taken out of the loop....then magically is reinserted once gestation is complete. Yet, clearly Science proves beyond doubt that child is a part of the father as well as the mother, and is individually unique to either with a life of its own.

A parallel to such would be mandating that someone who might be a property owner and leases or rents to another individual has the right to KILL the tenant to make him/her vacate the private property. As clearly demonstrated, that gestating life is not private property as the father shares in the responsibility thereof.

Fathers for Life[/QUOTE]


Kudos for your personal view. So, can I presume that you have a problem with "hit and run"?

 

[I'm So Cool]

Complaining about the father's right is just another pathetically feeble attempt by men to control women. I'm glad some men are bent out of shape over that. Now they know how it feels to be a woman in their religion, no say.

 

[DamnYankee]

Complaining about the father's right is just another pathetically feeble attempt by men to control women. I'm glad some men are bent out of shape over that. Now they know how it feels to be a woman in their religion, no say.

You know what? If you want control, you take it. If you don't want a man, you shake him. It's really quite simple.

 

[JBeukema]

Complaining about the father's right is just another pathetically feeble attempt by men to control women.

That has to be one of the most moronic things anyone has said in this thread. Thanks for showing that feminism is not about 'women' rights', quality, or any of that crap, but is merely sexism hellbent and making smen second-class citizens

I'm glad some men are bent out of shape over that. Now they know how it feels to be a woman in their religion, no say.

Really? And what religion might that be?

I never knew there was a 'man's religion'

 

[I'm So Cool]

Complaining about the father's right is just another pathetically feeble attempt by men to control women.

That has to be one of the most moronic things anyone has said in this thread. Thanks for showing that feminism is not about 'women' rights', quality, or any of that crap, but is merely sexism hellbent and making smen second-class citizens

I'm glad some men are bent out of shape over that. Now they know how it feels to be a woman in their religion, no say.

Really? And what religion might that be?

I never knew there was a 'man's religion'

Be fucking serious! ALL religions are men's religions. You more than most I thought would be able to see that.
Nobody's making men second class citizens, but that would probably be a good thing to make the men wear a black niqab in a desert country for a change then we'd see them change their tune. Pick any religion, men could use a role reversal to see how they like having no say...

 

[JBeukema]

Be fucking serious! ALL religions are men's religions. You more than most I thought would be able to see that.

Really? I was certain women followed m,ost religions, too

Nobody's making men second class citizens,

There are those who want to They're called militant feminists, fool, and they could be coming for you...

but that would probably be a good thing to make the men wear a black niqab in a desert country for a change then we'd see them change their tune

Really? Do you realize how sad your little sexist rant sounds? There aren't many men (Bass52 and possibly Kalam aside) who have ever supported the system against which you rail.

Pick any religion, men could use a role reversal to see how they like having no say...

So, you too do not want equality. You want men to be subjects and second-class citizens. of course, a troll like you sure never thought any of this out.

Meanwhile, we evil atheists, humanists, existents, and other immoral devils will be working towards a system free of delusional religions used to maintain the power structure and status quo and trying to perfect a civilization that allows for true equality for all persons

 

[Al Gunn]

Be fucking serious! ALL religions are men's religions. You more than most I thought would be able to see that.

Really? I was certain women followed m,ost religions, too

Nobody's making men second class citizens,

There are those who want to They're called militant feminists, fool, and they could be coming for you...

but that would probably be a good thing to make the men wear a black niqab in a desert country for a change then we'd see them change their tune

Really? Do you realize how sad your little sexist rant sounds? There aren't many men (Bass52 and possibly Kalam aside) who have ever supported the system against which you rail.

Pick any religion, men could use a role reversal to see how they like having no say...

So, you too do not want equality. You want men to be subjects and second-class citizens. of course, a troll like you sure never thought any of this out.

Meanwhile, we evil atheists, humanists, existents, and other immoral devils will be working towards a system free of delusional religions used to maintain the power structure and status quo and trying to perfect a civilization that allows for true equality for all persons

Women follow religions, and it's amazing that they don't care that they follow a man's religion that put them "in their place".

I think the point he was trying to make was that men should just try the woman's role in religion to see whether they'd like it in a black sheet. maybe then they wouldn't make them wear it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

To suggest that killing a fetus at early stages is on par with killing a citizen, a born person is stupid. It says that thoughts, feelings, self-awareness, etc., things born people posses but fetuses don't are worthless and the only thing that gives human life value is the fact that it possesses the DNA to be called human.

Not worthless. Just irrelevant to the topic. It's all a bunch of straws you're grasping at in order to justify doing something heinous, because too many people got educated in basic science and you couldn't use the canard, "It's not really alive" anymore.

And you don't get it. Human life IS valuable precisely because it's human LIFE. So you don't consider a fetus to have thoughts. I don't consider YOU to have thoughts. Doesn't mean I get to kill you, because technically, you're still alive, so in the eyes of the law, you have value.

Hopefully, the eyes of the law don't see value. Hopefully they see rights. In this case, though, the unborn have no rights. This is probably the result of the phrase in the Constituion that defines a citizen as one who is "born" in the USA. Not born? No rights.

Yes, the law sees value, because that is the reason that it recognizes rights in the first place.

You have to remember that laws are merely rules made by people, and people make those rules based on what they value. Stealing a bicycle is a relatlively minor crime. Grand theft auto is a major felony. Why? Because a car has more value than a bicycle. Likewise, it is illegal for me to coldbloodedly plan to kill someone for their money, but legal for me to kill someone who is trying to kill me. Why? Because the life of an upstanding citizen holds more value than the life of a criminal in the commission of a crime in the eyes of people, and therefore in the eyes of the law they made.

One of the reasons that abortion remains such a hot-button issue in our society is because the people didn't make that law. They had it forced on them by the courts. Consequently, it feels to both sides like unfinished business, a debate that hasn't been settled. That's because it HASN'T been settled.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I personally do not believe in abortion BUT I don't think the government has any business telling somebody what they can and can't do with their uterus. You cannot legislate morality. The abortion issue has been an issue nearly all of my life. I'm 57 and soon to be 58. I believe the solution to the problem is for somebody - be it a selected committee or done by a vote within the general population - to make a legal determination as to when life actually begins. Does it begin at conception or does it begin when the baby is expelled at birth. Once a determination as to when life actually begins can be made, then sensable laws regarding abortion can be formulated and at that time laws should be made concerning the protection of a fetus. A great many people believe that actual life begins at conception. I'm not saying that this is wrongful thinking but maybe life begins at birth. I think this is why we need a legal determination as to when actual life begins. I think it is truly a shameful thing for somebody to use abortion strickly for birth control purposes. I believe that to be morally wrong. I know all the arguements from both sides of the fence. I also don't feel that the right to abort should solely be the woman's choice. It takes two to tango. I'm not speaking about rape or those other special circumstances. Abortion is truly a "hot" issue and it will be for a long time until we make the determination as to when life begins.

Well, I'm glad you've covered all the mindless talking points, just for anyone out there who hasn't heard it all parroted ad nauseam before this.

1) This isn't about someone's uterus. No one is trying to legislate the ability to, say, have a hysterectomy. This is about killing another human being, and life is not real estate: it's not all about location, location, location.

2) You cannot legislate moral THOUGHT. But you CAN legislate moral BEHAVIOR. In point of fact, all laws do exactly that. That is their purpose for existing.

3) Science has already settled, from a purely scientific standpoint, when life begins. The solution is for those who claim to worship at the altar of science to start acting like it, instead of trying to make up bullshit smokescreen concepts like "personhood".

4) There is no scientific/medical reason to believe that life begins at birth. There are only emotion-driven rationalizations.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In abortion, the right to choose of the woman infringes on the right to live of the fetus IF THE FETUS IS A PERSON. In the Peterson case, Scott Peterson was convicted of double homocide by killing his pregnant wife. If the fetus is a person, he murdered it. If the fetus is not a person, he only killed it.

I'd be most interested in your interpretation of the distinction, since the 6th Commandment states "Thou shalt not kill."

My interpretation makes abslutely no difference in a legal sense. I was simply pointing to the dichotomy in our laws. This is the result of the pragamatism that has given such gems as Dred Scott, Plessy and Roe.

However, the difference to me is that killing is something that ends a life. Murder is something that ends a human life. If I cause my lawn to die, I killed it. If I cause my neighbor to die, I murdered him. Is that an accurate understanding? I'm no lawyer, it's just what I think.

Under our law, if we stop the developement of a fetus and the Mother to be disagrees with that goal, we have murdered her baby to be.

If she does agree with it, we have ended the developement. Is that killing it? A whole new can of worms.

Not quite. Murder is not a moral term. It is a legal term. Murder is the ILLEGAL taking of a human life. That is why a woman killing the man trying to rape her, for example, is not murder. So if you killed your neighbor while he was trimming the hedges, you've committed murder. If you kill your neighbor while he's attacking you with the hedge trimmers, you've only killed him.

 

[code1211]

I'd be most interested in your interpretation of the distinction, since the 6th Commandment states "Thou shalt not kill."

My interpretation makes abslutely no difference in a legal sense. I was simply pointing to the dichotomy in our laws. This is the result of the pragamatism that has given such gems as Dred Scott, Plessy and Roe.

However, the difference to me is that killing is something that ends a life. Murder is something that ends a human life. If I cause my lawn to die, I killed it. If I cause my neighbor to die, I murdered him. Is that an accurate understanding? I'm no lawyer, it's just what I think.

Under our law, if we stop the developement of a fetus and the Mother to be disagrees with that goal, we have murdered her baby to be.

If she does agree with it, we have ended the developement. Is that killing it? A whole new can of worms.

Not quite. Murder is not a moral term. It is a legal term. Murder is the ILLEGAL taking of a human life. That is why a woman killing the man trying to rape her, for example, is not murder. So if you killed your neighbor while he was trimming the hedges, you've committed murder. If you kill your neighbor while he's attacking you with the hedge trimmers, you've only killed him.

That's a much clearer and better analogy than mine. Thank you.