True conservatives are pro-choice

[JBeukema]

Can we not acknowledge that it is morally troublesome to tell a woman that her rights of action (rights which do involve -- to a very large extent -- her own body) must take some back seat to the right of the pre-born person to life? I, for one, cannot pretend that such concerns are "minor." In my view, they are huge and significant.

My right to do as I wish with my body is limited. I may not use my body to harm another person, such as by striking them. Nor am I permitted to strap a bomb to myself and blow myself up in the middle of Times Square on New Years Eve.

Abortion involves the termination of a human life (save for such instances as Stone Foetus and the like, of course) and therefore is subject to similar restrictions.

 

[JBeukema]

Abortion is death, nobody deserves to die, the least of all, those living inside the womb, its torture, pure and simple, abortion is torture.

And what would you call forced pregnancy?

If someone keeps you prisoner, rapes you, and impregnates you, then we can talk.

Until then, your failure to avoid pregnancy due to your own irresponsibility is not an excuse for homicide. If you're big enough to fuck, you're big enough to be responsible for your decisions in life.

 

[JBeukema]

The only thing clear is there is no compromise with the leftist liberal marxist activists.

You can't be both a Liberal and a Marxist.

The two are mutually exclusive.

 

[JBeukema]

A state can't make rules that take away constitutionally protected rights. End.

Protected. Not granted.

Maybe there's hope for you after all.

I'll take that as your concession.

You're an idiot

 

[JBeukema]

I think that a more objective way of determining the whether a fetus is an individual is by it's DNA:

When a fetus has DNA that is unique from taht of it's mother, it is an individual.

I don't know exactly when that is. It may be within minutes of conception or weeks.

You fail sex ed...

Also, what if the child is the result of cloning using the nucleus of one of the mother's cells and the ovum of her lesbian partner?

 

[JBeukema]

The issue of abortion should not be a political issue, it should be entirely a judicial issue. It's simple:

If the Fetus is an individual, then they deserve to be protected under the Constitution, if it is not an individual then it does not deserve to be protected under the constitution.

The question really is: "What constitues an individual"?

Though my memory is vague, I believe that in 1974, the courts decided that "viability" was the criteria for determining the point at which the fetus wa sconsidered an individual.

I personally think that "viability" is a lousy standard - totally subjective.

Since 1974, technology has advanced and with it our ability to understand life.

I think that a more objective way of determining the whether a fetus is an individual is by it's DNA:

When a fetus has DNA that is unique from taht of it's mother, it is an individual.

I don't know exactly when that is. It may be within minutes of conception or weeks.

biologically, it has it's own DNA at conception

not necessarily

 

[JBeukema]

False.

True conservatives also recognize that the securing of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the role of government. True conservatives recognize that there are times where some interests overlap and come into conflict.

Thus, a true conservative might very well believe that the government has an obligation to preserve the life of the pre-born.

This is correct.
The only time you have the right to end a human life in in self-defense.
Abortion on demand is not self-defense.
:shrug:

Define: self-defense

What about ectopic pregnancies that don't self-terminate?

 

[DiveCon]

The issue of abortion should not be a political issue, it should be entirely a judicial issue. It's simple:

If the Fetus is an individual, then they deserve to be protected under the Constitution, if it is not an individual then it does not deserve to be protected under the constitution.

The question really is: "What constitues an individual"?

Though my memory is vague, I believe that in 1974, the courts decided that "viability" was the criteria for determining the point at which the fetus wa sconsidered an individual.

I personally think that "viability" is a lousy standard - totally subjective.

Since 1974, technology has advanced and with it our ability to understand life.

I think that a more objective way of determining the whether a fetus is an individual is by it's DNA:

When a fetus has DNA that is unique from taht of it's mother, it is an individual.

I don't know exactly when that is. It may be within minutes of conception or weeks.

biologically, it has it's own DNA at conception

not necessarily

in that case it would also
the point of mixing the two would be the point of conception

 

[JBeukema]

biologically, it has it's own DNA at conception

not necessarily

in that case it would also
the point of mixing the two would be the point of conception

I was simply pointing out that mother and child would have the same DNA.

Forever.


Proving the fallaciousness of your and rich's posts.

 

[JBeukema]

biologically, it has it's own DNA at conception

not necessarily

in that case it would also

Nope. It would have the same DNA as momma.


Well... depending on the methodology, it might be only ~98% identical or it could be 100% But for the sake of argument, let us assume the latter. By your reasoning and Rich's, the child would never be an individual with rights.

 

[DiveCon]

not necessarily

in that case it would also

Nope. It would have the same DNA as momma.


Well... depending on the methodology, it might be only ~98% identical or it could be 100% But for the sake of argument, let us assume the latter. By your reasoning and Rich's, the child would never be an individual with rights.

and her lesbian partner
so it would be a unique DNA of its own

the only way it would be identical is if they used 2 of her own eggs

 

[JBeukema]

in that case it would also

Nope. It would have the same DNA as momma.


Well... depending on the methodology, it might be only ~98% identical or it could be 100% But for the sake of argument, let us assume the latter. By your reasoning and Rich's, the child would never be an individual with rights.

and her lesbian partner
so it would be a unique DNA of its own

the only way it would be identical is if they used 2 of her own eggs

Okay, so let us assume they used one of her eggs and one of her cells.

And got around the problems they had with Dolly.

Can we stop arguing over the feasibility of the experiment and deal with the implications of your and rich's argument as highlighted by the hypothetical scenario in question?

I'm asking about the forest and you want to argue about one of the 'trees' actually being fern.

 

[DiveCon]

Nope. It would have the same DNA as momma.


Well... depending on the methodology, it might be only ~98% identical or it could be 100% But for the sake of argument, let us assume the latter. By your reasoning and Rich's, the child would never be an individual with rights.

and her lesbian partner
so it would be a unique DNA of its own

the only way it would be identical is if they used 2 of her own eggs

Okay, so let us assume they used one of her eggs and one of her cells.

And got around the problems they had with Dolly.

Can we stop arguing over the feasibility of the experiment and deal with the implications of your and rich's argument as highlighted by the hypothetical scenario in question?

I'm asking about the forest and you want to argue about one of the 'trees' actually being fern.

but thats not the case
even if they used 2 eggs of the mother, while the DNA would be identical, it would still be a separate individual
this is not arguing the forrest vs trees
even if the DNA is an exact match of the mother, it still wouldnt BE her
look in the case of identical twins, they share the exact same DNA but are still separate individuals

 

[Missourian]

The issue of abortion should not be a political issue, it should be entirely a judicial issue. It's simple:

If the Fetus is an individual, then they deserve to be protected under the Constitution, if it is not an individual then it does not deserve to be protected under the constitution.

The question really is: "What constitues an individual"?

The issue of slavery should not be a political issue, it should be entirely a judicial issue. It's simple:

If the slave is a citizen, then they deserve to be protected under the Constitution, if they are not a citizen then they do not deserve to be protected under the constitution.

The question really is: "What constitutes a citizen"?

The judicial decision?

Dred Scott v. Sanford...1857.

 

[JBeukema]

and her lesbian partner
so it would be a unique DNA of its own

the only way it would be identical is if they used 2 of her own eggs

Okay, so let us assume they used one of her eggs and one of her cells.

And got around the problems they had with Dolly.

Can we stop arguing over the feasibility of the experiment and deal with the implications of your and rich's argument as highlighted by the hypothetical scenario in question?

I'm asking about the forest and you want to argue about one of the 'trees' actually being fern.

but thats not the case
even if they used 2 eggs of the mother, while the DNA would be identical, it would still be a separate individual
this is not arguing the forrest vs trees
even if the DNA is an exact match of the mother, it still wouldnt BE her
look in the case of identical twins, they share the exact same DNA but are still separate individuals

That's not the argument that Richard made and you seemed to have seconded

I think that a more objective way of determining the whether a fetus is an individual is by it's DNA:

When a fetus has DNA that is unique from taht of it's mother, it is an individual.
.

Was I mistaken in believing you had agreed with him?

 

[DiveCon]

Okay, so let us assume they used one of her eggs and one of her cells.

And got around the problems they had with Dolly.

Can we stop arguing over the feasibility of the experiment and deal with the implications of your and rich's argument as highlighted by the hypothetical scenario in question?

I'm asking about the forest and you want to argue about one of the 'trees' actually being fern.

but thats not the case
even if they used 2 eggs of the mother, while the DNA would be identical, it would still be a separate individual
this is not arguing the forrest vs trees
even if the DNA is an exact match of the mother, it still wouldnt BE her
look in the case of identical twins, they share the exact same DNA but are still separate individuals

That's not the argument that Richard made and you seemed to have seconded

I think that a more objective way of determining the whether a fetus is an individual is by it's DNA:

When a fetus has DNA that is unique from taht of it's mother, it is an individual.
.

Was I mistaken in believing you had agreed with him?

no, i was NOT agreeing with that
every child has its OWN DNA
even twins

 

[DiveCon]

The issue of abortion should not be a political issue, it should be entirely a judicial issue. It's simple:

If the Fetus is an individual, then they deserve to be protected under the Constitution, if it is not an individual then it does not deserve to be protected under the constitution.

The question really is: "What constitues an individual"?

Though my memory is vague, I believe that in 1974, the courts decided that "viability" was the criteria for determining the point at which the fetus wa sconsidered an individual.

I personally think that "viability" is a lousy standard - totally subjective.

Since 1974, technology has advanced and with it our ability to understand life.

I think that a more objective way of determining the whether a fetus is an individual is by it's DNA:

When a fetus has DNA that is unique from taht of it's mother, it is an individual.

I don't know exactly when that is. It may be within minutes of conception or weeks.

biologically, it has it's own DNA at conception

how can anyone think my post was agreeing with Rich-H is beyond me
i said a child has its OWN DNA at conception

 

[JBeukema]

The issue of abortion should not be a political issue, it should be entirely a judicial issue. It's simple:

If the Fetus is an individual, then they deserve to be protected under the Constitution, if it is not an individual then it does not deserve to be protected under the constitution.

The question really is: "What constitues an individual"?

Though my memory is vague, I believe that in 1974, the courts decided that "viability" was the criteria for determining the point at which the fetus wa sconsidered an individual.

I personally think that "viability" is a lousy standard - totally subjective.

Since 1974, technology has advanced and with it our ability to understand life.

I think that a more objective way of determining the whether a fetus is an individual is by it's DNA:

When a fetus has DNA that is unique from taht of it's mother, it is an individual.

I don't know exactly when that is. It may be within minutes of conception or weeks.

biologically, it has it's own DNA at conception

how can anyone think my post was agreeing with Rich-H is beyond me
i said a child has its OWN DNA at conception

I assumed you meant it's own unique DNA.

And that that made it an individual- per Richard's argument, which I thought you were giving a nod.

oh well. Pretty sure it's not the first misunderstanding in history [Was she saying 'no! Don't! Stop!' or No, don't stop!'?]

moving along, then

 

[Wingsofwind]

Both are, by definition, homicide

S: (n) homicide (the killing of a human being by another human being)

Care to explain the difference?

The probem with the definition you use is that one can use this to say someone protecting themselves by killing their attacker is commiting homicide.

They are. By definition.

Also to say a woman that gets an abortion because her life is in danger if she continues the pregnancy is saying she is commiting homicide by protecting herself.

She is. By definition.

So when is 'the killing of a human being by another human being' NOT homicide?

Never. That's the fucking definition of homicide, you illiterate twit.

Name calling will NOT make you look any more smarter.

And by definition it may be homicide however it would be called 'Non-criminal homicide'. The way you are trying to make it look is that homicide is a criminal act no matter how you look at it. To post a word and then a 'short' definition is misleading expecally the way you did it. The homicide you are trying to say abortion is would be 'Criminal homicide'

But, if you want to get even more technical, of which you seem to like to do, then even 'Criminal homicide' would not work in the case of abortion. Seeing that abortion is not illegal it can not be considered 'Criminal homicide'. It could however be considered 'State-sanctioned homicide' due to the fact that the laws on abortion are made by the states. If the woman is in danger like I said before then it can be considered 'Non-criminal homicide'. If she is not in danger then it is a different kind of homicide.

Next time you may try to explain what it is you are really refering to a bit better. Posting a word and only one part of the definition makes YOU look like the illiterate one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-criminal homicide: Homicides do not always involve a crime. Sometimes the law allows homicide by allowing certain defenses to criminal charges. One of the most recognized is self defense, which provides that a person is entitled to commit homicide to protect his or her own life from a deadly attack. For example, if a police officer confronts a suspect armed with a dangerous or deadly weapon, the officer may use force to stop the suspect. If this force ends up killing the suspect it is still considered a homicide, which in this case, is not illegal under Tennessee v. Garner.

State-sanctioned homicide: Homicides may also be non-criminal when conducted with the sanction of the state. The most obvious example is capital punishment, in which the state determines that a person should die. Homicides committed in action during war are usually not subject to criminal prosecution either. In addition, members of law enforcement entities are also allowed to commit justified homicides within certain parameters which, when met, do not usually result in prosecution; see deadly force.

Criminal homicide: Criminal homicide takes several forms and is not always an intentional crime. What type of crime committed in a homicide is determined by the state of mind of the defendant and statutes defining the crime. Murder, for example, is an intentional crime the severity of which is classified by degrees in statute. In some jurisdictions, certain types of murders automatically qualify for capital punishment[8], but if the defendant in capital cases is mentally retarded in the United States they may not be executed, for reasons described in Atkins v. Virginia, similar to those utilizing an insanity defense.

Also, a homicide that occurs during the commission of a felony may give rise to the crime of felony murder, or otherwise known as the felony murder rule. This can depend on the case, court and jurisdiction. Briefly, the felony murder rule allows those who kill or "accidentally" kill during felonies to be prosecuted with first-degree murder, even if they did not intentionally or plan premeditatively to kill anyone. This can apply not only to innocent bystanders or targets to the crime who are killed, but co-felons who are killed as well.

Additionally under homicide there are voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. These differ from murder in that voluntary manslaughter requires provocation. Involuntary manslaughter is completely unintentional, such as a car or hunting accidents. Some jurisdictions define the crime as a separate name in automobile accidents, and the Model Penal Code, which is referred to as a legal text (in limited active use), also defines the crime of negligent homicide as a killing committed negligently.
Assisting or helping in someone's suicide is also a crime, as demonstrated in California Penal Code Sec. 401[9]. If aid progresses beyond mere passive assistance, it may be re-classified as murder.

 

[Wingsofwind]

False.

True conservatives also recognize that the securing of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the role of government. True conservatives recognize that there are times where some interests overlap and come into conflict.

Thus, a true conservative might very well believe that the government has an obligation to preserve the life of the pre-born.

This is correct.
The only time you have the right to end a human life in in self-defense.
Abortion on demand is not self-defense.
:shrug:

Define: self-defense

What about ectopic pregnancies that don't self-terminate?

Self-defense, self-defence (see spelling differences) or private defence is a countermeasure that involves defending oneself, one's property or the well-being of another from physical harm.[1] The use of the right of self-defense as a legal justification for the use of force in times of danger is available in many jurisdictions, but the interpretation varies widely.[2] To be acquitted of any kind of physical harm-related crime (such as assault and battery and homicide) using the self-defense justification, one must prove legal provocation, meaning that one must prove that they were in a position where not using self-defense would most likely lead to death, serious injuries and property damage.

An abortion to save the life of the mother would fall under self defense.

Ectopic pregnancies that don't self-terminate could still put the woman in danger of her own life. No one can say it will 'kill' her, but the risk is still there. A doctor would have to say if it is a high risk or not. If the doctor determans that it is a very high risk then, for the woman's protection, and abortion my be considered self defense.