USMB Abortion poll

[pwjohn]

I can only logically support abortions in cases where they can be legally and Constitutionally (even if not morally) justified to save the pregnant woman's life.

This would include cases where an abortion is deemed necessary by medical doctors to defend a mother's life and would (conditionally) include most cases where the woman was raped.

In conjunction with the above, medical doctors would be LEGALLY required to do everything they can do to preserve and protect any and all of the lives they are presented with.

Mother's life always takes precedence.

What legal and Cosntitutional basis do you have to support the claim that the "mother's life always takes precedence?"

The way I read it, the Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws.

It's an assertion with as much right as is yours.

Since it was your affirmation, please answer yourself the last sentence of your post above.

I have no obligation to refute an assertion with concrete evidence. You must provide concrete evidence to support your assertion.

Of course, you are not obligated to support your assertion

I can't force you to explain how your claim is supported by the concept of "equal rights" as required by the Constitution, either.

That said, I can't imagine why you would make such a claim and then not support it with something / anything in the way of a legal document or precedent.

The mark of a true troll..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Got it, because there is no need to debate. You don't have the courts, you don't have the votes.

Just because something is legal does not make it morally or biologically right.

But you are free to hold your views and I am free to hold mine. As with all societal issues, the society as a whole should decide what the society considers right and wrong, and those views can change over time.

You and I won't solve this or agree on it. We will see what our society decides over time. Until then, you are just pissing into the wind.

Nope. We disagree. I think you are wrong. That's the end of it.

 

[Chuz Life]

I can only logically support abortions in cases where they can be legally and Constitutionally (even if not morally) justified to save the pregnant woman's life.

This would include cases where an abortion is deemed necessary by medical doctors to defend a mother's life and would (conditionally) include most cases where the woman was raped.

In conjunction with the above, medical doctors would be LEGALLY required to do everything they can do to preserve and protect any and all of the lives they are presented with.

Mother's life always takes precedence.

What legal and Cosntitutional basis do you have to support the claim that the "mother's life always takes precedence?"

The way I read it, the Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws.

So, what's the right thing to do in such a case? Let the mother die? Let both the mother and fetus die? Or abort the fetus to save the mother?

Recognizing the fact that abortions are sometimes deemed necessary to "save the mothers life" is a long way from making the claim that the mother's life ALWAYS takes precedence.

Do you disagree?

 

[Chuz Life]

"Conception was the event and the moment" a fetus became a fetus. Nothing more.

that's your OPINION. nothing more.

Question: do other people's opinions count, or is only yours valid?

It's your opinion and nothing more.

That's the point.

exactly, the abortion issue is the one issue where both sides refuse to compromise. Either an unborn child is a human being or its not.

you use the word "fetus" as if that makes it something less than human. But you also say that abortion should be allowed only early in a pregnancy.

So, tell us what magically happens at month 6 or 7 that changes it from a fetus to a person. this is the heart of the issue, you need to offer a cogent answer or STFU.

A fetus by definition is less than human. If it's not fully developed than it's not a human any more than a tadpole is a frog.

I believe the first trimester should be the only window for elective procedures mostly because I think it will protect choice going foreward by eliminating part of the arguments from lifers.

Biology 101

Tadpoles and frogs undergo metamorpohis where they live as separate and independent organisms within their life cycle.

Human beings (as most if not all other mammals) do not.

So, to compare a child in the womb to a tadpole is to compare apples to oranges.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Chuz, stop lying.

 

[Chuz Life]

that's your OPINION. nothing more.

Question: do other people's opinions count, or is only yours valid?

It's your opinion and nothing more.

That's the point.

exactly, the abortion issue is the one issue where both sides refuse to compromise. Either an unborn child is a human being or its not.

you use the word "fetus" as if that makes it something less than human. But you also say that abortion should be allowed only early in a pregnancy.

So, tell us what magically happens at month 6 or 7 that changes it from a fetus to a person. this is the heart of the issue, you need to offer a cogent answer or STFU.

A fetus by definition is less than human. If it's not fully developed than it's not a human any more than a tadpole is a frog.

that's your opinion, nothing more.

No it's science. That's why there are different names for each stage of development.

The different names is to differentiate what stage of life the child / human is in.

Just because a human being in the fetal stage of their life can be called a "fetus" - that doesn't take anything away from the fact that they are a human being / human organism.

Likewise for "toddlers" and "adults."

 

[Chuz Life]

It's your opinion and nothing more.

That's the point.

exactly, the abortion issue is the one issue where both sides refuse to compromise. Either an unborn child is a human being or its not.

you use the word "fetus" as if that makes it something less than human. But you also say that abortion should be allowed only early in a pregnancy.

So, tell us what magically happens at month 6 or 7 that changes it from a fetus to a person. this is the heart of the issue, you need to offer a cogent answer or STFU.

A fetus by definition is less than human. If it's not fully developed than it's not a human any more than a tadpole is a frog.

that's your opinion, nothing more.

No it's science. That's why there are different names for each stage of development.

there is no scientific proof of when life begins. The Chinese consider a person to be a year old at birth. Are they wrong?

Our US laws charge a person who murders a pregnant woman with two counts of murder. Are our laws wrong?

It's a pity we can't expect the pro-aborts to put any real thought into that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A fetus is not in a linear progression with baby and toddler and so forth.

 

[Chuz Life]

I can only logically support abortions in cases where they can be legally and Constitutionally (even if not morally) justified to save the pregnant woman's life.

This would include cases where an abortion is deemed necessary by medical doctors to defend a mother's life and would (conditionally) include most cases where the woman was raped.

In conjunction with the above, medical doctors would be LEGALLY required to do everything they can do to preserve and protect any and all of the lives they are presented with.

Mother's life always takes precedence.

What legal and Cosntitutional basis do you have to support the claim that the "mother's life always takes precedence?"

The way I read it, the Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws.

It's an assertion with as much right as is yours.

Since it was your affirmation, please answer yourself the last sentence of your post above.

I have no obligation to refute an assertion with concrete evidence. You must provide concrete evidence to support your assertion.

Of course, you are not obligated to support your assertion

I can't force you to explain how your claim is supported by the concept of "equal rights" as required by the Constitution, either.

That said, I can't imagine why you would make such a claim and then not support it with something / anything in the way of a legal document or precedent.

The mark of a true troll..

The only thing I ever troll for is intellectual honesty and a true consideration of the evidence presented.

If I may say so, you don't seem up for the challenge.

 

[Redfish]

exactly, the abortion issue is the one issue where both sides refuse to compromise. Either an unborn child is a human being or its not.

you use the word "fetus" as if that makes it something less than human. But you also say that abortion should be allowed only early in a pregnancy.

So, tell us what magically happens at month 6 or 7 that changes it from a fetus to a person. this is the heart of the issue, you need to offer a cogent answer or STFU.

A fetus by definition is less than human. If it's not fully developed than it's not a human any more than a tadpole is a frog.

that's your opinion, nothing more.

No it's science. That's why there are different names for each stage of development.

there is no scientific proof of when life begins. The Chinese consider a person to be a year old at birth. Are they wrong?

Our US laws charge a person who murders a pregnant woman with two counts of murder. Are our laws wrong?

No, pretty much just you.

typical lib reply, when you have no answer, hurl shit.

 

[Borillar]

I can only logically support abortions in cases where they can be legally and Constitutionally (even if not morally) justified to save the pregnant woman's life.

This would include cases where an abortion is deemed necessary by medical doctors to defend a mother's life and would (conditionally) include most cases where the woman was raped.

In conjunction with the above, medical doctors would be LEGALLY required to do everything they can do to preserve and protect any and all of the lives they are presented with.

Mother's life always takes precedence.

What legal and Cosntitutional basis do you have to support the claim that the "mother's life always takes precedence?"

The way I read it, the Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws.

So, what's the right thing to do in such a case? Let the mother die? Let both the mother and fetus die? Or abort the fetus to save the mother?

Recognizing the fact that abortions are sometimes deemed necessary to "save the mothers life" is a long way from making the claim that the mother's life ALWAYS takes precedence.

Do you disagree?

I'm trying to think of a situation where I'd put the life of a fetus above the life of the mother, but I can't come up with any. Can you please describe such a situation where the life of a fetus would take precedence over the life of the mother?

 

[Redfish]

I can only logically support abortions in cases where they can be legally and Constitutionally (even if not morally) justified to save the pregnant woman's life.

This would include cases where an abortion is deemed necessary by medical doctors to defend a mother's life and would (conditionally) include most cases where the woman was raped.

In conjunction with the above, medical doctors would be LEGALLY required to do everything they can do to preserve and protect any and all of the lives they are presented with.

Mother's life always takes precedence.

What legal and Cosntitutional basis do you have to support the claim that the "mother's life always takes precedence?"

The way I read it, the Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws.

So, what's the right thing to do in such a case? Let the mother die? Let both the mother and fetus die? Or abort the fetus to save the mother?

Recognizing the fact that abortions are sometimes deemed necessary to "save the mothers life" is a long way from making the claim that the mother's life ALWAYS takes precedence.

Do you disagree?

I'm trying to think of a situation where I'd put the life of a fetus above the life of the mother, but I can't come up with any. Can you please describe such a situation where the life of a fetus would take precedence over the life of the mother?

the mother is brain dead and on life support.

 

[Chuz Life]

I can only logically support abortions in cases where they can be legally and Constitutionally (even if not morally) justified to save the pregnant woman's life.

This would include cases where an abortion is deemed necessary by medical doctors to defend a mother's life and would (conditionally) include most cases where the woman was raped.

In conjunction with the above, medical doctors would be LEGALLY required to do everything they can do to preserve and protect any and all of the lives they are presented with.

Mother's life always takes precedence.

What legal and Cosntitutional basis do you have to support the claim that the "mother's life always takes precedence?"

The way I read it, the Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws.

So, what's the right thing to do in such a case? Let the mother die? Let both the mother and fetus die? Or abort the fetus to save the mother?

Recognizing the fact that abortions are sometimes deemed necessary to "save the mothers life" is a long way from making the claim that the mother's life ALWAYS takes precedence.

Do you disagree?

I'm trying to think of a situation where I'd put the life of a fetus above the life of the mother, but I can't come up with any. Can you please describe such a situation where the life of a fetus would take precedence over the life of the mother?

Yes.

There are cases (though rare ) where a pregnant woman's body has been kept Alive on life support. . . Just long enough to buy time to save her child.

I have added too. That my comment is mainly that we are all supposed to have equal rights and protections. So I disagree
With absolute claims that any one person or class of persons automatically is given preference over any other class or group of individuals.

 

[Borillar]

Mother's life always takes precedence.

What legal and Cosntitutional basis do you have to support the claim that the "mother's life always takes precedence?"

The way I read it, the Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws.

So, what's the right thing to do in such a case? Let the mother die? Let both the mother and fetus die? Or abort the fetus to save the mother?

Recognizing the fact that abortions are sometimes deemed necessary to "save the mothers life" is a long way from making the claim that the mother's life ALWAYS takes precedence.

Do you disagree?

I'm trying to think of a situation where I'd put the life of a fetus above the life of the mother, but I can't come up with any. Can you please describe such a situation where the life of a fetus would take precedence over the life of the mother?

Yes.

There are cases (though rare ) where a pregnant woman's body has been kept Alive on life support. . . Just long enough to buy time to save her child.

Ah, a Terry Schaivo situation. OK, I can understand and agree with that.

 

[Chuz Life]

What legal and Cosntitutional basis do you have to support the claim that the "mother's life always takes precedence?"

The way I read it, the Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws.

So, what's the right thing to do in such a case? Let the mother die? Let both the mother and fetus die? Or abort the fetus to save the mother?

Recognizing the fact that abortions are sometimes deemed necessary to "save the mothers life" is a long way from making the claim that the mother's life ALWAYS takes precedence.

Do you disagree?

I'm trying to think of a situation where I'd put the life of a fetus above the life of the mother, but I can't come up with any. Can you please describe such a situation where the life of a fetus would take precedence over the life of the mother?

Yes.

There are cases (though rare ) where a pregnant woman's body has been kept Alive on life support. . . Just long enough to buy time to save her child.

Ah, a Terry Schaivo situation. OK, I can understand and agree with that.

Those and cases where women often forgo potentially life saving treatments because they don't want to lose a child.

My own mother had leukemia when she was carrying my brother, for example.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those women rightfully had the authority to make their own choices.

 

[Chuz Life]

How neat. This site offers an ignore function. Works good too.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

"Conception was the event and the moment" a fetus became a fetus. Nothing more.

that's your OPINION. nothing more.

Question: do other people's opinions count, or is only yours valid?

It's your opinion and nothing more.

That's the point.

exactly, the abortion issue is the one issue where both sides refuse to compromise. Either an unborn child is a human being or its not.

you use the word "fetus" as if that makes it something less than human. But you also say that abortion should be allowed only early in a pregnancy.

So, tell us what magically happens at month 6 or 7 that changes it from a fetus to a person. this is the heart of the issue, you need to offer a cogent answer or STFU.

A fetus by definition is less than human. If it's not fully developed than it's not a human any more than a tadpole is a frog.

I believe the first trimester should be the only window for elective procedures mostly because I think it will protect choice going foreward by eliminating part of the arguments from lifers.

Biology 101

Tadpoles and frogs undergo metamorpohis where they live as separate and independent organisms within their life cycle.

Human beings (as most if not all other mammals) do not.

So, to compare a child in the womb to a tadpole is to compare apples to oranges.

The point was the process is unfinished. Not the type of process . Nice try though.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's your opinion and nothing more.

That's the point.

exactly, the abortion issue is the one issue where both sides refuse to compromise. Either an unborn child is a human being or its not.

you use the word "fetus" as if that makes it something less than human. But you also say that abortion should be allowed only early in a pregnancy.

So, tell us what magically happens at month 6 or 7 that changes it from a fetus to a person. this is the heart of the issue, you need to offer a cogent answer or STFU.

A fetus by definition is less than human. If it's not fully developed than it's not a human any more than a tadpole is a frog.

that's your opinion, nothing more.

No it's science. That's why there are different names for each stage of development.

The different names is to differentiate what stage of life the child / human is in.

Just because a human being in the fetal stage of their life can be called a "fetus" - that doesn't take anything away from the fact that they are a human being / human organism.

Likewise for "toddlers" and "adults."

No. Stage of development is stage of development not a stage of life and not like anything like "toddlers and adults".

 

[Hutch Starskey]

A fetus by definition is less than human. If it's not fully developed than it's not a human any more than a tadpole is a frog.

that's your opinion, nothing more.

No it's science. That's why there are different names for each stage of development.

there is no scientific proof of when life begins. The Chinese consider a person to be a year old at birth. Are they wrong?

Our US laws charge a person who murders a pregnant woman with two counts of murder. Are our laws wrong?

No, pretty much just you.

typical lib reply, when you have no answer, hurl shit.

You hurled the shit. I responded accordingly.