Abortion and Morality

And for those who thought that you couldn't possibly be wrong about everything you speak to, you have done it again.

In the case of seatbelts, there is actually law that covers it. Written, debated, legislated and duely voted on law. Not to be confused with a court decision.

I don't call names in lieu of argument topgun. I may goad you in the course of an argument, but don't resort to calling names because I am unable to rationally prove my point. Of course, I don't find myself unable to rationally prove my points, but that is a different argument.

You keep saying that you have daughters. So what? I have a daughter also but she has nothing to do with the discussion, and neither do your daughters. The fact that you have daughters doesn't distract or change the fact that you can't defend your position, or defend the constitutionality of roe.

You keep saying that but you can't defend it and to date, you have not expressed a single defense of it, much less "new" reasons to defend it. Simply stating that roe won does not constitute any sort of defense.

When roe was decided, there were no people sitting in jail having been charged with manslaughter and murder for killing unborns. At that time, there was no precedent for the personhood of unborns. That is no longer true. And personhood isn't a thing that is granted which is one of the fatal flaws in the framework of roe. In the eyes of the law, the only requirement for being a person is that one be a human being. The words are interchangable.

I didn't deny that it has been a clever campaign, but then making people believe one thing when something else entirely is going on is the hallmark of a clever campaign isn't it?

Would you deny that men get more and easier sex now than ever?

Of course they are. Law is written that specifically enumerates which right (the right to live) is being denied, why it is being denied (capital crimes are described) and from whom it is being denied (those found guilty of comitting capital crimes).

If one takes another's life, then one has forfieted one's right to live. Had the victim killed the killer, the victim would have been within his or her rights in the name of self defense and capital punishment is self defense for the rest of us.

How does that involve another person using your body against your will?

It still means that the right to live is not always primary. There are exceptions.

What you are saying then is that the right to live is not always primary. There are exceptions.

As I have always maintained, if an unborn represents a real and present threat to its mother's life or long term health, she has the right to defend her life. Executing convicted murderers is a self defense mechanism on behalf of the entire society.

All rights are secondary to your right to live up until the point that you are a real threat to someone eles's life. We have covered this ad nauseum and you aren't any more likely to defeat the point this time than you were on any of the dozen or so occasions that I have explained this to you before.

Face it coyote, my argument is iron clad and in order to hold a differing opinion, you have to accept that you are holding it in spite of obvious flaws in reasoning. If you are content to hold a position that you know has obvious flaws then by all means, hold it, but don't argue it as if it doesn't.

As I've said before, these arguments, from either side of the debate, are only ironclad up and to ones assumed moral imperatives and beliefs. I for one do not consider a fetus to be a human person until it is self-sustainable and viable. You don't agree, that's fine, but to me you're wrong, and to you I'm wrong. Nothing changes this... this thread can now be over, because we're all right in our arguments as per our beliefs on the subject. Stay in your box, I'll stay in mine... thank you come again.

My arguments are based in the law and reason, not morals.

It is completely irrelavent what you "consider" a fetus to be if I can provide credible science that states explicitly that they are human beings. Unless, of course, you can provide equally credible science that states explicitly that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being. By the way, I am quite confident that you can not.

Your position is faith based. You believe unborns are not human beings even though you can present no evidence to prove it and you disregard evidence that disproves it. Your argument is on par with, and no more valid than those of red faced bible thumpers. I know that you are wrong because I can prove you wrong. Your faith tells you that I am wrong, but you are entirely unable to prove it.

If you feel that you can invalidate any part of my argument using reason that can rightly be applied to all human beings rather than a particular group, by all means step up and do it. I am not interested in your faith based arguments though. They are unprovable and unsupportable.


I know that you wish offering up your uncorroborated and unsupported faith based arguments could "end" a thread so easily, but if you can't prove your position, you are just one more who is completely unable to assail my position in any way.

And...you've blatantly violated the challenge of the original post. Here it is, in case you forgot:

That's why the title of the thread is "Abortion and Morality."

I forgot nothing. I won that one as well. Why do you think that armchair general abandoned his own thread? He set the rules, laid out the parameters of the discussion, and lost it anyway but he, unlike many, knows when he has lost and doesn't continue to make a fool of himself.

Forget it. This isn't worth starting another derailing argument over.

I agree with your first statement. But - there are other means of handling convicted murderers and protecting society that don't inolve taking life.

We didn't really cover this. You just qualified your statement - up to the point...

There are other ways of protecting society that don't involve taking the convicted murderers life.

No. I'm seeing some flaws in yours. The right to life doesn't come first in all cases. There are exceptions.

Should I put together a small list of people who were convicted of killing that were let out of prison only to kill again? It happens far too often. And life without the possibility of parole only means something as long as there are no bleeding heart liberals who are willing to convince someone that they are changed and rehabilitated and should be let out. In short, it means nothing.

Maybe you should tell that to the families of victims of killers who were imprisoned and then let out. Explain to them how the idea of imprisioning and rehabilitating them is in the best interest of society.

Like I said, all rights are secondary to your right to live right up to the point that you threaten someone elses. If it is a flaw in my argument, by all means, do your best to exploit it.

By the way, those "exceptions" as you like to call them, are enumerated in excruciating detail in the form of law legislated by our duely elected representatives. No such law has been written in the case of abortion.

If you believe that you have a point to make, by all means try and make it. These threads go from one derailing to another so don't let that stop you if you believe that you have a valid point to make.

That's not the point. Your premise is life is life... killing is killing. We have a legal system that puts people to death. Has even put innocent people to death. In an imperfect world you have to be allowed to make some choices. And that's exactly what our legal system does.

In addition there's no denying that we militarily commit collateral damage all the time killing innocent women & children knowing full well it's going to happen. We weigh the ambition of getting the "enemy" against the predictable, inevitable loss of innocent lives. And of course the law totally allows for it.

Well then you have no grounds for killing in many allowed situations... of which just a couple of have been posted above. The innocent man wrongly put to death or the woman or the little child who dies from colateral damage isn't threatening anybody. It was a matter of......... what.............here it comes............CHOICE!

Enforce or change the law so that life means life in prison. One can also argue that innocent people have been executed but that's a whole 'nother debate.

In the end - it still doesn't change the fact that the right to life is not always primary.

Now who's throwing emotion into the debate?

UP TO A POINT. And that point isn't even just self defense anymore or even a direct threat to another life - just a possible threat. Incarceration for life would deal with the threat. There are exceptions to when the right to life is primary.

I don't think it matters. It is still clear that there are exceptions to the primacy of the right to life. I think rape is another such exception.

If an innocent man has ever been executed by the state, he at least has had his due process.

And if a child dies in war when no one intended to kill him or her, then exactly who do you blame? If a soldier targets the child and kills it, then the soldier should rightly be charged for murder.

Don't you find it telling that you are reduced to comparing unborns to casualties of war and convicted murderers in an attempt to make your invalid point? If I ever found myself in such a weak position that I had to make such comparisons, I would reconsider my position as it would obviously be indefensible.

A change in the law is meaningless. Life is a long time (if your mother doesn't kill you that is) and the political landscape changes. There will always be a certain group working endlessly to let killers out of jail and they always succeed to a degree.

And the 14th amendment only promises due process. It doesn't promise that a jury will always make the right decision or that the evidence might make an overwhelming case against you.

Of course it is; right up to the time you become a threat to someone else's life.

Is the point true or not? Is it an appeal to emotion that has no bearing on the point it was to address? If so, then you have a valid complaint. If not, what are you complaining about?

History makes it clear that incarceration for life doesn't prevent killers from getting out to kill again. And capital punishment is a just punishment for someone who has, with forethought and malice, taken the life of another.

And there are no exceptions coyote. Your argument has failed. If, for no other reason that you have been reduced to comparing unborns to convicted killers in an attempt to make some sort of point that I doubt that even you could describe accurately.

Look at the laws coyote. They answer your question and expose the weakness of your argument.

And I don't have a problem with making violent rape a capital crime. Killing a child for the crimes of his father, however, is not a rational response to the crime.

Killing innocents is killing innocents. Trying to say it's the "procedure" to do that that makes it OK is more than weak it's perposterous... but you know that.

Nice wiggle but you're not citing what I said... but you know that. When the military plans a bombing raid they have a predetermined "assessment" (keep in mind my wife ex-US Army Military Intelligence). That "assessment already has factored in collateral damage and loss of life to innocent civilians.

There is nothing unforeseen about it... but you know that too. Again you cite the procedure to kill as you like as an allowable reason.

And we haven't even got to the situation where drafted soldiers adamantly against war some who even tried but were denied conscientious objector status have been forced by the government to kill. And of course the list of good examples goes on... but you know that.

I think what we find telling for all to see is the leaking sieve of your reasoning. The picking and choosing of just how and who you think should be in your words "killed". It appears as long as you are allowed to be the arbitrator of death things are fine.

Innocent wrongly convicted people... fine. The women and little children unfortunate enough to be in the proximity of a bombing run... fine. People forced to kill by the government when they absolutely do not want to... fine. And of course this is just the short list.

It would be a much more obtainable goal and much fairer to women to fight your overwhelming temptation to dominate and control women with your wish list of female control policies over what they are allowed to do with their own bodies, and maybe focus on some man decisions of killing of innocents... as you like to put it.

It's not hard to see the irony. You would immediately pull the Birth Control Pill off the market if you could ever have your way because it prevents the progress "kills" 2 cells. Bombing and killing a 2 year old, a young mother or an old lady you brush off with... Well, even if we know it's going to happen in advance as we weren't specifically targeting them alone it's fine.

Weak my brother... very, very weak.

Nice rant. But completely irrelavent. It does nothing to invalidate any part of my position, that being:

Unborns are human beings.

Human beings have a right to live.

All rights are secondary to the right to live.

Your whole statement is nothing more than an hysterical appeal to emotion. Let me know when you develop a real argument.

Comparing war to one woman deciding to kill her child. That isn't even a good try top gun.

And you should stay away from any comparisons to the judicial system. There is no question with regard to a woman's guilt if she has an abortion, and no doubt that she may do so without legal consequence because of an unconstitutional decision that in essence said that she could do so because what she was killing was not a human being.