Abortion and Morality

[palerider]

You're entitled to your opinion. I personally don't like seatbelt laws for adults much. I think it's a good idea but I don't think an adult should be pulled over and fined for not wearing one. All that said I obey the law and I understand that law, although I personally don't agree with it, it has been adjudicated and a binding decision has been made.

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.

It's never been a goal of mine to "attack" you personally. I many instances you come across as let's say... overbearing and I have no problem confronting you in kind. I also feel that it's honorable to support the women in America. Hey, I have two daughters in their 20's. My sister in law is a past president of the Illinois chapter of NOW. That just happens in this case to bring us to loggerheads.

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.

It's a correct decision. It's the standing ruling. Maybe if it changes I'll have to come up with new reasons to defend it. For now I'm just in agreement.

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.

You must somehow be misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm saying you've said many times that one of the reasons Roe stands is because "personhood is not being granted" in that decision. I'm not disagreeing with you.

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.

 

[palerider]

It's unfortunate that you refuse see that it's women that most want the right to choose and access to the Birth Control Pill for innumerable good reasons. I think the most telling thing is this. If "women" were the ones being "victimized" by Roe they probably wouldn't be the ones in organized support of it... just a thought.

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?

 

[palerider]

Where in our legal system does anyone have the right to appropriate and use another person's body against their will?

All rights are not secondary to the right to live when it comes to capital punishment.

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.

 

[Coyote]

How about the prohibition on the use of illegal substances?

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

Nope.

Capital punishment crimes are those that relate to the rights of others to live.

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

 

[Coyote]

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.

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

 

[palerider]

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.

 

[r0beph]

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.

 

[palerider]

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.

 

[vyo476]

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

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

So, if Palerider, you would be so Kind to explain why Abortion is wrong, without resorting to law.

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

 

[palerider]

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.

 

[vyo476]

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.

 

[Coyote]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[palerider]

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

 

[palerider]

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

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.

 

[top gun]

palerider;20646]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.

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.

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.

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!