Abortion??? anyone??

[palerider]

Ralph Nader quoting a Harvard Law School Dean
"Beyond the effective limits of legal action"

In other words, You can NOT legislate morailty!


and as we all know
the emperor is NAKED!
.

So you are saying that we should strike laws from the books that prohibit murder, assault, arson, child abuse, etc. After all, there are people who have moral codes that would allow them to do any of these things without remorse.

Is that really your argument, or did you simply make a poory thought out statement that you assumed would make some point or other?

 

[paf_2]

Well, first let me say that I was born and raised Catholic. One of the rules of this church is that abortion is a sin. That all Catholics should be pro life. Well, I am here to say that I am pro choice. I know that the issue of abortion isn't a cut and dry as any church or government wants to make it. Women have abortions for various reasons, such as the pregnancy is the result of rape, such as if the woman's own life is in danger, if the baby isn't vital, in other words no brain or little brain activity. These are situations where an abortion can be understandable in my opinion. Also, this is a personal decision for a woman to decide upon only she lives with that decision not a church or government.

 

[palerider]

Well, first let me say that I was born and raised Catholic. One of the rules of this church is that abortion is a sin. That all Catholics should be pro life. Well, I am here to say that I am pro choice. I know that the issue of abortion isn't a cut and dry as any church or government wants to make it. Women have abortions for various reasons, such as the pregnancy is the result of rape, such as if the woman's own life is in danger, if the baby isn't vital, in other words no brain or little brain activity. These are situations where an abortion can be understandable in my opinion. Also, this is a personal decision for a woman to decide upon only she lives with that decision not a church or government.

All decisions are personal decisions..people decide to set fires, to rape, to kill, to assault. Does calling a decision a "personal" decision somehow make whatever they decide to do OK? If you decide to do a thing that affects no one else, that is one thing, but deciding to do a thing that results in the death of another is an entirely different thing.

 

[Cruella]

Sick. Why stop at aborting a fetus. Why not just murder the kid after it's born, if it isn't perfect, or if it becomes inconvenient?

 

[Maelalove]

Who said inconvenience is the word for this? Yes, rape victims are "inconvenienced." Or how about people who had a condom break, and can't be on birth control due to health issues. This is just an "inconvenience," obviously. I'm sure you would happy to support the people that can't afford it, and support the child? Because things happen, and you're saying they should be forced to deal with that responsibility even if they can't afford it. Or maybe you could just adopt all of them, since I'm sure that's your next suggestion and since you don't realize how many children actually don't get adopted. If that's the case, by all means, make abortion illegal. Cruella is going to take on that responsibility.

 

[palerider]

Who said inconvenience is the word for this? Yes, rape victims are "inconvenienced." Or how about people who had a condom break, and can't be on birth control due to health issues. This is just an "inconvenience," obviously. I'm sure you would happy to support the people that can't afford it, and support the child? Because things happen, and you're saying they should be forced to deal with that responsibility even if they can't afford it. Or maybe you could just adopt all of them, since I'm sure that's your next suggestion and since you don't realize how many children actually don't get adopted. If that's the case, by all means, make abortion illegal. Cruella is going to take on that responsibility.

So you favor supporting people who choose to be irresponsible up to and including the point where we allow them to kill another human being? You can whine about broken condoms...or being unable to be on birth control or all the other inconveniences you care to name, but the bottom line is that you are in support of actually killing one human being so that another isn't inconvenienced.

And people shouldn't have to be "forced" to be responsible...that is just what grown up mature human beings do....they take responsibility for their actions....but if force is required to make people take responsibility, then by all means bring on the force. The decline of societies inevitably begins with individuals not wanting to be responsible for their actions.

 

[Maelalove]

So you favor supporting people who choose to be irresponsible up to and including the point where we allow them to kill another human being? You can whine about broken condoms...or being unable to be on birth control or all the other inconveniences you care to name, but the bottom line is that you are in support of actually killing one human being so that another isn't inconvenienced.

And people shouldn't have to be "forced" to be responsible...that is just what grown up mature human beings do....they take responsibility for their actions....but if force is required to make people take responsibility, then by all means bring on the force. The decline of societies inevitably begins with individuals not wanting to be responsible for their actions.

Okay so you're saying that situation doesn't matter, and that no matter what happens, it's someone else's responsibility? Please tell me you're kidding. Saying someone unable to be on birth control and having a condom break should have to take responsibility for an accident is like saying you rode your bike somewhere one day because your car was in the shop, and when riding the chain broke, causing you to stumble into the street and get hit by a car. It was an unfortunate accident, but clearly it's "just an inconvenience that you should take responsibility for." Bottom line is, you need to realize that there is more than just one small, simple detail to a story. Ignoring all other factors will make you ignorant.

And how exactly is something like being raped and getting pregnant "needing to be responsible for their actions?" If you seriously think that's what is going on in that situation, then I hope one day you have to take a stroll through the shoes of someone who hasn't been quite as fortunate as you.

 

[palerider]

Okay so you're saying that situation doesn't matter, and that no matter what happens, it's someone else's responsibility?

I am asking you how much inconvenience another person should be able to cause you before you believe it is OK to kill them. Straight forward question...Do you have a straight forward answer that doesn't try to make a non human out of a human being?

Please tell me you're kidding. Saying someone unable to be on birth control and having a condom break should have to take responsibility for an accident is like saying you rode your bike somewhere one day because your car was in the shop, and when riding the chain broke, causing you to stumble into the street and get hit by a car. It was an unfortunate accident, but clearly it's "just an inconvenience that you should take responsibility for." Bottom line is, you need to realize that there is more than just one small, simple detail to a story. Ignoring all other factors will make you ignorant.

The law makes people responsible for unfortunate accidents all the time....irresponsible behavior often results in unfortunate accidents and they can land you in prison for most of your life. What you are saying is that you don't favor being held responsible for your actions...and that you believe if those actions should cause you too much inconvenience that you should be allowed to kill someone other than the one who was irresponsible in the first place.

And how exactly is something like being raped and getting pregnant "needing to be responsible for their actions?" If you seriously think that's what is going on in that situation, then I hope one day you have to take a stroll through the shoes of someone who hasn't been quite as fortunate as you.

Do you believe that parents should be punished up to and including execution for the crimes of their children? You simply can not escape the fact that you are advocating killing the most innocent human beings possible. How many other issues are out there in which you favor killing innocents? My bet is that there are none and it is clear that you don't care to talk much about the ones being killed....why is that? Does it somehow relieve your guilt? Help you sleep at night? Is dehumanizing human beings the only way you can actually stomach voicing your position?

The whole rape pregnancy issue is a cop out anyway....a feeble attempt to justify an atrocity...there are approximately 2 pregnancies per 1000 rapes, and that is including statistical unreported rapes... That being the case, are you saying that it should be OK to kill millions in order to allow you to justify killing a few hundred?

 

[fedor50]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

Embryo, teenager, blastocyst, infant, fetus, child, zygote, toddler, blastomere, old geezer. All are simply nouns that we use to describe the same thing at various stages of its development. That thing is a human being.

I do encourage you to provide some credible science to support your outlandish claim that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything other than a human being.

I am very curious Pale Rider... Do you consider Abigail and Brittany Hensel, conjoined twins with two heads but one body, to be two separate persons?

Do you consider Lakshi Tatma, a girl in India with one head but eight limbs, to be two separate persons?

 

[fedor50]

Do you believe that parents should be punished up to and including execution for the crimes of their children? You simply can not escape the fact that you are advocating killing the most innocent human beings possible. How many other issues are out there in which you favor killing innocents? My bet is that there are none and it is clear that you don't care to talk much about the ones being killed....why is that? Does it somehow relieve your guilt? Help you sleep at night? Is dehumanizing human beings the only way you can actually stomach voicing your position?

The whole rape pregnancy issue is a cop out anyway....a feeble attempt to justify an atrocity...there are approximately 2 pregnancies per 1000 rapes, and that is including statistical unreported rapes... That being the case, are you saying that it should be OK to kill millions in order to allow you to justify killing a few hundred?

In cases of rape, the female is not at fault, hence cannot be held responsible, as you would hold her responsible. The risks are not minor, either. Do you know that a woman's chance of being murdered is the highest during pregnancy? Her risk from physical abuse is also elevated. Physiological risks, caused by the pregnancy, itself, can be life-threatening. Your attempt to minimize the problems is hateful and bigoted.

 

[fedor50]

I am afraid that you are wrong there. Whether it is deliberate, or not I won't guess, but you are wrong. Have you ever referred to a legal dictionary to see what constitutes a "person" in the eyes of the law? I have. And I have checked most of them. They all say basically the same thing.

http://dictionary.law.com/

n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.

http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/

1: "natural person" 2: the body of a human being

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/

n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person.

There are others, but to continue is just redundant.

You are incorrect here as well Pale Rider. Person does not mean what you say it means. Here is the OFFICIAL legal US Congress definition listed from the US Code:

Human Being - Person - Individual Defined

[1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

Current through Pub. L. 113-100. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

So according to the United States OWN definition, an unborn can NEVER be defined as a person. Sorry but you are just plain wrong, yet again.

So according to the United States OWN definition, an unborn can NEVER be defined as a person because it has not been BORN YET. Sorry but you are just PLAIN WRONG, yet again.

 

[Maelalove]

You are incorrect here as well Pale Rider. Person does not mean what you say it means. Here is the OFFICIAL legal US Congress definition listed from the US Code:

Human Being - Person - Individual Defined

[1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

Current through Pub. L. 113-100. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

So according to the United States OWN definition, an unborn can NEVER be defined as a person. Sorry but you are just plain wrong, yet again.

So according to the United States OWN definition, an unborn can NEVER be defined as a person because it has not been BORN YET. Sorry but you are just PLAIN WRONG, yet again.

Thanking you on this one. I kind of gave up when I realized that no amount of sense I posted back was going to get through, and it was just causing me to grow angry and annoyed. I'm glad you could help shed some light :]

 

[Lagboltz]

Some anti-abortion diehards like to refer to abortion of a fertilized egg as murder because it's human. If you try to argue against that they say that it's not an aardvark cell, it's a human cell. That is just word play because the use of “human” in describing the cell is an adjective not a noun. It is as logical as saying a human fingernail is human and then trying to invoke murder on it when you trim your nails. Human is obviously an adjective there too.

Congress is referring to a human (adj) being (noun). That is quite different than a human cell. Of course after the first tri-mester where a heart and nervous system forms, the point starts to be arguable to many.

 

[fedor50]

Thanking you on this one. I kind of gave up when I realized that no amount of sense I posted back was going to get through, and it was just causing me to grow angry and annoyed. I'm glad you could help shed some light :]

Never Give Up Maelalove.

Some people just simply REFUSE to acknowledge all of the facts and THEY are to blame for that NOT you...

Pale Rider is simply trying to equate being a human with automatically being a PERSON. But to do that is a losing battle because according to the OFFICIAL definition of PERSON shown above via Congress and the US Code one must first be BORN ALIVE.

Also thanks for acknowledging a good argument once you see one. There are those other people (like Pale Rider) who instead try to run away from the facts instead of responding to them head on.

Whenever somebody tells me that they want to see abortion becoming illegal I always ask them this ONE simple question first:

What negative effects or consequences does abortion have on society?

9 times out of 10, most pro-lifers cannot name one.

 

[fedor50]

Some anti-abortion diehards like to refer to abortion of a fertilized egg as murder because it's human. If you try to argue against that they say that it's not an aardvark cell, it's a human cell. That is just word play because the use of “human” in describing the cell is an adjective not a noun. It is as logical as saying a human fingernail is human and then trying to invoke murder on it when you trim your nails. Human is obviously an adjective there too.

Congress is referring to a human (adj) being (noun). That is quite different than a human cell. Of course after the first tri-mester where a heart and nervous system forms, the point starts to be arguable to many.

Exactly correct Lagboltz. I have asked Pale Rider this question before and he has NEVER once responded to it...

Does he consider Abigail and Brittany Hensel, conjoined twins with two heads but one body, to be two separate persons?

Does he consider Lakshi Tatma, a girl in India with one head but eight limbs, to be two separate persons?

He has never answered the question because to do so would expose the blatant hypocrisy in his ENTIRE position.