Abortion

[palerider]

Think of it as a deterrent to make the consequences so unthinkable that a guy'll either keep it in his pants or his hand. Even alcohol abuse might drop like a rock.

Let's let the feminine persuasion weigh in.

Nah. There is simply too much potential for abuse of that DNA information outside of the paternity issue.

 

[Pidgey]

Now, now, now... patience! Give 'em a little bit of time to chew on it, see what they come up with. Gotta' get a consensus before moving on to that aspect.

 

[palerider]

Now, now, now... patience! Give 'em a little bit of time to chew on it, see what they come up with. Gotta' get a consensus before moving on to that aspect.

Exactly why consensus can't be trusted.

 

[numinus]

I cannot see how any person can CHOOSE without first being ALIVE.

So, there is no RIGHT TO CHOOSE without a RIGHT TO LIVE that PRECEDES it.

The only way choice can supersed life is when the life in question is not human life - which is exactly what pro-choice advocates have been reduced to arguing.

But such a claim is so COUNTER-INTUITIVE, it stretches the incredulity of common sense.

The offspring of two human beings, from conception up to death, can NEVER BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A HUMAN BEING.

 

[Coyote]

I cannot see how any person can CHOOSE without first being ALIVE.

So, there is no RIGHT TO CHOOSE without a RIGHT TO LIVE that PRECEDES it.

The only way choice can supersed life is when the life in question is not human life - which is exactly what pro-choice advocates have been reduced to arguing.

But such a claim is so COUNTER-INTUITIVE, it stretches the incredulity of common sense.

The offspring of two human beings, from conception up to death, can NEVER BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A HUMAN BEING.

And no one but me has any right to claim my body against my will.

 

[palerider]

And no one but me has any right to claim my body against my will.

All rights are secondary to the right to live.

 

[top gun]

We already have it. It is contained in the decond clause of the first section of the 14th amendment.

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

If a woman can show just cause why the child she is carrying should forfiet its life, then terminate the pregnancy. The only just cause I can think of is that her life or long term health is in iminent danger. Perhaps there are other valid reasons but aside from life and long term health, everything else I can come up with amounts to no more than convenience.

It's not a child until it's born. It's a mass of cells... then it's a fetus. It could someday become a child... but while still in the other phases and unable to live on its own... not a child.

Hence the woman has the control over her own body and anything contained therein. Not me... not you... not the government. BIG GOVERNMENT... BIG REGULATION... BIG BROTHER... STEP BACK!

 

[palerider]

It's not a child until it's born. It's a mass of cells... then it's a fetus. It could someday become a child... but while still in the other phases and unable to live on its own... not a child.

Blastocyst, teenager, embryo, toddler, fetus, adult, child, old geezer. All are just words we use to describe a human being at various stages of his or her life. None represent a different type of creature but simply denote an age or a range of years.

You did not come from a fetus, you were a fetus, you did not come from a blastocyst, you were a blastocyst. You didn't, and haven't "become" anything that you werern't before, you have simply grown older and as a result have been called different words that represented your age.

Hence the woman has the control over her own body and anything contained therein. Not me... not you... not the government. BIG GOVERNMENT... BIG REGULATION... BIG BROTHER... STEP BACK!

Are you arguing that the woman owns her child and can therefore do with it as she wishes?

 

[numinus]

And no one but me has any right to claim my body against my will.

It is done all the time. Haven't you heard of the penal system?

 

[Coyote]

It is done all the time. Haven't you heard of the penal system?

Not really the same. First off - under the penal code, I've given up my rights when I committed a crime.

Second - you still can't take my body and force me to submit to medical experiments for example. What is taken is my freedom or my life, not my rights to my body.

 

[numinus]

It's not a child until it's born. It's a mass of cells... then it's a fetus. It could someday become a child... but while still in the other phases and unable to live on its own... not a child.

Hence the woman has the control over her own body and anything contained therein. Not me... not you... not the government. BIG GOVERNMENT... BIG REGULATION... BIG BROTHER... STEP BACK!

Not even the supreme court had the audacity to pretend to know such a thing!

The truth is ALL human beings undergo the SAME process of development.

NO EXCEPTIONS.

At the point of conception, a distinct human being is formed. And in that distinctness lies the complete nature and potential of a human being.

 

[numinus]

Not really the same. First off - under the penal code, I've given up my rights when I committed a crime.

And isn't killing another human being for no reason other than convenience a crime?

Second - you still can't take my body and force me to submit to medical experiments for example. What is taken is my freedom or my life, not my rights to my body.

And can one take your life and your freedom without necessarily taking the rights to your own body?

 

[Coyote]

And isn't killing another human being for no reason other than convenience a crime?

According to the law as it now stands - a fetus is not a person.

I also still maintain - the choice of having or not having a child is never a convenience.

And can one take your life and your freedom without necessarily taking the rights to your own body?

Yes. As I said - they can not conduct experiments on your body. In terms of taking your life...they still can not do it by horrific means.

 

[top gun]

It's not a child until it's born. It's a mass of cells... then it's a fetus. It could someday become a child... but while still in the other phases and unable to live on its own... not a child.

Blastocyst, teenager, embryo, toddler, fetus, adult, child, old geezer. All are just words we use to describe a human being at various stages of his or her life. None represent a different type of creature but simply denote an age or a range of years.

You did not come from a fetus, you were a fetus, you did not come from a blastocyst, you were a blastocyst. You didn't, and haven't "become" anything that you werern't before, you have simply grown older and as a result have been called different words that represented your age.

Are you arguing that the woman owns her child and can therefore do with it as she wishes?

There is a distinction and a reality that all no-choice advacates need to recognise.

First... while there's a chain of life that possibly can end up as a born child it also can and does quite frequently end up in miscarriage and even still born births. Pregnancy to term is not a "certain" thing at all in nature.

The second thing is that being the case... you cannot stop abortion. You can make it more dangerous for the woman. You can make it more unfair and dangerous for women of lesser means that can't afford to travel to have an abortion and hence have to take much more risky methods. But you cannot stop abortion... at least not by legislation.

Abortions have been around since the dawn of pregnancy. You know there was a time when some women even killed themselves to avoid having a child. No reasonable person would want to see these draconian times return again. We are far to advanced for that. It won't be long with new technology until surgical abortion won't even have to exist. A simple medication will be all that is needed.

As I've said before Big Brother cannot dictate what a woman does in the scope of an abortion. It's not a matter of the woman owning the fetus... the fetus at that stage is actually a part of her growing toward separation.

And I would not take any hope on any Supreme Court outlawing choice. No-choice advocates seriously had better watch what they wish for. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that on a straight up and down vote a right for a women to chose would win and could be legislated. Maybe that is what will have to happen to finally put this issue to bed.

 

[numinus]

According to the law as it now stands - a fetus is not a person.

There is no such law.

What the sc said is that it cannot make a determination of personhood. It only defines 'viability', the point at which the state has compelling interests in the pregnancy.

I also still maintain - the choice of having or not having a child is never a convenience.

That choice was made when one engaged in sex.

Yes. As I said - they can not conduct experiments on your body. In terms of taking your life...they still can not do it by horrific means.

Exactly.

And if even the state has no right to take your life without any compelling reason, what gives you the right to do the same to another human being?