Abortion

[top gun]

palerider;18161]Then you are prone to exageration. Slaves were owned by someone else and could be treated as their owner deemed fit without legal consequence. Slaves were beaten to death regularly, fed table scraps and slop, housed in barns or shacks, not allowed to own anything without their owners permission. If you believe being pregnant in a free society is like being treated like a slave, then you are either hysterical or don't know how slaves were treated.

There you go again rambling on about one definition at the exclusion of everything else. What is wrong with you?

slave–noun
1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
2. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug.
3. a drudge: a housekeeping slave.
4. a slave ant.
5. Photography. a subsidiary flash lamp actuated through its photoelectric cell when the principal flash lamp is discharged.
6. Machinery. a mechanism under control of and repeating the actions of a similar mechanism. Compare master (def. 19).
–verb (used without object) 7. to work like a slave; drudge.
8. to engage in the slave trade; procure, transport, or sell slaves.
–verb (used with object) 9. to connect (a machine) to a master as its slave.
10. Archaic. to enslave.

If the personhood of unborns is established then any medication that would kill them deliberately would constitute manslaughter at the very least. If the fact that abortive birth control pills would be pulled from distribution should personhood be established for unborn children has escaped you, then it is clear that you have never put much thought into this issue. Your position is emotional rather than rational.

IF IF IF IF IF... If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their little butts on the ground when they hopped.

Merely repeating what you said you want and what would happen to women in that scenario.

The nature of our legal system is that if someone is to be denied a right, law must specifically enumerate fro WHO the right is to be denied, WHICH right is to be denied, and for WHAT reason the right is to be denied. Show me in the constitution where it "specifically" grants first amendment rights to women.

Answering a question with a question is not an answer. You go first. I'll go for you . You can't show it. And in fact it says... Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction...

Cases are winding their way through appeal right now top gun. Cases that point out the legal precedent for personhood of the unborn. I eagerly await their arival at the supreme court.

Lovely... it's only been an established precedent for decades now. I await the news.

Are you saying that the idea that molesting priests should rot in jail is a highly disregarded idea in the US?

I'm saying that the Catholic mandate not to use Birth Control Pills is highly disregarded by American Catholics... exactly as I said it. I then continued to point out the church cannot be trusted as an absolute & honest authority and used the rampant child molestation as an example. I stated this very clearly and I will cease to responded to you if you continue to not respect ASK/ANSWER.

Prove to me the 8 cells have a soul. It's not a matter of proof. Most people myself included do not believe that 8 human cells have the same standing as a complete person... nor should they.

I don't know anything about souls with regard to the law. Show me some law that requires a soul and we can talk about it. Have you noticed that it is you who is talking religion here?

As many have now said you do not have to accept that your argument is religious based for it to be so. I'm merely stated you could not prove a soul at 8 cells to remove that from being brought to the table. The point and again I regress... 8 human cells no proof of a soul... not a complete person and does not/should not have the same standing.

Shuck and jive. Duck and weave. Dodge dodge dodge. You are losing here topgun.

One Birth Control Pill is real (the current one) the other is a figmant of your imagination Wile E.... and you were beat long ago.

BEEP BEEP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I saw you dodge, not answer the question.

The answer's the answer. I'm sorry it's not what you want to hear.

This point fails on its face. Newborns enjoy the protection of the 14th amendment but they are not "complete" . None of us is complete until we are nearly 30 years old when our biological maturation is finished.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 14

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction...
A newborn continues to grow with all its parts established and is living on its own outside of the womb. 8 cells do not and are not.

Biological point. The unborn has progressed far beyond 8 cells by the time it reaches the uterus, not that it matters.

From Medical Journal page... maybe it's a comspiracy to make you look silly... I don't know?

HEALTH ISSUES: The egg is fertilized in the outer part of the fallopian tube, generally within 12 hours of ovulation. After it is fertilized, the egg travels down the fallopian tube. The fertilized egg grows as it travels. It doubles, then grows to four cells and then to eight cells as it enters the uterus.

 

[top gun]

palerider;18162](continuation)
With regard to precedent. Precedent for the personhood of the unborn has been established quite nicely in the past few years, and the high court is a bit more conservative than it once was. Did you notice that they banned partial birth abortion? Pro choicers claimed that would never be outlawed as well.

And I agree with the partial birth ban. There is an allowance for life of the mother and the fetus is viable at that late stage. The main reason that partial birth was even objected to by anyone was because the original wording left no exemption for life of the mother. The entire decission if you read it was based on "viability" of which I've always said I agree with. It's not a factor whatsoever in the Roe v. Wade situation.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.

You may or may not have noticed that the amendment is written in two sentences. There is a reason for that.[/QUOTE]

Sentences are small groups of words. Paragraphs are groups of sentences. That doesn't mean the original line can't be referred to latter on in the text. And again... please quit whining about the reality and just legally change it if that argument is solid. I can't believe you are the ONLY person to ever come up with or present this idea.

Not going to change a thing but if you want to get your pants wet... pee into the wind.

Sad isn't it, that the vast MINORITY understand biology and that you proudly stand with the majority that don't?

Wile E. Coyote super genious.

Long standing is a relative term. The court rulings that made non humans out of blacks stood far longer than the 30 years since roe before they were overturned. One could fill a book with the court cases that have been overturned after standing longer than roe so that, on its face, is a non issue.

Slavery was allowed and then we moved past that. Abortion was not allowed and then we moved past that. How many times can I say it...

That might be cute if it weren't so sad.

Well what's stopping you from showing that I haven't?

The rest I've answered numerous times and as I said I'm going to start cutting back on repeating my answers.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

No. I will see the man punished by the law and dispose of the tapeworm as it represents a very real threat to my health. Tapeworms are not human beings and do not have an inalienable right to live.

So, only two points in your diatribe worth addressing: One, pregnancy represents a real threat to a woman's health--especially when she is raped, whereas tapeworms are not really all that much of a threat. And two, now you are also embracing another Catholic Church tenet by stating that only human life has an inalienable right to exist.

Once again, my catholicism is a figment of your imagination exactly as most of your argument against me is.

You embrace the Catholic belief system of absolute protection of innocent fetal life, the belief that only human life has inalienable right to exist, and you advocate torture when you think you can benefit from it. For someone who claims disengenuously to not be Catholic you should be careful lest you get elected Pope because you have the dogma down pat.

You are shilling for the largest and, arguably, the most corrupt church on Earth and you have the temerity to give me grief because I'm annoyed with your misogynist beliefs. You may not actually belong to the Church in any formal sense, but you are certainly one of the sheeple bleating their dogma.

 

[palerider]

You are shilling for the largest and, arguably, the most corrupt church on Earth and you have the temerity to give me grief because I'm annoyed with your misogynist beliefs. You may not actually belong to the Church in any formal sense, but you are certainly one of the sheeple bleating their dogma.

Mare, your eyes must be brown because you are so full of crap.

You keep bloviating about catholics this and catholics that. Bring forward some of this catholic dogma, FROM THEIR OWN TEXTS and lets compare their arguments to mine. My bet is that you will not answer this challenge because as is typical with you, you are just talking. Since you can't take on my position directly, your only option is to try and discredit it and in your sad and pitiful case, comparing it to catholic dogma (which I bet you know as little of as me) is the best you can muster.

 

[top gun]

So, only two points in your diatribe worth addressing: One, pregnancy represents a real threat to a woman's health--especially when she is raped, whereas tapeworms are not really all that much of a threat. And two, now you are also embracing another Catholic Church tenet by stating that only human life has an inalienable right to exist.



You embrace the Catholic belief system of absolute protection of innocent fetal life, the belief that only human life has inalienable right to exist, and you advocate torture when you think you can benefit from it. For someone who claims disengenuously to not be Catholic you should be careful lest you get elected Pope because you have the dogma down pat.

You are shilling for the largest and, arguably, the most corrupt church on Earth and you have the temerity to give me grief because I'm annoyed with your misogynist beliefs. You may not actually belong to the Church in any formal sense, but you are certainly one of the sheeple bleating their dogma.

Did you see this Mare? This isn't even the youngest child to be victimized twice. The youngest was only 9 years old. Sound familiar?

Colombian Catholic Church Excommunicates All Involved in 11-year-old Rape Victim’s Abortion
By Gudrun Schultz

BOGOTA, Colombia, August 30, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Cardinal Alfonso Llopez Trujillo announced Tuesday that the Colombian Catholic Church has excommunicated all persons involved in obtaining an abortion for an 11-year-old girl, who became pregnant after she was raped.

The order includes the judges, politicians and legislators involved in the decision, as well as the doctors, nurses and the girl’s parents, the Manila Bulletin Online reported today.

Under excommunication, all those involved in the abortion are banned from receiving the sacraments, except the sacrament of confession, and may not perform a ministerial role in the Liturgy or other worship ceremony.

Participating in abortion carries the automatic penalty of full excommunication, under the Catholic Code of Canon Law.

Cardinal Trujillo, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, has been very clear on the application of excommunication in cases of abortion. In a June interview with Famiglia Christiana magazine, Cardinal Trujillo said the doctors, nurses and the mother involved in abortion all incur excommunication, as would the father if he supported the abortion decision.

Colombia bowed to internal and international pressure earlier this year by allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest, in a Constitutional Court decision. Bogota’s Achbishop, Cardinal Pedro Rubiano Saenz responded to the decision by stating, in an interview with El Tiempo newspaper, “All those who commit the crime, the sin of abortion, will be excommunicated immediately. This applies as well to those who foster or assist abortion.”

Archishop Luis Augusto Castro, president of the Bishops’ Conference of Colombia, spoke out against the Court’s decision to accept abortion in difficult cases involving rape or incest, saying “The child is innocent…the criminal should be punished and put in jail for a long time, but the child should not have to pay for the sins of another. He is an innocent baby.”

 

[Izz]

Who said any government had the right to play God?

Anticipated answer: Who said a woman has the right to play God?

Reply: I don't see you carrying a kid. Last time I checked there was one gender that could do that and one alone. That means there's only one person whose opinion matters. A man can have a vasectomy. Could we argue that that kills children? After all every sperm could one day grow up to be, what's that cliched..oh, yeah, president. It's a choice for a person to get a piercing, or a tattoo. It's a choice for a woman to get an abortion.

Rarely is an abortion taken lightly. I haven't met a single girl who didn't take forever to make that choice. The point is, she had the choice in the first place. Just because they have the option doesn't mean that they will utilize it.

As for religious dogma, in the case of the United States there is a separation of Church and State, which I'm sure someone's arguing in another thread somewhere. As long as that rule is in place then no church has any right to force a government's hand where abortions are concerned.

The bottom line is, whether abortion is right or wrong doesn't matter. What matters is that the final say comes from one person and one alone.

 

[numinus]

Who said any government had the right to play God?

Anticipated answer: Who said a woman has the right to play God?

Reply: I don't see you carrying a kid. Last time I checked there was one gender that could do that and one alone. That means there's only one person whose opinion matters. A man can have a vasectomy. Could we argue that that kills children? After all every sperm could one day grow up to be, what's that cliched..oh, yeah, president. It's a choice for a person to get a piercing, or a tattoo. It's a choice for a woman to get an abortion.

Rarely is an abortion taken lightly. I haven't met a single girl who didn't take forever to make that choice. The point is, she had the choice in the first place. Just because they have the option doesn't mean that they will utilize it.

As for religious dogma, in the case of the United States there is a separation of Church and State, which I'm sure someone's arguing in another thread somewhere. As long as that rule is in place then no church has any right to force a government's hand where abortions are concerned.

The bottom line is, whether abortion is right or wrong doesn't matter. What matters is that the final say comes from one person and one alone.

So, a government may bestow on a woman the ABSOLUTE RIGHT over the life of another human being.

Is that what you're saying?

 

[palerider]

Who said any government had the right to play God?

So, are you suggesting that any law that makes it illegal for one human being to kill another is an example of the government "playing" God?

Rarely is an abortion taken lightly. I haven't met a single girl who didn't take forever to make that choice. The point is, she had the choice in the first place. Just because they have the option doesn't mean that they will utilize it.

I doubt that much killing at all is taken lightly. How does the amount of gravity given to the decision change the fact that one human being is killing another?

As for religious dogma, in the case of the United States there is a separation of Church and State, which I'm sure someone's arguing in another thread somewhere. As long as that rule is in place then no church has any right to force a government's hand where abortions are concerned.

Could you point that out in the Constitution? I don't seem to be able to find it in my copy. I find mention that the government shall not involve itself in the religious activities of citizens, but see no wording that would suggest that citizens can't bring their religious beliefs into government.

 

[Izz]

*shrugs* take it or leave it. I'm not arguing with morons. It's a girl's body, not the government's, not the church's. It's hers. And to some women a child is nothing more than an invader, a virus. To some it's a gift. And it's up to her. Choose your right to life when you're the one acting as a house for nine months.

 

[vyo476]

I'm not arguing with morons.

They aren't "morons" simply for having a different opinion.

 

[Izz]

Right, but in personal understanding anyone who decides to take away a right to any choice, be they intelligent or not, is a *****.

*****: a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.

^just in case we couldn't remember.

 

[numinus]

*shrugs* take it or leave it. I'm not arguing with morons. It's a girl's body, not the government's, not the church's. It's hers.

Brilliant!

And by the same reasoning, any person can do with his body as he wishes - even strapping on explosives and detonating it in a crowded cafe, hmmm?

And to some women a child is nothing more than an invader, a virus. To some it's a gift. And it's up to her. Choose your right to life when you're the one acting as a house for nine months.

And by the same reasoning, your mother can just as easily consider you as an intrusive virus, eh?

From what intellectual limbo do folks like you come from???? It's like an infestation of stupid of biblical proportions!

 

[numinus]

They aren't "morons" simply for having a different opinion.

They aren't opinions - they are conclusions derived from valid and accepted principles.

 

[Izz]

Brilliant!

And by the same reasoning, any person can do with his body as he wishes - even strapping on explosives and detonating it in a crowded cafe, hmmm?



And by the same reasoning, your mother can just as easily consider you as an intrusive virus, eh?

Yes. She very well could have. But she didn't. At least, I don't think she did, since nineteen years later I'm still here. I could ask her, if you'd like me to. If you're asking me if I'd mind if my mother had an abortion, then your answer is no. Sorry.

As for suicide bombers- sure. Why not. They make the choice to detonate themselves. Is it a smart thing to do? No. Is is a pleasant thing to do? Certainly not. But you can't deny someone the right to kill themselves. Even if it's for a stupid reason.

As for limbo...it's not limbo, it's a very small college. Which is going to open up a slew of all sorts of terrible nonesense, I'm sure.

Isn't a personal conclusion the same thing as an opinion? oO

 

[vyo476]

They aren't opinions - they are conclusions derived from valid and accepted principles.

No matter how "valid" and "accepted" your principles are, the conclusions you draw from them are still opinions. They may be fact-based opinions, but they're still opinions.