Abortion

[palerider]

This ground has been covered before, without any possibility of agreement from either party. pale undeniably can write very skillfully, but he fails to get to the roots of why many of the rest of us support abortion, and therefore still doesn't have a clue or any real idea of how it might be posssible to induce those of us who see the issue differently from himself to change our views. Name calling is a waste of time, on both sides of the issue.

It doesn't matter a whit whether you agree or not. We might argue whether the sun is made primarily of hydrogen or oxygen. If you argue that it is primarily oxygen, you are wrong whether you ever agree with the facts or not. The roots of why you support abortion are completely irrelavent if they do not represent the facts. The hard truth is that the pro choice side of the argument can not rationally support its position. Your arguments must, by their nature be composed of either logical fallacy, falsehood, or a misunderstanding of the facts.

 

[samsara15]

We choose the rights and needs of the adult woman over the rights of the potential human which is in her womb. Plain and simple.

 

[palerider]

We choose the rights and needs of the adult woman over the rights of the potential human which is in her womb. Plain and simple.

And again, your position is based on a logical fallacy. You beg the question and simply assume that the child is a potential human in order to satisfy the position you want to have rather than the position you actually have which is that you favor allowing one human being to kill another human being without judical review and without legal consequence for any or no reason.

I understand that your actual position is to repugnant for most people to voice openly, but pretending that it is a potential human being that is being killed doesn't change the fact that it is an actual human being that is being killed.

Of course you could justify your position and prove it correct by providing some credible science that states explicitly that unborns are something other than actual human beings from the time they are concieved and, in fact, turn into actual human beings at some point after conception.

The basic foundation of your argument in support of your position is flawed in that you must assume that unborns "become" human beings at some point far enough along in the pregnancy so that abortion becomes a rational action and then try to construct an argument that proves whatever arbitrary time you have set. This is a terribly flawed form of reasoning in either the scientific or philosophical realms. The abject failure of the application of that rational should tell you that you must first try and determine at what point the unborn "becomes" a human being and then determine whether it is a rational action to allow them to be killed.

 

[top gun]

We choose the rights and needs of the adult woman over the rights of the potential human which is in her womb. Plain and simple.

Palerider is an Anti-Choice fanatic if you haven't already realized this. I call them clinic creepers because you often find them kinda disheveled stalking women at women's clinics waving signs while screaming and threatening women who are totally within their rights & breaking no laws at a totally legal & sanctioned medical facilities also totally compliant with all laws.

He thinks it's he who has the sole right to judge the abortion issue himself. Not the women actually involved, not their doctors nor their families, not even the United States Supreme Court.

This decision in his mind is up to him and his fellow clinic creepers above all others. It's ridiculous but that's what they do.

I have a niece who's a part time clinic protection worker volunteer and she deals with these nutbags quite often.

I do worry about the clinic creepers on the edge of insanity that get so worked up that they bomb clinics or shoot doctors as we have recently seen in the Dr. Tiller case.

There is a Federal statute to protect women from the clinic creeper the FACE ACT, that I believe will be enforced much stricter now and that's a very good thing. Lock 'em up and pitch the key!

Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances (FACE) Act -- Statute
18 U.S.C. § 248

Freedom of access to clinic entrances

(a) Prohibited activities.--Whoever--

(1) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services;
(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or

(3) intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services, or intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of religious worship,

shall be subject to the penalties provided in subsection (b) and the civil remedies provided in subsection (c), except that a parent or legal guardian of a minor shall not be subject to any penalties or civil remedies under this section for such activities insofar as they are directed exclusively at that minor.


(b) Penalties.--Whoever violates this section shall--

(1) in the case of a first offense, be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and
(2) in the case of a second or subsequent offense after a prior conviction under this section, be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both;

except that for an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction, the fine shall be not more than $10,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than six months, or both, for the first offense; and the fine shall, notwithstanding section 3571, be not more than $25,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 18 months, or both, for a subsequent offense; and except that if bodily injury results, the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 10 years, and if death results, it shall be for any term of years or for life.
(c) Civil remedies.--

(1) Right of action.--

(A) In general.--Any person aggrieved by reason of the conduct prohibited by subsection (a) may commence a civil action for the relief set forth in subparagraph (B), except that such an action may be brought under subsection (a)(1) only by a person involved in providing or seeking to provide, or obtaining or seeking to obtain, services in a facility that provides reproductive health services, and such an action may be brought under subsection (a)(2) only by a person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship or by the entity that owns or operates such place of religious worship.
(B) Relief.--In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages, as well as the costs of suit and reasonable fees for attorneys and expert witnesses. With respect to compensatory damages, the plaintiff may elect, at any time prior to the rendering of final judgment, to recover, in lieu of actual damages, an award of statutory damages in the amount of $5,000 per violation.

(2) Action by Attorney General of the United States.--

(A) In general.--If the Attorney General of the United States has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is being, has been, or may be injured by conduct constituting a violation of this section, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate United States District Court.
(B) Relief.--In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, and compensatory damages to persons aggrieved as described in paragraph (1)(B). The court, to vindicate the public interest, may also assess a civil penalty against each respondent--

(i) in an amount not exceeding $10,000 for a nonviolent physical obstruction and $15,000 for other first violations; and

(ii) in an amount not exceeding $15,000 for a nonviolent physical obstruction and $25,000 for any other subsequent violation.

(3) Actions by State Attorneys General.--

(A) In general.--If the Attorney General of a State has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is being, has been, or may be injured by conduct constituting a violation of this section, such Attorney General may commence a civil action in the name of such State, as parens patriae on behalf of natural persons residing in such State, in any appropriate United States District Court.
(B) Relief.--In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and civil penalties as described in paragraph (2)(B).

 

[samsara15]

And again, your position is based on a logical fallacy. You beg the question and simply assume that the child is a potential human in order to satisfy the position you want to have rather than the position you actually have which is that you favor allowing one human being to kill another human being without judical review and without legal consequence for any or no reason.

I understand that your actual position is to repugnant for most people to voice openly, but pretending that it is a potential human being that is being killed doesn't change the fact that it is an actual human being that is being killed.

Of course you could justify your position and prove it correct by providing some credible science that states explicitly that unborns are something other than actual human beings from the time they are concieved and, in fact, turn into actual human beings at some point after conception.

The basic foundation of your argument in support of your position is flawed in that you must assume that unborns "become" human beings at some point far enough along in the pregnancy so that abortion becomes a rational action and then try to construct an argument that proves whatever arbitrary time you have set. This is a terribly flawed form of reasoning in either the scientific or philosophical realms. The abject failure of the application of that rational should tell you that you must first try and determine at what point the unborn "becomes" a human being and then determine whether it is a rational action to allow them to be killed.

We are descended from primitive animals. At what point did we become human beings? What critieria do we use to separate us from a homo erectus? Would killing one of our ancestral species be considered the same as killing a human being?

 

[palerider]

We are descended from primitive animals. At what point did we become human beings? What critieria do we use to separate us from a homo erectus? Would killing one of our ancestral species be considered the same as killing a human being?

No actual argument huh? I am not surprised but that one is particularly disappointing. By the way, can you prove that we are decended from primative animals? To the best of my knowledge, not a single transitional fossil has been found proving that any species has decended from a more primitive species, much less man. Even that argument requires that you beg the question.

 

[palerider]

Palerider is an Anti-Choice fanatic if you haven't already realized this. I call them clinic creepers because you often find them kinda disheveled stalking women at women's clinics waving signs while screaming and threatening women who are totally within their rights & breaking no laws at a totally legal & sanctioned medical facilities also totally compliant with all laws.

Still calling names rather than rationally defending your postion huh? Unsurprising.

By the way, should anyone worry about you driving your car over people who are peacefully protesting in front of clinics? Or are you a danger to a woman who is pregnant and refuses to abort her child? The anti abortion crowd doesn't have the market on violence sewn up. The fact is that there are a rather large number of instances of pro choicers killing ,assaulting, and terrorizing (via death threats, arson, etc.) those on the anti abortion side as well as abortion doctors killing their patients, spouses and girlfriends who won't abort, and children who survived abortion attempts.

Are you a danger to others (besides the unborn) because of your position? Even your name calling is based on logical fallacy.

 

[GenSeneca]

No actual argument huh? I am not surprised but that one is particularly disappointing.

Hey Pale,

How do you feel about responses that are one long ad hominem wrapped in an emotional appeal and sprinkled with an appeal to authority?

 

[samsara15]

Pale, Have you ever wondered why we have not been persuaded, and why we have not shifted to your POV, if your POV is so rock solid? The fact we have not done so should tell you something. If you think your arguments are so undeniable, then tell us why you think you appeals have been so futile.

That ought to be interesting.

 

[samsara15]

No actual argument huh? I am not surprised but that one is particularly disappointing. By the way, can you prove that we are decended from primative animals? To the best of my knowledge, not a single transitional fossil has been found proving that any species has decended from a more primitive species, much less man. Even that argument requires that you beg the question.

An evolution denier as well? Pale, you amaze me. ALL FOSSILS ARE TRANSITIONAL.

 

[Bob the Builder]

Pale, Have you ever wondered why we have not been persuaded, and why we have not shifted to your POV, if your POV is so rock solid? The fact we have not done so should tell you something. If you think your arguments are so undeniable, then tell us why you think you appeals have been so futile.

That ought to be interesting.

The "Pro-Murder" crowd won't be dissuaded because they don't believe in personal responsibility, accountability, or any of the other hallmarks of maturity. They want to run around doing "whatever feels good" in total denial of the fact of the consequences of their actions.

The "Pro-Life" crowd understand and accept the fact of personal responsibility, accountability, and accept the consequences of their actions without looking for a "way out".

Abortion advocates are intellectual and emotional children, not unlike Peter Pan, they've never grown up, and have no intention of ever doing so.

 

[GenSeneca]

Have you ever wondered why we have not been persuaded, and why we have not shifted to your POV, if your POV is so rock solid? The fact we have not done so should tell you something. If you think your arguments are so undeniable, then tell us why you think you appeals have been so futile.

Interesting angle you're going for here.... I will keep this quote "on file" and use it every time you fail to convince someone of your point of view.

Should be interesting.

 

[top gun]

Still calling names rather than rationally defending your postion huh? Unsurprising.

One needs not defend after they have won. The highest court in the land heard both side clearly and decided this case 4 decades ago. And as you've mumbled & fumbled I've personally told you for 3 years now... women will not ever be forced back to the hanger nor the alley.

It is you that is peeing in the wind my friend.

By the way, should anyone worry about you driving your car over people who are peacefully protesting in front of clinics? Or are you a danger to a woman who is pregnant and refuses to abort her child? The anti abortion crowd doesn't have the market on violence sewn up. The fact is that there are a rather large number of instances of pro choicers killing ,assaulting, and terrorizing (via death threats, arson, etc.) those on the anti abortion side as well as abortion doctors killing their patients, spouses and girlfriends who won't abort, and children who survived abortion attempts.

Are you a danger to others (besides the unborn) because of your position? Even your name calling is based on logical fallacy.

Clinic creepers are what they are! I just point it out.

And no... I just want the Creeper arrested legally. If I killed people just because I didn't like them I'd be one of your compadres. And that's never happing!

And no again... It's well documented that I want every woman FREE to be able to choose to make her own decision. I have no say in the matter whatsoever... and that's as it should be.

That's the difference between your side and mine. You want to impose your will on others... and I and the Supreme Court of the United States say NO!

Smack the clinic creepers in face with the anti-stalker FACE ACT! Give 'em hell straight to jail!

 

[samsara15]

The "Pro-Murder" crowd won't be dissuaded because they don't believe in personal responsibility, accountability, or any of the other hallmarks of maturity. They want to run around doing "whatever feels good" in total denial of the fact of the consequences of their actions.

The "Pro-Life" crowd understand and accept the fact of personal responsibility, accountability, and accept the consequences of their actions without looking for a "way out".

Abortion advocates are intellectual and emotional children, not unlike Peter Pan, they've never grown up, and have no intention of ever doing so.

So you maintain that Pro-abortion suporters are all stupid, irreponsible, childish or evil?

That's exactly the sort of response I would expect from the likes of you, Bobby.

 

[Bob the Builder]

So you maintain that Pro-abortion suporters are all stupid, irreponsible, childish or evil?

That's exactly the sort of response I would expect from the likes of you, Bobby.

Well, let's look at that shall we? Is it 'responsible' or is it irresponsible for a woman to allow herself to be impregnated when she has no intention of having a child? Is it wise, or is it stupid, to engage in intercourse and not use all available means of contraception when you don't intend to have a child? Is it mature or is it childish to refuse to take resposibility for ensuring that you take all appropriate measures to protect yourself and your partner when there is no doubt by anyone that has attended an 8th grade "Health" class what happens when you F*CK? Is it good or is it evil to MURDER the most innocent human being simply because you're too stupid, irresponsible, and childish to think with the big head instead of the little one?

Oh, and as for your "That's exactly.....", that's not exactly much of a response, would you care to try again?