Abortion

[palerider]

By the way bob, just out of curiosity, what is your position on embryonic stem cell research? Are you fine with killing embryos and dismantling them for their components?

 

[Dr.Who]

Dr, Who, I'm well aware of the basic biology, the question I was addressing was specifically related to cases of rape, so I'll reiterate in case you missed it. In cases of rape where the victim goes/is taken to the hospital certain procedures are performed to care for the patient, one of which is the administration of medications and/or procedures to prevent pregnancy and if necessary to clean out the utereus to remove any foreign matter. I was merely addressing the issue of "abortion related to rape" and trying to point out the fact that given the time necessary for the sperm to even reach the egg, much less to join with it is generally so far outside the window as far as the aforementioned medical care as to be moot since it can take hours, or even days before the sperm can locate and join with the egg.

Pale completely blew by these facts and continued on in his rant about "the child being killed for the sins of the father" when I had already specified that the possibility of the egg and sperm having actually integrated are so remote as to be a non-issue. I also specifically noted that in the extremely rare cases where a woman is raped, fails to seek medical care, and subsequently discovers that she was impregnated as a result of the rape is an entirely different issue, and should be addressed separately.

As far as the issue of when "life" begins, I have already clearly stated that unless or until the egg attaches itself to the uterine wall and begins drawing nourishment from the mother, it cannot be considered to be a "human", unless of course you consider cancer cells to be "human" too.

I did miss that you were talking about rape and specifically about cases in which the egg has not been fertilized. Sorry.

Clearly it is not abortion nor the killing of a human if the egg is not fertilized.

Afterward, it is clearly the killing of a living human individual with malice.

 

[Dr.Who]

No quote huh? Unsurprising as I already knew that you were a liar.

Maybe there are just times when the arguments are above our abilities to comprehend and follow them thoroughly. Happens to me sometimes.

Sometimes I just make mistakes when I am not at my best or when the thread has become too convoluted, or when my memory is weak, or when my emotions get the best of me.

 

[top gun]

As I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions, the cases that have challenged roe thus far have focused on a woman's theoretical right, and not on what is being killed when an abortion is performed. Why the legal teams didn't see that attacking a theoretical right was a pointless exercise for all those years, I can't say. What I can say is that now, they are on the right track. Personhood of the unborn is roe's silver bullet and like it or not, a large body of legal precedent establishing the personhood of the unborn now exists.

You have no argument. There's been 40 years gone by and every imaginable tactics has been brought forward and nothing has or will change. Which makes perfect sense since everything we know today the court knew well 40 years ago.

There is no silver bullet. You have lost and women have won... get over yourself.

There was never a compromize. The court said that women could terminate pregnancies because unborns were something other than human beings. Can you offer up any proof that they were right?

Semantics. The court always has known that the fetus was a living mass that was human. It is at what point of development do the assign personhood. The court rightly decided that viability was the correct marker of time.

Again, no compromize. They stated that till the unborn was viable, it was something other than a human being. They acknowledge that human beings have a right to live. Can you offer up any credible evidence that suggests that unborns, at any stage of development, are something other than human beings?

And again semantics. The court may have called it something else but were well aware of what a fetus was. They were simply assigning different names to what we knew then and what we know now. Perhaps what they should have said was... not a human being developed to a point of personhood due to the lack of many things at that early stage of development.

Changing the semantics will not change the decision. Furthermore your 3 to 5 year timeline for this huge change is similar to what you've said before yet since then we are 3 years further down the line now with a President that is fully Pro-Choice and you will only be loosing more ground even quicker as he appoints Justices with more precedent for a woman's right just keeps piling up.

You should really just find another hobby. This one is over.

This will never be again. We cannot force someone to maintain their own body in a certain manor. All illegal abortion ever did was infect, mutilate & kill woman, it did not stop abortion.

The FACE ACT protects doctors, nurses, patients and bystanders. Call your elected officials and tell the you want Domestic Terrorists creeping around women's clinics jailed!

 

[palerider]

Maybe there are just times when the arguments are above our abilities to comprehend and follow them thoroughly. Happens to me sometimes.

He made the claim that I had said something that I had never said and when challenged, he could not produce a quote from me.

 

[palerider]

You have no argument. There's been 40 years gone by and every imaginable tactics has been brought forward and nothing has or will change. Which makes perfect sense since everything we know today the court knew well 40 years ago.

I am afraid that you are wrong and every imaginable tactic has not been brought forward. To date, the only case brought forward whose nature forced the court to look not at a woman's theoretical right, but at what was actually being killed resulted in a ban on partial birth abortion being upheld.

The court made its decision based on an assumption that unborns were something other than human beings and stated clearly that should their assumption be proven wrong that roe must be struck down as unconstitutional. Can you prove that unborns are something other than human beings.

As to the court knowing, of course they knew but denying that unborns were human beings was the only way they could see thier pre existing agenda through. Adherence to the constitution had nothing to do with the roe decision.

Semantics. The court always has known that the fetus was a living mass that was human. It is at what point of development do the assign personhood. The court rightly decided that viability was the correct marker of time.

It is you who is playing semantics. Human and "a" human are two different things. Your liver is human but has no constitutional protection. You, however, are "a human being" and because of that, and nothing else, you have constitutional protection.

As to when we assign personhood, you need to refer to Black's Legal Dictionary. It is the dictionary that the Supreme Court uses to settle disputes over legal terms. Should you and I be before the court and in a dispute over what the word person means, the dictionary would come out and be turned to page 1152 (depending on the edition) and the definition of person would be read out loud. It would read "a human being". No time limits, no age limits, no developmental prerequisites, simply a human being.

The court knew perfectly well when roe was decided that to acknowledge that unborns were human beings was to acknolwedge that they were persons since all human beings are persons. In order to allow abortion they had to assume that unborns were something other than human beings which is exactly what they did.

And again semantics. The court may have called it something else but were well aware of what a fetus was. They were simply assigning different names to what we knew then and what we know now. Perhaps what they should have said was... not a human being developed to a point of personhood due to the lack of many things at that early stage of development.

Semantics on their part, not mine. Slavery was allowed based on the same sort of semantics. The court said that blacks were not human beings and as such, had no claim to any constitutional protections. Clearly the court was wrong then and they were wrong when they decided roe based on an assumption. Roe gave women the right to terminate a potential human life, it said nothing at all about any right to kill another human being.

As to the lack of many things at that stage of development, the court never addressed it because all human beings are persons without regard to what they have or have not developed. They were forced to assume that they were not human beings at all, otherwise they could never have decided roe as they did. There is a reason that roe is known by legal minds on both sides of the issue as the poorest decision the court has ever made.

Changing the semantics will not change the decision. Furthermore your 3 to 5 year timeline for this huge change is similar to what you've said before yet since then we are 3 years further down the line now with a President that is fully Pro-Choice and you will only be loosing more ground even quicker as he appoints Justices with more precedent for a woman's right just keeps piling up.

Note: In that time a ban on partial birth abortion has been upheld. Pro choicers prior to that decision claimed that no abortion would ever be banned. So much for that theory.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

No, I have not called for complete bans on abortion. If a woman's life or long term health are in imminent danger, she has the same right to defend herself as anyone else.

As to rape and incest, all I ask is for a rational argument in favor of killing a child for the crime of its father and I can be convinced. Logical fallacy, misrepresentation of fact, diversion, and deliberate lies, however, do not represent, nor constitute rational argument.

As you have seen above, even one who generally holds an anti abortion point of view will mindlessly hold to fantasy and fabricate all manner of (for lack of a better term) BS in an attempt to protect an emotional attachment to a particular issue.

I've read all of your posts on this thread and while I find your ability to state your point of view {with all of your substantial documentation/ideologies/abundant proof for stopping a woman's right to ask for and receive and abortion} clearly and distinctly...it won't change the way in which we...humans can not be the primary voice to dictate to another woman's ability: Pro-Choice/Pro-Life for the when/where/what of terminating a fetus.

This is not a win/win situation, you will never eradicate the abortion procedure...you'll just drive it into the dark ages and it will become a black market affair and highly dangerous to every woman that will make that choice. Yep, I have a truly sad tale but that doesn't need to be written to reinforce my opinion about the whys/wherefore that I made my heart-wrenching decision back in the early 70's...but I've never regretted that decision, not one time.

And frankly I find this all just highly insulting that a few of you men take this issue with what is wrong about a women deciding to abort her fetus.

Until you have a WOMB, then to me it is a no brainer...you don't get to tell us {women} what you want us to do/think/feel!!! But that's just my POV!

 

[palerider]

This is not a win/win situation, you will never eradicate the abortion procedure...you'll just drive it into the dark ages and it will become a black market affair and highly dangerous to every woman that will make that choice. Yep, I have a truly sad tale but that doesn't need to be written to reinforce my opinion about the whys/wherefore that I made my heart-wrenching decision back in the early 70's...but I've never regretted that decision, not one time.

Neither will we ever be able to stop assault, robbery, arson, tax evasion, purjury, or even speeding. That does not, however suggest that we should simply make them legal.

Breaking the law and denying another human being their most basic human rights is always a dangerous affair and any society that attempts in any way to make it easy, is a society that is on the decline.

And frankly I find this all just highly insulting that a few of you men take this issue with what is wrong about a women deciding to abort her fetus.

Issues don't have genders. Whether I am male or female is completely irrelavent. How do you answer a woman who makes the same arguments that I make.

As to it being "her" fetus, think again. It is a living human being and the last time I checked, in this country, one human being can't claim ownership of another human being. If you can prove in some substantial way that unborns are somethig other than human beings, you have yourself an argument. If you can't all you have is a logical fallacy.

Until you have a WOMB, then to me it is a no brainer...you don't get to tell us {women} what you want us to do/think/feel!!! But that's just my POV!

Again, how do you answer a woman who makes the same arguments that I make? This is a human rights issue and as a human being, I have as much right, and responsibility to address the issue as anyone else and when I see Americans cheering for the denial of even the most basic human rights to an entire class, that responsibility is magnified.

 

[palerider]

What's the matter bob? Cat got your tounge? What is your positon on embryotic stem cell research? Do you support fertilizing eggs and creating embryos expressly for the purpose of killing them to use thier component parts for research?

 

[Pandora]

Neither will we ever be able to stop assault, robbery, arson, tax evasion, purjury, or even speeding. That does not, however suggest that we should simply make them legal.

Breaking the law and denying another human being their most basic human rights is always a dangerous affair and any society that attempts in any way to make it easy, is a society that is on the decline.



Issues don't have genders. Whether I am male or female is completely irrelavent. How do you answer a woman who makes the same arguments that I make.

As to it being "her" fetus, think again. It is a living human being and the last time I checked, in this country, one human being can't claim ownership of another human being. If you can prove in some substantial way that unborns are somethig other than human beings, you have yourself an argument. If you can't all you have is a logical fallacy.



Again, how do you answer a woman who makes the same arguments that I make? This is a human rights issue and as a human being, I have as much right, and responsibility to address the issue as anyone else and when I see Americans cheering for the denial of even the most basic human rights to an entire class, that responsibility is magnified.

You give a great argument, I wish you would write a book, debate one of the planned parenthood people or speak at pro life conventions or something.

 

[samsara15]

Neither will we ever be able to stop assault, robbery, arson, tax evasion, purjury, or even speeding. That does not, however suggest that we should simply make them legal.

Breaking the law and denying another human being their most basic human rights is always a dangerous affair and any society that attempts in any way to make it easy, is a society that is on the decline.

Issues don't have genders. Whether I am male or female is completely irrelavent. How do you answer a woman who makes the same arguments that I make.

As to it being "her" fetus, think again. It is a living human being and the last time I checked, in this country, one human being can't claim ownership of another human being. If you can prove in some substantial way that unborns are somethig other than human beings, you have yourself an argument. If you can't all you have is a logical fallacy.

Again, how do you answer a woman who makes the same arguments that I make? This is a human rights issue and as a human being, I have as much right, and responsibility to address the issue as anyone else and when I see Americans cheering for the denial of even the most basic human rights to an entire class, that responsibility is magnified.

Then I take it, Pale, since it follows from the social responsiblity part of the argument you give us above, that you support full blown socialism? Maybe there's some hope for you, after all.

 

[Pandora]

Sam and Sara what do laws against killing have to do with socialism? What do human rights have to do with socialism?

Did we get a step closer to socialism when we ended slavery?
Or when we let women vote?
Or when we passed civil rights?

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Neither will we ever be able to stop assault, robbery, arson, tax evasion, perjury, or even speeding. That does not, however suggest that we should simply make them legal.

Malice intent/aggressive assault against another 'human being' is what/why the laws are established...I do not believe as you do that the fetus is a 'human being'...for me they haven't been born nor have they taken a life sustaining breath. BUT that's IMO and there will never be any change in that!

Breaking the law and denying another human being their most basic human rights is always a dangerous affair and any society that attempts in any way to make it easy, is a society that is on the decline.

Stand on the sidelines and force this issue back before the supreme court and it will never-ever make it a 'non medical procedure'...it will continue as it has for centuries!

Issues don't have genders. Whether I am male or female is completely irrelavent. How do you answer a woman who makes the same arguments that I make.

As I always have and will continue to do sooooo; then do not even think about the abortion option, once the baby is born, give it up for adoption or raise it as you wish. NO ONE has ever been FORCED TO ABORT...not that I'm aware of, not since slavery has been abolished in America, anyway!

As to it being "her" fetus, think again. It is a living human being and the last time I checked, in this country, one human being can't claim ownership of another human being. If you can prove in some substantial way that unborns are somethig other than human beings, you have yourself an argument.

Well, my substantial way; is to leave that up to the medical professionals that all have different points of view on that point of 'what/when is a human, a human' and that has all been argued before the supreme court...by far more learned people then I, for sure!

If you can't all you have is a logical fallacy.

Well, here we are right back at that impasse...your logic and my logic part ways and you are allowed you opinion and I will sustain mine as well. We will agree to disagree on your logical fallacy and what weight I place on your repetitive telling me, I AM WRONG!

Again, how do you answer a woman who makes the same arguments that I make? This is a human rights issue and as a human being, I have as much right, and responsibility to address the issue as anyone else and when I see Americans cheering for the denial of even the most basic human rights to an entire class, that responsibility is magnified.

Asked and answered...every woman has the right to CHOOSE.

And as for the 2nd part of this last statement...FREEDOM OF SPEECH...AMEN.

 

[palerider]

Then I take it, Pale, since it follows from the social responsiblity part of the argument you give us above, that you support full blown socialism? Maybe there's some hope for you, after all.

How exactly do you equate protecting human rights with socialism?

 

[palerider]

Malice intent/aggressive assault against another 'human being' is what/why the laws are established...I do not believe as you do that the fetus is a 'human being'...for me they haven't been born nor have they taken a life sustaining breath. BUT that's IMO and there will never be any change in that!

What you "believe" is a matter of faith and irrelavent. What you can prove is all that matters and I dare say that you can't even begin to prove that unborns, at any stage of development are something other than living human beings. Keep your faith personal, where it belongs, and don't attempt to deny an entire class of human beings their most basic human rights with it.

Stand on the sidelines and force this issue back before the supreme court and it will never-ever make it a 'non medical procedure'...it will continue as it has for centuries!

I dont have any idea what you are trying to say here. Killing another human being isn't a medical procedure. Killing another human being with intent is murder.

As I always have and will continue to do sooooo; then do not even think about the abortion option, once the baby is born, give it up for adoption or raise it as you wish. NO ONE has ever been FORCED TO ABORT...not that I'm aware of, not since slavery has been abolished in America, anyway!

How many people do you suppose have been "forced" to murder? Your point is irrelavent. How many people do you suppose were "forced" to own slaves. Do you think that because people voluntarily deny the most basic human rights to another human being that it somehow makes it OK?

Well, my substantial way; is to leave that up to the medical professionals that all have different points of view on that point of 'what/when is a human, a human' and that has all been argued before the supreme court...by far more learned people then I, for sure!

How about you provide a single credible source that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is at any time ever anything other than a human being. I have certainly spent plenty of time in the research and have yet to find anyone who suggests that metamorphosis is part of our developmental cycle. We don't start off life as one thing and then "turn into" human beings. The roe court didn't address the issue at all. They simply assumed that unborns were something other than human beings. Further, the majority decision clearly states that should their assumption ever be proven wrong, that roe must be struck down as unconstitutional. Lets see some actual credible evidence that supports their assumption.

Well, here we are right back at that impasse...your logic and my logic part ways and you are allowed you opinion and I will sustain mine as well. We will agree to disagree on your logical fallacy and what weight I place on your repetitive telling me, I AM WRONG!

The difference is that you are expressing an opinion. An uncorroborated, unsubstantiated opinion while you have never even heard what my opinion is. I am arguing nothing that I can't prove and provide an overwhelming body of evidence to support. My opinion is as meaningless and irrelavent as your own and that is why I don't express it as part of the argument. I deal in facts. Can you provide any hard, credible facts to support your opinion. To date, I have not seen them.

And anyone can claim logical fallacy. Feel free to describe which logical fallacy you believe I have engaged in and by all means, explain it in detail. I believe you will find upon close examination, that I do not engage in logical fallacy at all. Unlike you and yours, I don't make my arguments up as I go. Each and every part of my argument has been carefully researched. I don't make claims that I can't support.

Asked and answered...every woman has the right to CHOOSE.

The roe court said that a woman has the right to terminate a potential human being. Can you provide any credible evidence that suggests that an unborn is a potential human being? I can easily provide a large body of credible material that states explicitly that unborns are human beings from the time that they are concieved. In addition, I can point to a rather large body of legal precedent that establishes that unborns are not only human beings, but are, in fact, persons.