Abortion

[palerider]

There was no pre-existing agenda they simply made the correct decision. And furthermore the have been multiple changes on the high court and multiple long runs of Conservative administration over 40 years. There was no change because there is no need for change.

Sorry, but that is quite untrue. First the court acknowledged that they made the decision while in a state of uncertainty thus violating both their judical ethics and responsibility to never make a decision in a state of uncertainty when great harm can result. 40 million dead and counting. How much more harm might have been possible.

Second, they acknowledge that should their assumption be proven wrong that their decision must be struck down as unconstitutional. Hardly the hallmarks of a "correct" decision.

The slavery argument is a Red Herring. It's apples to oranges logic of the most ridiculous sort. Slaves were fully developed living and breathing on their own outside of anyone else's body and life support. Anyone can simply look at a slave and look at a fetus and tell they are not the same thing and should have different standing under the law.

Till you can prove that full development is what makes a human being a human being, it isn't. Till you can prove that, all you have is a logical fallacy known as begging the question.

 

[palerider]

I know you think the whole issue is one of avoiding responsibility, I disagree with you, this is not an issue of science, it's one of personal freedom AND responsibility.

Personal freedom doesn't extend to killing another human being. Till you can prove that abortion does not kill a human being, every argument you put forward is doomed to failure.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If the argument were about some sacred value of life, then you might have a point. That isn't what the argument is about. The argument is about the law and how it is being used to deny an entire class of human beings their most fundamental human rights.

If you want to discuss animal rights, then start a thread and we may or may not join it but it is, in fact, an entirely different subject as the law, at this point doesn't recognize any fundamental rights inherent to animals.

Perfect! You're right, the law gives animals and fetuses the same lack of rights and we're talking about changing the law to recognize that LIFE has value. You apparently wish to continue with the same pattern that we have always used: this life is sacred, this other life is profane. The only difference is that YOU want to change the law just enough to address YOUR issue only. Whereas I wish to see the law changed in the larger context so that we don't have to have these kinds of battles for every new life that is brought under the umbrella of ethical treatment.

If a clump of cells is a sacred life, then animals' lives should be sacred as well. Can you make one of your scientific arguments to show us how human life is the only life with intrinsic value?

Since you mention it, yes, a child born with no brain is an individual. They are by science and by law recognized as human beings and persons even though they are not conscious, or sentient. They will never have a thought, a feeling, or anything that even remotely resembles self awareness and will at best only live a matter of days and yet, they are accorded the full protection of the law.

Yet we decide to let them die by not using our technology to prolong their lives. We murder them in no less fashion than we murder the unborn.

How about we strike down the laws on murder, arson, assault, kidnapping, etc., etc., etc., depend on education to keep order in the streets. How well do you suppose that will work out?

False analogy and you know it.

The fact is that the majority of people obey the law. If abortion on demand comes to an end, most people will simply not consider abortion as an option.

Yeah, prohibition worked great. If there are no alternatives provided, then women will continue to end their pregnancies any way they can, just as they have done all down through human history. I don't understand you, Pale, you're not this stupid, you can read history and see that laws banning abortion have never worked very well and have always taken a huge toll in the deaths of women with other children who are left motherless. We have to have the ALTERNATIVES available before the law is changed or we'll never bother with the alternatives because they cost money.

Ronald Reagan, the 2nd worst President ever, closed mental institutions before there were any alternate places for the mentally ill to go and be cared for in this country. Now we have them living under bridges and begging on the street because no one wants to pony up the money to care for them properly. But the worst President still found hundreds of billions to spend on killing people on the other side of the world and our current President has found more hundreds of billions to pay out to giant corporations and banks.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Personal freedom doesn't extend to killing another human being. Till you can prove that abortion does not kill a human being, every argument you put forward is doomed to failure.

There is a concept of "justifiable" killing in our system of laws. We are just arguing if it applies in this instance.

 

[top gun]

Till you can prove that full development is what makes a human being a human being, it isn't. Till you can prove that, all you have is a logical fallacy known as begging the question.

As soon to be Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor said today on the Hill... This case has been decided & closed.

That's the fact that will remain. Women won. The government will not control their internal bodily functions.

 

[palerider]

Perfect! You're right, the law gives animals and fetuses the same lack of rights and we're talking about changing the law to recognize that LIFE has value. You apparently wish to continue with the same pattern that we have always used: this life is sacred, this other life is profane. The only difference is that YOU want to change the law just enough to address YOUR issue only. Whereas I wish to see the law changed in the larger context so that we don't have to have these kinds of battles for every new life that is brought under the umbrella of ethical treatment.

When you are fighting to protect all human lives, then you might be taken seriously in your effort to afford animals some rights. Anyone who fights for animals while ignoring the inherent rights of the most defenseless humans, however, is not to be taken seriously.

If a clump of cells is a sacred life, then animals' lives should be sacred as well. Can you make one of your scientific arguments to show us how human life is the only life with intrinsic value?

Why do you find it necessary to try and introduce religion or sacredness into the argument. Is it because you instinctively know that a religious argument has as little merit as your own as it can not be proven? I don't make arguments that I can't prove which is why you are doomed to lose every encounter with me.

Yet we decide to let them die by not using our technology to prolong their lives. We murder them in no less fashion than we murder the unborn.

Sorry, but unilatarally redefining words won't help you win this one. It is murder to kill with intent. If one is so sick or injured that no hope of recovery exists, letting them die is not murder. Murder is murder because it denies a human being thier most basic human right, that is the right to live. You have no right to have extraordinary measures taken on your behalf to extend your life when no real hope for your recovery exists. Face it, if the facts don't support you, word games will not help.

False analogy and you know it.

Sorry, but it is not. You claim that we can depend on education and not the law to protect the unborn. It education can protect the unborn, why exactly can it not be depended upon to protect the rest of us?

Yeah, prohibition worked great. If there are no alternatives provided, then women will continue to end their pregnancies any way they can, just as they have done all down through human history. I don't understand you, Pale, you're not this stupid, you can read history and see that laws banning abortion have never worked very well and have always taken a huge toll in the deaths of women with other children who are left motherless. We have to have the ALTERNATIVES available before the law is changed or we'll never bother with the alternatives because they cost money.

If you knew the history, you wouldn't make such an ignorant statement. Across the country, most people simply didn't drink. The few places where crime ran rampant (with high crime rates prior to prohibition by the way) does not mean that people, in general, didn't obey the law.

And again, you don't seem to grasp the purpose of law. No law can stop anyone from doing anything that they have their mind set on doing. The law merely provides a means to punish those who do it anyway.

Can you name a law that can prevent someone from actually doing a thing if they are determined to do it? A single one will do. That being the case, why is it that you insist that abortion not be banned because there are those who will do it anyway? Are you unable to see the flaw in your logic?

Ronald Reagan, the 2nd worst President ever, closed mental institutions before there were any alternate places for the mentally ill to go and be cared for in this country. Now we have them living under bridges and begging on the street because no one wants to pony up the money to care for them properly. But the worst President still found hundreds of billions to spend on killing people on the other side of the world and our current President has found more hundreds of billions to pay out to giant corporations and banks.

I note that since Reagan, there have been quite a few years of democrat control in both the white house and the houses of congress. Right now, democrats control everything and yet, I don't see anyone clamoring to bring the mentally ill out from under thier bridges. Blaming Regan is hypocritical to say the least and on top of that, it is just another red herring on your part that has nothing to to with killing human beings for reasons that rarely amount to more than convenience.

 

[palerider]

There is a concept of "justifiable" killing in our system of laws. We are just arguing if it applies in this instance.

Grab yourself a legal dictionary.

justifiable homicide - n - a killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, i.e. as self-defense to protect oneself or to protect another or the shooting by a law enforcement officer in fulfilling his/her duties. This is not to be confused with a crime of passion or claim of diminished capacity, which refer to defenses aimed at reducing the penalty or degree of crime.

Sorry but I doubt that even you could twist abortion, when the woman's life or long term health are not in imminent danger into justifiable homicide.

The pro choice side of this argument is about to run into some very serious legal trouble. It is a fact that federal law states that it is murder to kill an unborn at any stage of development except for abortion. There are people right now in prison having been convicted for murder in the deaths of unborns and it is a fact that you can not be convicted of murder in this country unless it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that you have, in fact, killed a person.

Now, offer up, if you can, a reasonable explanation of how a single individual can be either a constitutionally protected person or an unprotected non person dependent upon nothing more than the circumstances of their death within the context of a constitution that features a prominent equal protection clause.

This is what is coming head long towards roe and there simply is no reasonable explanation. You can't offer one, top gun can't offer one, and the best pro choice minds in the legal community can't offer one.

 

[palerider]

As soon to be Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor said today on the Hill... This case has been decided & closed.

That's the fact that will remain. Women won. The government will not control their internal bodily functions.

In case you haven't noticed, Sonya Sotomayor doesn't change the present balance of power on the court and that balance presently leans towards restricting abortion. Swapping a pro choice judge for a pro choice judge doesn't change anything. Further, I don't believe sonja gets to decide which cases come before the court.

As I have said before, I encourage you to continue to believe as you do. That will make your outrage over roe being overturned all the more vehement and enjoyable to watch.

Pathetic that you would cheer for a supreme court judge whom you know is not particularly interested in the constitution.

 

[GenSeneca]

Ancephaly. Children born with no brain or only the most primitive part of the brain that keeps organs functioning. No higher thought process, awareness, sensation, hearing, sight, etc are possible. It happens and when it does, the child will, at best, live for a matter of days.

You must be incorrect on the life span, clearly there are some that post here.

 

[Pandora]

You must be incorrect on the life span, clearly there are some that post here.

Oh that was a good one!

 

[samsara15]

You must be incorrect on the life span, clearly there are some that post here.

You have my sincere sympathy.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Originally Posted by GenSeneca
You must be incorrect on the life span, clearly there are some that post here.

You have my sincere sympathy.

Hey, here's my 2¢ worth: I'm trying to emulate the great 'cheerleader BIB'...

How about we combine their two particle brains and then maybe they'll have a complete ½ of brain between them...let's see if we take: (BIB + GenSeneca = ½ brain)...but I would be short changing GenSeneca...I believe he just has that trolling cheerleader by default...it's not like he needs nor did he ask for her one liner smack downs...LMAO

 

[top gun]

In case you haven't noticed, Sonya Sotomayor doesn't change the present balance of power on the court and that balance presently leans towards restricting abortion. Swapping a pro choice judge for a pro choice judge doesn't change anything. Further, I don't believe sonja gets to decide which cases come before the court.

As I have said before, I encourage you to continue to believe as you do. That will make your outrage over roe being overturned all the more vehement and enjoyable to watch.

Pathetic that you would cheer for a supreme court judge whom you know is not particularly interested in the constitution.

Ah, but our great new Justice Sonya Sotomayor is just the first. And she explained the standing of Roe so perfectly today. I was very proud. Exactly what I've been saying. Plus the court has no intention of changing anything anyway.

And see where I have the advantage over you and always will is while you click your heels together saying "there's no place like home" dreaming of something that ain't never gonna happen.

I get to continue to watch you pee down your leg in anger & frustration because of the way things really are for as long as I want, just like have for the past three years.

I love America! Welcome to the High Court Justice Sotomayor!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You must be incorrect on the life span, clearly there are some that post here.

Yes, but that's no reason to pick on the Republicans.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

When you are fighting to protect all human lives, then you might be taken seriously in your effort to afford animals some rights. Anyone who fights for animals while ignoring the inherent rights of the most defenseless humans, however, is not to be taken seriously.

So I have to save the important lives first, and then it's okay with you if I try to save the others? All lives, Pale, all lives, there is little respect for any life in our culture.

Why do you find it necessary to try and introduce religion or sacredness into the argument. Is it because you instinctively know that a religious argument has as little merit as your own as it can not be proven? I don't make arguments that I can't prove which is why you are doomed to lose every encounter with me.

Why don't you know about the secular meanings of "sacred" and "profane"? Get a dictionary. I also asked about "intrinsic" value, how religious is that? You can't win an argument with me because you are a one-trick-pony using the same argument over and over again, even when it doesn't bear on what is being discussed.

Sorry, but unilatarally redefining words won't help you win this one. It is murder to kill with intent. If one is so sick or injured that no hope of recovery exists, letting them die is not murder. Murder is murder because it denies a human being thier most basic human right, that is the right to live. You have no right to have extraordinary measures taken on your behalf to extend your life when no real hope for your recovery exists. Face it, if the facts don't support you, word games will not help.

Someone has to make the decision, that's a value judgment, this life is worth fighting for and this other life is not. Tell me that's not murder, what if I decide that you aren't going to make it and take you off the high tech life-supports and when you die I just say that you weren't going to make it anyway?

Sorry, but it is not. You claim that we can depend on education and not the law to protect the unborn. It education can protect the unborn, why exactly can it not be depended upon to protect the rest of us?

Education is the place to start, putting in place supports for women and children should be next, then laws requiring men to shoulder their responsibility, and public guarantees of support and medical care for all pregnant women and children. Then, and only then, do you start using the law to encourage the people to use the options open to them and avoid abortion.

If you knew the history, you wouldn't make such an ignorant statement. Across the country, most people simply didn't drink. The few places where crime ran rampant (with high crime rates prior to prohibition by the way) does not mean that people, in general, didn't obey the law.

Yeah right. Our war on drugs is working too isn't it. Vast fortunes were made during prohibition and drink was available almost everywhere. Drugs are the same way. And the places where monstrous misogynists managed to pass laws against women having abortions has never stopped it from happening. Even nuns in convents managed to get abortions when necessary.

And again, you don't seem to grasp the purpose of law. No law can stop anyone from doing anything that they have their mind set on doing. The law merely provides a means to punish those who do it anyway.

That's just exactly the problem, my pale friend, I DO know that the law is there to punish. You are all about PUNISHMENT, you don't give a damn about women or babies I'll bet, you just want to punish! Punishment, revenge, and retribution--thank you for finally coming clean about your real interest in this issue. Vengeance!

I note that since Reagan, there have been quite a few years of democrat control in both the white house and the houses of congress. Right now, democrats control everything and yet, I don't see anyone clamoring to bring the mentally ill out from under thier bridges. Blaming Regan is hypocritical to say the least and on top of that, it is just another red herring on your part that has nothing to to with killing human beings for reasons that rarely amount to more than convenience.

Are you blaming me because the Democrats and the Republicans are greedy stupid people? You won't spend a nickel to prevent abortions unless it's for PUNISHMENT and REVENGE on women. Personally, I think we ought to give women options for doing something different before we start PUNISHING THEM.