"Controlling her body"

[Bodi]

What? And how does that work?

It means that the unborn is also a human being and until it has a say in the matter it must be protected under the law...

 

[Bodi]

:shock: Wow. Guess I need to be careful about what I'm saying, huh?

I just got a new signature...

 

[RamFel]

The gaining of rights relies on ability. Without our governments ability or our ability to defend our rights, we have no rights. Babies are defenseless, thus have no rights unless their governing body deems it so.

That makes your view of abortions more like an opinion Than a fact

 

[Pozessed]

That makes your view of abortions more like an opinion Than a fact

For you to consider my statement to be opinion and not fact, you more than likely assume that I am wrong. So please do tell what makes my statement erroneous.

 

[RamFel]

I rarely respond to your posts for the very reason I see in this post. Your blatant dishonesty. In the 5 years that I've been participating in this forum you have been given proof over and over and over that the yet to be born have zero rights.

You've been provided such so many times that people are worn out posting proof to you.

So just to be clear on your claim. You say that the yet to be born have a right to life. I'm going to take this a step farther. NO STAGE OF LIFE HAS THE RIGHT TO LIFE! There is no legislated law or Constitutional provision that claims that "anybody", born or yet to be born have a right to life.

Now, you've made such claims many times, always crying that the burden of proof is on everybody else to refute your claim. THIS TIME, you need to actually support your own claim regarding the "right to life" possessed by all stages of life.

Copy and paste any legislated law that states the born and yet to be born have the right to life. Copy and paste any portion of the Constitution, which states that the born or yet to be born have a right to life.

That's it. This should be one of the easiest tasks to pull up on a google search. It's so easy a first grader who has some basic reading and writing skills could do it.

We'll all wait for your reply with proof that the born and yet to be born has a "right to life".

You know, it doesn't matter to me that you seem to have a chip on your shoulder, and now, after being silent for a long time, you tell me that in order for me to prove myself to all of you I must do my duty and provide informaton for you to judge. I am being "summoned" as it were.

Very well, and I will tell you that I have seen many things that your side does in order to "try" and convince us that we are wrong, and it has all been bull. All of it. I doubt that my proof would be taken any more seriously as I have taken yours. So I offer this advice. You have yourself convinced. Be happy with that. I will continue to do my job and keep tearing into everything I come accross that is wrong. You can tear into me anytime you want because I don't care.

So my answer to you is no. I will not engage in your test of my worth to anybody on the left. I have done that and it has been caught by us as worthless. None of you are able to prove me wrong because you don't have the information you need to prove anything to either side, and in fact has proven you wrong multiple times enough to convince me that your group has always been wrong about women, babies, and abortion.

 

[RamFel]

For you to consider my statement to be opinion and not fact, you more than likely assume that I am wrong. So please do tell what makes my statement erroneous.

Because It seems you think that the government have to step in and defend is sounds right, but since they can't always be everywhere then we have no rights to live. So we lose our right to life when the government leaves us, or is unable to protect us?

And that is the basis for keeping abortion?

It seems to be that that the opposite is true.

 

[minnie616]

Because It seems you think that the government have to step in and defend is sounds right, but since they can't always be everywhere then we have no rights to live. So we lose our right to life when the government leaves us, or is unable to protect us?

And that is the basis for keeping abortion?

It seems to be that that the opposite is true.

Right.
Government cannot protect citizens from being killed.
It can provide punishment for those who break laws.
It can declare war and put our military people in harms way.
It can draft men or women who do not want to be a part of the armed service and send them off to war.

There is no right to life.

 

[Pozessed]

Because It seems you think that the government have to step in and defend is sounds right, but since they can't always be everywhere then we have no rights to live. So we lose our right to life when the government leaves us, or is unable to protect us?

And that is the basis for keeping abortion?

It seems to be that that the opposite is true.

With your last statement I assume you're trying to claim that the more our government offers to protect us the more we lose our right to life?

If that is true, your rebuttal has nothing to do with refuting my logic that babies have no right to life.

 

[Removable Mind]

Right.
Government cannot protect citizens from being killed.
It can provide punishment for those who break laws.
It can declare war and put our military people in harms way.
It can draft men or women who do not want to be a part of the armed service and send them off to war.

There is no right to life.

:applaud

 

[Removable Mind]

With your last statement I assume you're trying to claim that the more our government offers to protect us the more we lose our right to life?

If that is true, your rebuttal has nothing to do with refuting my logic that babies have no right to life.

I missed your logic on babies have no right to life. But are you talking about the yet to be born zygotes, embryos, fetuses or born babies? I mean either way no stage of life has a "right to life".

 

[Removable Mind]

It means that the unborn is also a human being and until it has a say in the matter it must be protected under the law...

Well, you're incorrect with regard to the yet to be born being human beings "according to the law" in the US. And no, such stages of life have no right to be protected until it has a say in the matter.

So when does a human being have a say in the matter. I think such a matter is illegal in most States in the US.

We've been over this how many times?

 

[Removable Mind]

I just got a new signature...

And you when use it at your discretion as your signature, my words in that post won't be reflect the context in which I made it. But that's the way it goes, huh? Oh, and you are almost comparing me to the likes of Ramfel by using my post as your signature. Thanks, it won't be forgotten.

 

[Pozessed]

I missed your logic on babies have no right to life. But are you talking about the yet to be born zygotes, embryos, fetuses or born babies? I mean either way no stage of life has a "right to life".

All of the above. There is no such thing as an inherent right without the ability to construct and defend said rights.

 

[Removable Mind]

All of the above. There is no such thing as an inherent right without the ability to construct and defend said rights.

Yes, get that and I agree, but babies right to life is a common saying by pro-life about the yet to be born. They aren't babies...

 

[Pozessed]

Yes, get that and I agree, but babies right to life is a common saying by pro-life about the yet to be born. They aren't babies...

I do agree. But the terminology is semantics and the wrong terminology can hinder communications. I think pro-life extremists will be hard pressed to respect the views of someone who doesn't relate to the terminology they prefer.

 

[RamFel]

Right.
Government cannot protect citizens from being killed.
It can provide punishment for those who break laws.
It can declare war and put our military people in harms way.
It can draft men or women who do not want to be a part of the armed service and send them off to war.

There is no right to life.

Right ! I got it!

So that's it. Babies are just S*** out of luck. No one that they can look to for protection. When you speak like that, it's like you're saying you really don't care to one of the most defenseless humans on the planet.


We as born humans, in every stage in life, do have rights, but we suffer a lot too. Because there are things we don't have right's to. You don't have the right go through a trouble free life. You do not have the right to be free of trouble, and you don't have a right to a lifetime of good health either. You can die anytime and a handful even suffer horrible deaths. Even our government has stepped in and says the unborn has no rights thereby causing the abortion issue.

I have seen and read a lot of things that the left has said about why we need abortion. And you can tell what kind of things were going through their minds when the came up with their carefully prepared statements, which went from

- It's her body. You should leave her to her own decision.
- It's not human any way, so you see, you can stop bothering us.
- It's dead, so why not abort it.
- It cannot think, or cannot survive out of the womb.
- Whether in the womb, or out of it, it is not human if it is still in the womb. No ifs, ands, or buts.
- And if the fetus felt pain during the abortion, those on the left, abortion doctors came up with ways to overcome that problem too.

I think this is what happened over the years. Pro lifers made valid arguments for years and the left responded. They found ways to step around the arguments by taking care of whatever issue came up In order to silence the right wing critics. Imo, years of criticism brought changes and improvements in techniques in order to get what ever goal they are / were after.

But it is still killing a baby. That will never change. And that is the real thing that you can never improve. The dirt of what abortionist does for a living. It smells of death, and it is totally dishonorable especially since it probably pays well. No amount of money would ever change that.

And of course, I truly believe life rights are being taken away from the most defenseless. After all, what can they do?

And the mothers, they secure for themselves what they DO NOT have a right to. Second chances, trouble free lives (as much as possible) and other benefits they should not have rights to.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I'd like to suggest that in today's lawsuit-happy society, any child who finds out that his or her mother smoked and/or drank during that child's unborn stage, could (after becoming adult) sue her for mistreatment and bodily harm, especially when there is vast amounts of medical advice against doing those activities during pregnancy, because of known harm caused to the unborn.

Allowing such lawsuits might, of course, increase the abortion rate as a preventative measure. Well, if it leads to fewer people suffering in the long term, why not? (oh, I forgot; horrible compassion-lacking abortion opponents WANT people to suffer!)

 

[Bodi]

Well, you're incorrect with regard to the yet to be born being human beings "according to the law" in the US. And no, such stages of life have no right to be protected until it has a say in the matter.

So when does a human being have a say in the matter. I think such a matter is illegal in most States in the US.

We've been over this how many times?

I didn't say that htey were, "under the law"...

And you when use it at your discretion as your signature, my words in that post won't be reflect the context in which I made it. But that's the way it goes, huh? Oh, and you are almost comparing me to the likes of Ramfel by using my post as your signature. Thanks, it won't be forgotten.

I used your sig as sarcasm AGAINST HIS STUPID line... as if you were making fun of him... as you intended... so there!

 

[Removable Mind]

I didn't say that htey were, "under the law"...



I used your sig as sarcasm AGAINST HIS STUPID line... as if you were making fun of him... as you intended... so there!

Thanks...