Does this make sense?

[zMtLlC]

No, it is like the pro-life argument, the idea that you have the right to control another person's body against their will

The "unborn child" is not part of the woman's body. It is a separate human being which is being carried by the mother. It has a heartbeat and is no way part of the mother's body. No matter what way you cut it, "aborting" a child is murder. Lives should not be "aborted" simply for the convenience of the woman.

Ah, you must be talking to the mirror.

How old are you 5? This is similiar to the kid's saying "I know what you are but what am I?"

 

[steen]

The "unborn child" is not part of the woman's body.

but you ARE saying that it is OK to control the WOMAN'S body, to enslave her and take her bodily resources against her will.

It is a separate human being

Please evidence that it is a "being."

which is being carried by the mother.

She is not a "mother" until birth.

It has a heartbeat

Irrelevant. That's just an automatic muscle reaction.

and is no way part of the mother's body.

Yeah, that umbilical cord is just a figment of our imagination. :roll:

No matter what way you cut it,

Oh, ah, I feel one of those not-rare-at-all deceptive pro-life "just because I wish it to be so" claims so void of factuality

"aborting" a child is murder.

A child is born and thus can not be aborted. Abortion is not murder, never mind how many times a pro-lifer repeats that lying claim.

Lives should not be "aborted" simply for the convenience of the woman.

None of your business.

How old are you 5? This is similiar to the kid's saying "I know what you are but what am I?"

Bwahaha. Your age seems around 7-8, that's where kids lie a lot just because they can't figure out that their wishful thinking and beliefs are not facts.

 

[zMtLlC]

but you ARE saying that it is OK to control the WOMAN'S body, to enslave her and take her bodily resources against her will.

But you ARE saying that it is OK for the WOMAN to control her CHILD'S body, to ensalve it and take his/her life against his/her will. Every American has the right to life.

Please evidence that it is a "being."

Well the fetus has all the same things you and I have: a mind, 5 fingers and toes, 2 arms and legs, a heart and beat, and a soul. How is it NOT a being?

She is not a "mother" until birth.

Alright fine. The "carrier of the child."

Irrelevant. That's just an automatic muscle reaction.

When a person gets in an accident and they're trying to determine if they're alive or not what do they check? The heartbeat.

Yeah, that umbilical cord is just a figment of our imagination

Are siamese twins separate people?

Oh, ah, I feel one of those not-rare-at-all deceptive pro-life "just because I wish it to be so" claims so void of factuality

When it comes down to it, this is not about facts. It is about morality.

A child is born and thus can not be aborted. Abortion is not murder, never mind how many times a pro-lifer repeats that lying claim.

"In the criminal law, murder is the crime where one human being causes the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder)
I believe that the carrier of the child and the doctor cause the death of another human being. Therefore it is murder.

None of your business.

It becomes my business when a person is not given the right to life. Remember that right that's in the constitution?

Bwahaha. Your age seems around 7-8, that's where kids lie a lot just because they can't figure out that their wishful thinking and beliefs are not facts.

I lie? Where did I lie?

 

[steen]

But you ARE saying that it is OK for the WOMAN to control her CHILD'S body, to ensalve it and take his/her life against his/her will.

nobody have talked about children, your prolife, deceptive, revisionist linguistic hyoperbole none withstanding.

Every American has the right to life.

To the point of having the right to use a person's bodily resources against their will?

Well the fetus has all the same things you and I have: a mind, 5 fingers and toes, 2 arms and legs, a heart and beat, and a soul. How is it NOT a being?

First of all, you nee to evidence the nonsense about a 'mind" and a 'soul." Secondly, tissue alone doesn't make a being, or your kidney would qualify as a being.

Alright fine. The "carrier of the child."

Would that be a wheeled stroller, or one of those stomach pouches the child hangs in?

In any rate, that is irrelevant to the issue of abortions.

When a person gets in an accident and they're trying to determine if they're alive or not what do they check? The heartbeat.

No, that merely shows if the heart stopped and whether there is a need for CPR. Didn't you know? The heart stopping is not the same as being dead. Likewise, you can be braindead and your heart kept pumping through a pace maker.

So again, what is the significance you attribute to a beating heart.

Are siamese twins separate people?

As they are born, yes. As long as they have to heads and two brains and two independent personalitites expressible.

When it comes down to it, this is not about facts. It is about morality.

Well, perhaps the immorality of enslaving and oppressing women, perhaps. But if it is not about facts, why do pro-lifers put such a great effort into lying about facts?

"In the criminal law, murder is the crime where one human being causes the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder)
I believe that the carrier of the child and the doctor cause the death of another human being. Therefore it is murder.

other than Wikipedia not being the best source for definitions, it certainyldid mention illegality as a determining factor. So even per wikipedia's definition, your claim is false. Your OWN source points out that what you state as a "belief" is false in the real world.

It becomes my business when a person is not given the right to life. Remember that right that's in the constitution?

But then, as the fetus is not a person and does not have a right to life, that is just more irrelevant hyperbole,

I lie? Where did I lie?

I documented every time you did.

 

[ngdawg]

Calling out someone for slinging insults and being insulted are two different things entirely. Still can't understand your silly obsession with dogs and humans, but what you do in your time is for you. Anyhow, yes I got, GOOD. You said "That does make them a living breathing dog or human." I would agree they are living, breathing dogs and humans. Glad we could put that issue to rest. The only part left is that you see fit to kill living, breathing humans and I don't.

Neither do I as that would be murder or manslaughter. Besides, find one quote or mine where i said see fit to kill anything.

And yes again I agree that slavery is relevant here (again your own words). Also, it is illegal but for much of history it was not. The argument for slavery was quite similar to the argument for abortion. Slaves were not persons under the law. Another Supreme Court decision.

My own words only because anti-choice think women have no rights to their own bodies, hence, akin to a slavery scenario.

We will just ignore your last comments as it appears you are still trying to get a hold of your emotions and move past adolescence so you can have a discussion like big people. No problem, I will remain patient.

I have no emotions towards this inane exchange. Twisting words and not using facts or law to back up those words is playground games.Ignoring the simple fact that women have the final say in how their bodies are utilized is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and humming. And, seeing as how I am old enough to be your mother, your attempt at insult is inept at best.

 

[zMtLlC]

as the fetus is not a person and does not have a right to life

This is the main point where most people disagree. This is the whole argument of abortion. Now we are merely arguing over morality, not facts. I believe that a baby has the right to life. You obviously don't. But now I go back to the old bumper sticker: "Your mom chose life didn't she?" That's what it comes down to.

Descarte once said "I think therefore I am." So according to that logic wouldn't the point where brain waves are detectable be the point where life starts?

Well, perhaps the immorality of enslaving and oppressing women, perhaps. But if it is not about facts, why do pro-lifers put such a great effort into lying about facts?

First: It is not "enslaving and oppressing women" to make them face the consequences of their actions. They don't even have to take responsibility of the child once it is born. There is a program in place where a woman can hand a child to a nurse in a hospital and they will take it, no questions asked. This country would be a much better place if people took more responsibility for their actions. I believe that it is more important for that fetus to be given the opportunity for life than "oppressing" women. Their mother gave them the opportunity for life so why should they be able to choose whether someone else is given that same opportunity?

Second: I challenge you to show me where I lied.

that is just more irrelevant hyperbole,

So the constitution is just an irrelevant hyperbole? If I could say something here, the constitution is what governs this country. It is not irrelevant. It is sad when people put the right to "choose" over the right to "life." If I remember correctly, life is the FIRST right that given to every American in the constitution, and liberty is the SECOND.

 

[ngdawg]

This is the main point where most people disagree. This is the whole argument of abortion. Now we are merely arguing over morality, not facts. I believe that a baby has the right to life. You obviously don't. But now I go back to the old bumper sticker: "Your mom chose life didn't she?" That's what it comes down to.

Descarte once said "I think therefore I am." So according to that logic wouldn't the point where brain waves are detectable be the point where life starts?



First: It is not "enslaving and oppressing women" to make them face the consequences of their actions. They don't even have to take responsibility of the child once it is born. There is a program in place where a woman can hand a child to a nurse in a hospital and they will take it, no questions asked. This country would be a much better place if people took more responsibility for their actions. I believe that it is more important for that fetus to be given the opportunity for life than "oppressing" women. Their mother gave them the opportunity for life so why should they be able to choose whether someone else is given that same opportunity?

Second: I challenge you to show me where I lied.



So the constitution is just an irrelevant hyperbole? If I could say something here, the constitution is what governs this country. It is not irrelevant. It is sad when people put the right to "choose" over the right to "life." If I remember correctly, life is the FIRST right that given to every American in the constitution, and liberty is the SECOND.

Uh, that would be the Declaration of Independence and it dictates the beliefs of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the right of every MAN. There is nothing in any legal federal document giving these rights to a nonexistent living breathing American(they don't even apply to women, really) . But since you insist on perpetrating this-life, liberty and pursuit of happiness FIRST belongs to those that can exercise those rights. Second, in order sometimes to exercise those rights, sacrifices and choices are made. Amendments cover those.

And the merry-go-round keeps going....

 

[zMtLlC]

My own words only because anti-choice think women have no rights to their own bodies, hence, akin to a slavery scenario

First: I would much rather be considered anti-choice than anti-life.

Second: Women do have rights to their own bodies. It is in no way akin to slavery. They are not being forced to do anything but carry a child for about 9 months and deliver it into life. Slaves did not have the right to vote, to own land, to have marriages, or any other rights granted to American citizens. Women do. So please explain to me how it is a woman's "right" to choose whether another being lives or dies? And how it is part of her body.

 

[ngdawg]

First: I would much rather be considered anti-choice than anti-life.

Second: Women do have rights to their own bodies. It is in no way akin to slavery. They are not being forced to do anything but carry a child for about 9 months and deliver it into life.

I don't think ONE pro-choice person here has ever said one single thing to legitimize the term anti-life.
You're a man, aren't you.....Let's see if I can include all that happens during those nine months:
Morning sickness. In some cases, women may become so dehydrated as to require hospitalization. In mild cases, an ocassional daily vomit is the norm.
Breasts swell and can become quite heavy. The nipples enlarge and become darker.
Blood supply to the brain and heart begin to diminish. Fainting can occur as can clumsiness and temporary 'brain farts'-memory is affected as is logic.
Hormonal changes. Oxytocin, progesterone increase. Emotions can run high, as can libido.
Skeletal and muscular changes. Hormones start making the hips flexible, the skeleton and connective tissue softer. Flat feet, back aches, popping knees all can and do occur.
Weight gain and possible edema. Blood supplies increase to feed both the fetus and mother, and sometimes water retention becomes an issue.
Organ displacement. In order to accomodate the growing fetus during this 'only nine months', the intestines(small and large), bladder, stomach, liver, pancreas and gall bladder shift and are basically 'squished'. Kidneys work overtime, in addition to also being pushed on. The heart and ribcage endure pressure. Gestational Diabetes is a strong possibility in some women. Women who are diabetic and get pregnant are very high risk, as are women who have Lupus, heart disease, epilepsy and a host of other maladies.
Skin changes. In addition to the obvious growth of the abdomen, skin becomes thinner in general. Faces can become flush and some women experience severe acne during the pregnancy.
Labor. Painful. Labor, in fact, is so painful that the female mind has the ability to erase the 'description' of it, nature's way of making sure she can endure it again. Should labor not proceed or the fetus show signs of distress(and doctors will most times refer to it as a 'fetus' in their work-they may use the term 'baby' only when speaking to the parents), then surgery, a C-section, may be done. Major surgery, the bladder is first moved(sometimes lain on the abdomen of the mother), the amniotic sac is cut and the baby pulled out. Stitches may number well over 30-the incision is hip to hip.
After the birth. Think those nine months are done? Think again. For anywhere from two weeks to three months the mother will bleed vaginally-heavy at first. If she does not nurse, she will have to ice down her now engorged breasts to help eradicate the milk she's been producing. Her now empty stomach will still be loose, as will her pelvis. Her vagina is possibly torn or cut, which will have to heal. She most likely has hemmorhoids which will never go away completely. The vagina, having been stretched to accomodate a 18-21 inch, 5-9 lbs baby, will take a couple of years to get to its pre-birth size.
Regardless of whether she keeps this 'only nine months' situation, she is now and forever someone who has gone through pregnancy and birth. Even after she dies, forensics will know this.
I may have missed a few things.
Only nine months? Yea, right.....

Slaves did not have the right to vote, to own land, to have marriages, or any other rights granted to American citizens. Women do. So please explain to me how it is a woman's "right" to choose whether another being lives or dies? And how it is part of her body.

Women didn't have those rights either, mostly until the 20th century, so your argument there is rather moot. As for the last 'question', see above, in addition to the points there, there's the 'umbilical cord', the use of HER uterus to contain the embryo/fetus, her blood, etc......

 

[steen]

This is the main point where most people disagree. This is the whole argument of abortion.

It is utterly irrelevant. It may be YOUR argument, but certainly not kine. To me, it is a non-issue.

Now we are merely arguing over morality, not facts.

Oh, Morality are founded in personal beliefs and not to be wholesale legislated.

I believe that a baby has the right to life. You obviously don't.

Sure a baby has a right to life. But that is utterly irrelevant here, as we are talking about abortion, not babies.

But now I go back to the old bumper sticker: "Your mom chose life didn't she?" That's what it comes down to.

And it needs to remain a right for mom to chose.

Descarte once said "I think therefore I am." So according to that logic wouldn't the point where brain waves are detectable be the point where life starts?

First you have to evidence that "brain waves" equals thought. Secondly, what most pro-lifers claim to be "brain waves" are no such thing. REAL brain waves can not physically occur until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy. Is THAT when you say life starts?

First: It is not "enslaving and oppressing women" to make them face the consequences of their actions. They don't even have to take responsibility of the child once it is born.

But you would like to force her to continue an unwanted pregnancy against her will, forcing her to relinquish her right to control her bodily resources and hand such rights over to you. That certainly looks like slavery, even though pro-lifers so desperately seek to avoid the real comparison with such heinous oppression of others.

There is a program in place where a woman can hand a child to a nurse in a hospital and they will take it, no questions asked.

The so called "moses laws," yes. And they can do so at fire stations, police stations and an number of places. All fine and dandy once she has given birth.

This country would be a much better place if people took more responsibility for their actions.

Sure. Stop smoking, start exercising, stop eating red meat etc. yes, should we legislate "healthy living"? So much for the very foundation of the US as a country of individual rights rather than a Governmentally regulated life.

If you want so deeply an intrusive Government, you will either have to drastically change the US Constitution or move somewhere else.

I believe that it is more important for that fetus to be given the opportunity for life than "oppressing" women. Their mother gave them the opportunity for life so why should they be able to choose whether someone else is given that same opportunity?

So they should have no say on the use of their bodily resources. Yes, we already know how much you want to oppress and enslave them in the name of your punitive, theocratic "morality."

So the constitution is just an irrelevant hyperbole? If I could say something here, the constitution is what governs this country. It is not irrelevant. It is sad when people put the right to "choose" over the right to "life." If I remember correctly, life is the FIRST right that given to every American in the constitution, and liberty is the SECOND.

You are NOT remembering correctly. :roll:

 

[steen]

First: I would much rather be considered anti-choice than anti-life.

But then, nobody here are anti-life, your dishonest hyperbole none withstanding.

Second: Women do have rights to their own bodies. It is in no way akin to slavery.

As long as they have the right to an abortion. If not, then they no longer have the right to control their bodily resources and thus very much is enslaved.

Like, f.ex. if the pro-lifers get their way.

They are not being forced to do anything but carry a child for about 9 months and deliver it into life.

So they ARE being forced. We thank you for your admission of pushing slavery.

Slaves did not have the right to vote, to own land, to have marriages, or any other rights granted to American citizens.

Ah, so you are saying that the slavery is not as BAD.

Women do.

But not if their right to bodily integrity is taken away. then they are enslaved.

So please explain to me how it is a woman's "right" to choose whether another being lives or dies? And how it is part of her body.

Well, a "being" is independent in biological function, so the embryo or fetus can't be looked at as a "being."