For All Pro-Choice Women

[Busta]

If it was proven to you that the fetus inside of you was in fact a living human child, would you still have an abortion? Prochoicedanielle said that she would, and I was absolutely shocked. I'm just wondering how many people would agree with her.

Too be clear, you mien if an (member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb) = unborn child was legally cemented as a 'person'?

If so, then this question is too easy too answer:
If said hypothetical unborn child were legally a 'person', then the 14th. Amendment would apply and grant it the Constitutional Right to Life (see Roe-v-Wade section 9a.).

Aborting said hypothetical unborn child would then be an act of *Murder in the First Degree (one count, per aborted child, would apply to each person involved: Mother, Doctore, Nurse, Receptionist, the person who gave you a ride....etc...); not withstanding an immediate threat to the Mother's life (in that case it would be *Justifiable Homicide).

Given the premise of this question, one only needs to ask one's self "would I *Murder someone ells because (insert reason you might want the abortion here) _____________?"

I would not *Murder a person for any reason, ever. So I voted no.

Roe-v-Wade..........
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...&invol=113
14th. Amendment....
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...mendments.html
Legal definitions......
http://dictionary.law.com

 

[Peralin]

Too be clear, you mien if an (member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb) = unborn child was legally cemented as a 'person'?

If so, then this question is too easy too answer:
If said hypothetical unborn child were legally a 'person', then the 14th. Amendment would apply and grant it the Constitutional Right to Life (see Roe-v-Wade section 9a.).

Aborting said hypothetical unborn child would then be an act of *Murder in the First Degree (one count, per aborted child, would apply to each person involved: Mother, Doctore, Nurse, Receptionist, the person who gave you a ride....etc...); not withstanding an immediate threat to the Mother's life (in that case it would be *Justifiable Homicide).

Given the premise of this question, one only needs to ask one's self "would I *Murder someone ells because (insert reason you might want the abortion here) _____________?"

I would not *Murder a person for any reason, ever. So I voted no.

Roe-v-Wade..........
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...&invol=113
14th. Amendment....
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...mendments.html
Legal definitions......
http://dictionary.law.com

No, I'm trying to stay out of legal issues for this thread. I mean if it could be proven that the fetus was a living human, or if we could communicate with it in some way. If it could be proven that we are no different form this fetus, that we are only more developed. If the fetus was one of us, would you still have the abortion (assuming that it was still legal)?

 

[Busta]

No, I'm trying to stay out of legal issues for this thread. I mean if it could be proven that the fetus was a living human, or if we could communicate with it in some way. If it could be proven that we are no different form this fetus, that we are only more developed. If the fetus was one of us, would you still have the abortion (assuming that it was still legal)?

You mien scientifically? Philosophicaly?

First let me warn you that there are many blogers that will call you on the specific words that you used. Science does present sollid evidence that a Zygote, Fetus and Embryo are Human life (at the cellular level, if nothing ells). The primary conflict comes in determining rather the unborn child is an individual. This is when the debate turns away from science (primarily) and into philosophy; What makes you an individual? There's allot of scientific evidence and known facts that support the observation of a diveloping child being dependent on the Mother in order to sustain it's self, but independence has no bering on individuality, and it is individuality, not independence, that makes us "people".

From a scientific viewpoint, I find that since 1. from conception on, the developing child possesses it's own D.N.A., 2. the diveloping child never sheres its circulatory system with it's Mother, and 3. the diveloping child never shears it's nervous systom with it's Mother, that this is sufficient enough evidence to observe a diveloping child as a dependant individual.
As such, I would not kill it.

From a philosophical viewpoint, my personal life experiences added with my spiritual connection with God and the dogma of my faith, show me that a diveloping child is it's own person.
As such, I would not kill it.

 

[steen]

And BTW, whenever I say "child", THIS IS THE DEFINITION I AM GOING BY:

Yes, it fits your deceptive and lying arguments, so I have no doubt you will copntinue to spew your deception, your revisionist linguistics, your hyperbole. It merely shows that you don't have an honest argument based on facts.

 

[steen]

I believe life begins at conception.........

SO there is no life before conception. Sperm and egg are actually dead. Ah, yes. Further evidence that conservativism is a factor of ignorance.

 

[steen]

Just think about it for a minute......the figures are staggering........40,000,000abortions since 1972.........How many of those could have been avoided? How many were done for convenience or for birth control purposes.......My heart crys out for all those innocent babies who never got the chance to live like we did...........

SO instead of trying to oppress women in the ineffective PL way, you could instead have provided help and support to those women to the point where they wouldn't have aborted. Just think about it. Your desire to oppress women instead of helping them have killed 40 million "babies" When will you decide that the price of oppressing women is simply to high?

 

[steen]

Aborting said hypothetical unborn child would then be an act of *Murder in the First Degree

So you are saying that there is a right to life that allows a "person" to use another person's bodily resources against their will if it saves their life?

 

[Busta]

So you are saying that there is a right to life that allows a "person" to use another person's bodily resources against their will if it saves their life?

Read it Agen...
Originally Posted by Busta;
"Aborting said hypothetical unborn child would then be an act of *Murder in the First Degree."

It's just a hypothetical question.
If a Zygote, Fetus and/or Embryo were given the legal standing of 'person', then YES: the unborne child's right to life would give it the right to receve it's Mother's gift of her bodily recourses, even agents her will (Roe-v-Wade section 9a.).

I can't wait to see how you will now distort this post.

 

[Peralin]

Yes, it fits your deceptive and lying arguments, so I have no doubt you will copntinue to spew your deception, your revisionist linguistics, your hyperbole. It merely shows that you don't have an honest argument based on facts.

No. I could specify every single time I reference this, but it would take too many words and it would be very redundant. So I'm telling you now that this is what I am talking about. If you don't like it then leave.

 

[Peralin]

SO there is no life before conception. Sperm and egg are actually dead. Ah, yes. Further evidence that conservativism is a factor of ignorance.

Shut up. You know that he meant the life of the individual. Your correcting us just shows that you have no argument. So stop and start arguing our points, not our words!

 

[Peralin]

Read it Agen...
Originally Posted by Busta;
"Aborting said hypothetical unborn child would then be an act of *Murder in the First Degree."

It's just a hypothetical question.
If a Zygote, Fetus and/or Embryo were given the legal standing of 'person', then YES: the unborne child's right to life would give it the right to receve it's Mother's gift of her bodily recourses, even agents her will (Roe-v-Wade section 9a.).

I can't wait to see how you will now distort this post.

Thank you, Busta, that is exactly what I've been trying to tell Steen in other threads. But he'll probably just sling insults and correct vocabulary instead of arguing his point. I would also like to see how he distorts your post.

 

[ShamMol]

Frankly, this isn't a political discussion at all, it is just a way to attack...

If we want to discuss, we don't ask this poll and then say something to the effect of..."I guess you are lucky your mother wasn't irked that day." That isn't discussion people.

In the spirit of that discussion, for me and my girlfriend, this breaks down logically and legally, though if we were to ever get into a sticky situation...like pregnancy, then we might have to think a lot harder. Legally-it is the mother's property to do with what she will and she can chose to do whatever she wants within time limits. Logically-the fetus can't consciously think (which is what we define as a human being) so therefore it really wouldn't matter all that much to us as a couple what it's non-existent higher brain functions were.

 

[Busta]

Frankly, this isn't a political discussion at all, it is just a way to attack...

If we want to discuss, we don't ask this poll and then say something to the effect of..."I guess you are lucky your mother wasn't irked that day." That isn't discussion people.

In the spirit of that discussion, for me and my girlfriend, this breaks down logically and legally, though if we were to ever get into a sticky situation...like pregnancy, then we might have to think a lot harder. Legally-it is the mother's property to do with what she will and she can chose to do whatever she wants within time limits. Logically-the fetus can't consciously think (which is what we define as a human being) so therefore it really wouldn't matter all that much to us as a couple what it's non-existent higher brain functions were.

No, this is a discussion.
Peralin started this thread and has not insulted or attacked a single person. It was Navy Pride, not Peralin, who, in post #5, said "Thankfully your mother wasn't having a bad hair day when she was pregnant or you would not be here to advocate murder of innocent babies in the womb.........." (which is hardly a personal attack or insult, but is, instead, an observation of personal moral judgment).

If anyone is attacking antone ells, it is steen (see posts 9, 15, 31, 32 & 33, and that is just on this thread, you should see what he posts elswhere), not Peralin.

Back to the discussion.....
A corporation, also, can not consciously think, yet a corporation currently does have legal standing as a 'person'. Why is it that the left is willing to give "evil" corporations, such as Haliburton and Exxon, a higher level of humanity than their own unborn offspring?

 

[Navy Pride]

SO instead of trying to oppress women in the ineffective PL way, you could instead have provided help and support to those women to the point where they wouldn't have aborted. Just think about it. Your desire to oppress women instead of helping them have killed 40 million "babies" When will you decide that the price of oppressing women is simply to high?

Why do you have no compassion for innocent defenseless babies in the womb..............If a woman does not want to have a baby then she should keep her legs crossed............Once she becomes pregnant there are 2 people involved..........

 

[Busta]

Originally Posted by steen
"SO instead of trying to oppress women in the ineffective PL way, you could instead have provided help and support to those women to the point where they wouldn't have aborted. Just think about it. Your desire to oppress women instead of helping them have killed 40 million "babies" When will you decide that the price of oppressing women is simply to high?"

Why do you have no compassion for innocent defenseless babies in the womb..............If a woman does not want to have a baby then she should keep her legs crossed............Once she becomes pregnant there are 2 people involved..........

LOL
Observe, Navy Pride, steen has backtracked to step #2 of The 3 Step Propagandist in that he is now trying to intimidate you by suggesting that you are responsible for "my body, my choice" and "Right to abortion" and "Men should have no say in what a Woman can do with her body". When you do not comply he will revert back to step #3, Insult & Label.

 

[ShamMol]

No, this is a discussion.
Peralin started this thread and has not insulted or attacked a single person. It was Navy Pride, not Peralin, who, in post #5, said "Thankfully your mother wasn't having a bad hair day when she was pregnant or you would not be here to advocate murder of innocent babies in the womb.........." (which is hardly a personal attack or insult, but is, instead, an observation of personal moral judgment).

If anyone is attacking antone ells, it is steen (see posts 9, 15, 31, 32 & 33, and that is just on this thread, you should see what he posts elswhere), not Peralin.

Back to the discussion.....
A corporation, also, can not consciously think, yet a corporation currently does have legal standing as a 'person'. Why is it that the left is willing to give "evil" corporations, such as Haliburton and Exxon, a higher level of humanity than their own unborn offspring?

Can you give me a link or two to that so that I could find out about that, because honestly I just don't get that statement about coporate standing as human beings. They have standing as corporations which entitle them to rights and priveledges as a result, just as I as a human get rights as a result of my being human.

And then after some discussion post is posted, you have Navy come in and post "She should keep her legs crossed." You should keep your mouth shut if you don't have anything else to add besides that. We get your posistion, you don't have to post it anymore, seriously.

 

[Busta]

Can you give me a link or two to that so that I could find out about that, because honestly I just don't get that statement about coporate standing as human beings. They have standing as corporations which entitle them to rights and priveledges as a result, just as I as a human get rights as a result of my being human.

And then after some discussion post is posted, you have Navy come in and post "She should keep her legs crossed." You should keep your mouth shut if you don't have anything else to add besides that. We get your posistion, you don't have to post it anymore, seriously.

LMAO!!!
Hear that Navy? You are my puppet! I controle you! You do nothing without my command! (Just thought you would like to know.)

Go here ( http://dictionary.law.com ) and search "person" and "corporation". This site will give you the current legal definitions. Additionally, if you go here ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/03.html#3 ) you will see another clear explanation of "person".

If you go here ( http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/a...bill32504.html ) and here ( http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html ) you will see that anyone, including the Mother, who ends the life of an unborn child with any methid other than the states definition of a consented abortion, can be charged with an equivalent crime as if the act was perpitrated agents the Mother herself. And yet, despite exiting law, "the left" passionately opposes giving a Zygote, Fetus &/or Embryo any official legal standing as a "person".

Again I ask, why is it that the left is willing to give "evil" corporations, such as Haliburton and Exxon, a higher level of humanity than their own unborn offspring?

"We get your position, you don't have to post it anymore, seriously"

Well, we get your position, you don't have to post it anymore, so maybe...."You should keep your mouth shut if you don't have anything else to add besides that."

 

[steen]

Shut up. You know that he meant the life of the individual.

How so? The words used does matter. Nowhere was the word "individual" used.

Your correcting us just shows that you have no argument. So stop and start arguing our points, not our words!

Ah, but you are deliberately using misleading words to make your argument. As long as that goes on, the words used ARE important.

When you guys stop using lies, deceptions, revisionist linguistics and hyperbole, we can actually discuss the issues. When your arguments are all misleading, it is impossible to discuss the issues.

And interestingly enough, when PC brings up issues in a honest fashion (in contrast to you guys), the issues get ignored in favor of hate mongering attacks on women. See NP's post as an example of a PL who refuses to owe up to his responsibility in wanting fewer abortions, instead seeking to dump all responsibilities for meeting his wishes onto the woman.

So you can tell me to shut up all you want, but as long as you guys lie and are dishonest, rest assured that I will comment on it. I have done so for decades, and I have no problem continuing.

When you are actually ready to discuss the issue of abortion without lies, deceptions or revisionist linguistics, let me know and we certainly can do that. I suspect we could all get a lot out of it. But not when the PL are dishonest.

 

[steen]

Read it Agen...
Originally Posted by Busta;
"Aborting said hypothetical unborn child would then be an act of *Murder in the First Degree."

AH, ok. Nope, then it would be a hypothetical example of self-defense against unwanted use of the woman's bodily resources.

It's just a hypothetical question.
If a Zygote, Fetus and/or Embryo were given the legal standing of 'person', then YES: the unborne child's right to life would give it the right to receve it's Mother's gift of her bodily recourses, even agents her will (Roe-v-Wade section 9a.).

So you are saying that a "person" have the right to take another person's bodily resources against their will? Or is it ONLY pregnant women who have such a duty in your view.

I can't wait to see how you will now distort this post.

"distort? I am just womndering how that helps on the issue the PL always runs from, namely that there now is NOT a right to use a person's bodily resources against their will.

 

[Busta]

Posted by steen;
"AH, ok. Nope, then it would be a hypothetical example of self-defense against unwanted use of the woman's bodily resources."

*self-defense:
n. the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger...."
http://dictionary.law.com

As you can see, simply not wanting to be pregnant is not enough. Unless the Zygote's, Fetuse's or Embryo's use of the Mother's bodily recourses would inflict on her "bodily harm", the Mother would not have a "legal authority and excuse" to acquire an abortion.

Posted by steen;
"So you are saying that a "person" have the right to take another person's bodily resources against their will? Or is it ONLY pregnant women who have such a duty in your view."

As of the instent of conception, pregnant Women are accountable to their unborne offspring for the needs of that offspring too maintain life. As of the instent of conception, pregnant Women are responsible for providing the needs of that unborn child so that it can be born.

Since only Women can be pregnant, I am speaking about pregnant Women.

If you want to talk about a general concept of "any person" being able to use the bodlie recourses of "any other person" agents the other person's will, start a thread on that issue and I'll meet you there.That general concept has no bering on abortion since, if a Zygote, Fetus, or Embryo were given the legal standing of "person", the 14th. amendment would protect it from any attack on it's life (with the sole exception of *Self Defense).
See Roe-v-Wade section 9a.

 

[Old and wise]

It is impossible for me to prove it. And it is impossible for you to prove that it is not. I'm not even going to try. Its just a poll, I haven't even started an argument yet! I am asking "what if" because I am just wondering how many people side with prochoicedanielle.

I would say that you should have added a few more choices instead of implying 'kill' on all the answers.

 

[Busta]

I would say that you should have added a few more choices instead of implying 'kill' on all the answers.

Given the context of this hypothetical question, "kill" seems appropriate.
What other options would you have included?

 

[mixedmedia]

I would say that you should have added a few more choices instead of implying 'kill' on all the answers.

You're right OW, I didn't vote in the poll either.

 

[Peralin]

I would say that you should have added a few more choices instead of implying 'kill' on all the answers.

I tried to give the top three choices, and I think I got it right. What other choice would you need?

I used the word "kill" because it fits. kill= 1 a : to deprive of life

www.m-w.com

That is definition number one. If the fetus were proven to be a child and you destroyed the fetus, would it not be considered killing? Of course it would, it is depriving the living human child (general term) of life, which is the #1 definition of "kill".

 

[vergiss]

Let me break it down for you since you seem to take everything literally........ To say a bad day is and expression.........Women have had abortions for lessor reasons then that, one being birth control and judging by your comments that is fine with you..........

Please explain to me how an abortion is an easier form of birth control than taking the pill or using a condom, I'd be fascinated to know. "I can't be arsed swallowing a pill today - I think I'll have a surgical procedure instead!"

By the way - how does "If a woman does not want to have a baby then she should keep her legs crossed" come into it? Shouldn't men keep it in their pants if they don't want one, either? Or is it all the woman's responsibility, despite two people been necessary for conception to occur? :roll:

In which case, it really is all about punishing women for having sex, isn't it? The old double standard. Nevermind what a man gets up to, but the second a female shows signs of enjoying sex - gasp! What a harlot!