• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How is abortion not murder?

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Red-Phase said:
really why?

Simple answer, because federal law does not define it as such.

Thread closed....since your question has been answered
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
tecoyah said:
Simple answer, because federal law does not define it as such.

Thread closed....since your question has been answered
Technically--there is no "federal law" that says it's not murder. There is federal "case law" that says states can't make a law that says it's "murder."
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
tecoyah said:
Simple answer, because federal law does not define it as such.

Thread closed....since your question has been answered
Step #1....read

Step #2....comprehend

Step #3....Reply

seems you may have missed step 2
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
tecoyah said:
Thread closed....
Oh...you have that authority?....pardon moi!




On the other part, I was just making a clarification...Oops...I replied again!...dangit!
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Felicity said:
Oh...you have that authority?....pardon moi!




On the other part, I was just making a clarification...Oops...I replied again!...dangit!

You know I just did that to kiss and make up.....right?

*Smak*
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
tecoyah said:
You know I just did that to kiss and make up.....right?

*Smak*
You are such the player!:devil:
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Actually, the U.S. Judicial System has officially recognized the rights of an unborn fetus and has even over-seen the guilty verdict for MURDER of that unborn fetus!

Anyone remember the Scott Peterson case? Yeah, he's the dirt-bag who killed his pregnant wife on Christmas Eve and dumped her body in the bay.

The prosecuting attorney charged him with 2 counts of murder, one for his wife, Laci, and one for his un-born baby! Amazingly enough, upon hearing this, several Women's Rights/Lib Groups immediately joined Pro-Abortion groups in raising money for Scott's DEFENSE of the brutal murder of his wife, lobbying for the dismisal of the 2nd murder charge against the baby. WHY? Because they new that if Scott was convicted of 2 - TWO - counts of murder, legal precedance would be set for establishing the rights of an unborn fetus, defining terminating the life of that unborn fetus as MURDER!

The media hyped Scott being found GUILTY of killing his wife but refused to acknowledge/report that he had actually been found guilty of 2 - TWO - counts of murder! As I said, this case sets legal precedance for ANYONE to challenge the act of abortion as an act of murder, as this court case established that a fetus has rights - that it is unlawful for its life to be taken!

Many who are pressed argue that the 2nd Murder charge was because Scott took away Laci's CHOICE, her option, to do whatever she wanted to do with her baby. So, if HE kills the baby, its murder, but if Laci has an abortion it is ok?!

It is argued that it is her choice to allow the baby to live or assist in its death. Opponents to this fire back and demand to know then why assisted suicide is illegal in this country - people living a horrible life, facing a horrible, painful death due to things like cancer can NOT end their own life in a quick, painless procedure but it is perfectly legal for a woman to slaughter her baby by a late term abortion (a procedure done on a viable baby - one that could survive outside the womb, much like the Peterson baby which Scott was found guilty of killing - driving a rod inside the baby's brain to scramble them like eggs, then hacking it into pieces, and finally dragging those pieces out of the mother, throwing them in the trash like common garbage)?

If Scott can be charged with the murder of a fetus, if clear-minded adults can NOT stop their own suffering through assisted suicide, then how is it argued by Pro-Abortionists that it is OK for a mother to commit the murder of her healthy baby by barbaric practices like Late term Abortions, a procedure that many counties we call '3rd world' have outlawed due to its barbaric nature?!

No, what the media and the pro-abortionists are trying to hide and hope you forget is that Scott Peterson was found guilty of TWO murders in a monumental case that established rights for an unborn fetus!

It is only a matter of time, I hope, before someone challenges the practice of abortion - LATE TERM Abortions at the very least - with this court case!
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's not that the 'rights' of a fetus were recognized, but the rights of the woman carrying to make the decisions. Assault, murder-when these occur and the loss of the pregnancy is the result, the woman's rights have been violated two-fold. Not every case ends with charges regarding the death of a fetus. The Peterson case and others such as the Hicks/Fulton case were done thusly because, at 8 months gestation, the fetus was or would have been a viable live birth; Peterson and Hicks took away any choices made by committing the murders and they took the lives of otherwise healthy soon-to-be-born babies. There are laws in place that answer the loss of a embryo thru assault or murder-these do not necessarily result in additional murder charges. (acck!!! hard to think being sick and awake in the morning).
Late term abortion, a rarity , is supposed to be only after a thorough prognosis of the woman's or fetus' health. This is not to say there are doctors who bypass the ethics-that's been well known and not acceptable to any group by and large and I don't agree personally with arguments for that procedure.
I think the basic point is that a woman simply has the right to choose what happens to her bodily resources without government intervening(states may impose conditions, but out and out banning abortion they apparently can't). This is not a bad thing; what becomes a bad thing is when she is pushed and pulled in either direction by people who have nothing to gain.
When there is assault or murder resulting in the death of a fetus, then charges are justified. There are also cases where the pregnancy was very early, lost due to physical harm to the woman and the culprit NOT charged with the death because of the length of pregnancy-those carry lesser charges. The recent case of the man who killed his 5-week pregnant wife last year did NOT result in a second charge of murder( if I can remember the name, I'll post a report).

This may help to clarify at least some of the states' and lawmakers' stances:
http://www.courttv.com/news/2003/0326/fetalhomicide_ctv.html
 
Last edited:

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I believe your point on what the case results mean is obviously open to interpretation, as per your arguments. Yousay that the 2nd murder count was because mother's right to choose was taken away, but I would counter that you can't 'Murder' a choice. The 2nd murder count represented a LIFE that was taken away. That is why I believe that cases like this will be eventually brought up to the Supreme Court.

As I mentioned earlier, too, you 'argued' that a woman has/should have the right to make the choice to end her baby's lfe - the decision to end another human being's life - yet adults who are suffering are not allowed to end their own life, which by 'your' own argument should be their right (their body, their right). You can't say that ending a life because a reason so simple/pathetic as that it was a mistake and would make your life harder is ok while people who are suffering in the last days of their life miserably don't have that same right to choose!

I know what Late Term Abortions are SUPPOSED to be used for and how they are SUPPOSED to be handled, but we both know that is not the case. Too often abortion is being used more as a contraceptive than anything else!

Also, abortions activists and politicians have gone too far, even trying to strip parents of their legal rights as guardians in order to assist in underaged abortions. My teenaged daughter can't even get an aspirin in a hospital without my consent but, thanks to Pro-Abortion Nuts, her principal can take her to have an abortion during school without ever notifying me or getting my consent! What the heck is up with THAT?

So, yes, I hear you and understand YOUR interpretation of these cases, but they are open to interpretation to each side, each side trying to bend them to their own agenda. That, again, is why I believe that these cases will be the basis for a case brought before the Supreme Court to hear and decide on this issue.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It was Mark Hacking:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/mark_hacking/hacking_jumppage.html

I said she DOES have the right to choose, whether YOU like it or not.
And it is a fallacy that suicide is illegal in this country-assisted suicide is illegal in most states and being heard in others.
There are hospices in every state designed so that people who have terminal illnesses and are in the final stages of those illnesses can die as they see fit and do so comfortably and without interference. We DO have the right to choose how to die when faced with catastrophy and we have 'living wills' to carry out whatever wishes we are unable to convey. Hence, your arguments are pointless.
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ngdawg said:
It was Mark Hacking:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/mark_hacking/hacking_jumppage.html

I said she DOES have the right to choose, whether YOU like it or not.
And it is a fallacy that suicide is illegal in this country-assisted suicide is illegal in most states and being heard in others.
There are hospices in every state designed so that people who have terminal illnesses and are in the final stages of those illnesses can die as they see fit and do so comfortably and without interference. We DO have the right to choose how to die when faced with catastrophy and we have 'living wills' to carry out whatever wishes we are unable to convey. Hence, your arguments are pointless.
There are more than enough court cases and laws to prove you wrong. Assisted Suicide is illegal - hospices are not allowed to assist the death of their patients. I know because I was with my own father recently as he was taken care of by a hospice until his deat. They informed me that they could provide enough mediacation and assistance to get him out of pain but not enough to assist in his death. They, by law, can NOT assist in the death of their patience. Living wills cover things like if you stop breathing or are on a respirator, not someone helping you stick a needle in your arm to apply the drugs that will kill you painlessly. How many times was Dr. Kevorkian arrested for helping suffering people end their life painlessly...now how many times has a doctor who jabs a metal rod into the skull of a vaible fetus and pulls their body parts out of the mother after dismembering it been arrested?

You still did not address how it is illegal for a hospital to give my teenage daughter an aspirin without my consent but yet the abortions rights crowd has made it legal for a non-guardian adult to whisk her away for an abortion during school hours without ever being required to tell me. The people who defend this are the same people who condemn the NRA for all the things they hold on to and protect. Each group is afraid that if they concede even 1 minute point that it only opens the door to having everything they believe in taken away. Allowing anyone who is not a guardian of the child - a non-parent, assit a child in hiding their pregnancy and/or take our daughters away to have secret abortions without ever consulting with or informing the parents should be made illegal, and it amazes me how many pro-abortionists defend even that 1 point!

I have no problem with a woman choosing, but she should do so quickly. One of the arguments I have heard pro abortionist use is rape. Victims need abortions after rapes. NO - victims need Morning After pills. Girls who get pregnant after unprotected sex should also use these pills instead of using abotion as a contraceptive. Abortions, in my view, should only be allowed when a mother's or the baby's life is in jeopardy or if doctors discover that there is something wrong with the child physically/medially that will make life for the child miserable - like some type of major birth defect. As I also said, Late term abortions, except possibly for the safety of the mother or baby, should be outlawed, as it has by many '3rd world' nations due to its barbaric nature! We are probably the only 'civilized' country who defends its wide spread use and refuses to outlaw it or even at least put any legislative restrictions on its practice!
 
Last edited:

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why don't people read what's said?:roll:
I did NOT say anything about hospices assisting suicide.
I did NOT say assisted suicide is legal (it is in one or two states, but being challenged)
I did NOT say living wills will allow practitioners to 'kill' a person.
When are people in these forums going to stop putting words and assumptions where there are none???
I have no knowledge, personal or otherwise of a minor being 'whisked away by a school official for an abortion'-prove that claim. And if it was your OWN kid, you must be quite a tyrant for her to be so scared to go to you.
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Sorry, my mistake:

And it is a fallacy that suicide is illegal in this country
-- That sounded a lot like you saying suicide/assisted-suicide was/is legal. you did mention that assisted suicide is illegal in many states but the case for them is being heard.

There are hospices in every state designed so that people who have terminal illnesses and are in the final stages of those illnesses can die as they see fit and do so comfortably and without interference.
-- Again, sorry - this sounded an awful lot like you were saying hospices help dying people die as they see fit, as in how Kevorkian was helping people like that die.

We DO have the right to choose how to die when faced with catastrophy
-- Once again, this sounded like you were saying we can die any way we want, which is NOT the case. A mother can kill her viable fetus, who has no say in the matter, but I can't be suffering and have a neighbor help me hit a plunger to inject something that will help me go to sleep...permanently and end my pain.

and we have 'living wills' to carry out whatever wishes we are unable to convey.
-- And finally, again, this sounded, in the context of our discussion, like you were comparing a person's living will, which involves non-responsive people, with the wishes of a man who is suffering through excruciating pain and morre in the final stages of cancer who just wants to die to stop the agony. The above comment along with this one, I now understand, was your way of saying that we can choose to have someone pull the plug - giving them consent to do so through certified documentation - and end our lives. In this case, the person who is going to die gives his consent to be allowed to die. Who speaks for the fetus? Except the mother who, more often than not, murders the baby because it would inconvenience HER life to have the baby instead of faces the consequences of her own actions. Maybe instead of handing out condoms, whisking underaged girls away to have abortions, and hacking up viable fetus during Late term abortions, we ought to spend more time explaining to young girls the consequences of their actions, what it means for the rest of their lives, and that the alternative is to murder an unborn child, possibly denying the world of the scientist who would someday discover the cure to some grave disease, the next Mozart, or Einstein. Maybe accountability and education, and stop making it so easy to get an abortion ("I'll have the cheeseburger combo meal, fries, go large, and an abortion...") would rsult in us not having so many!

We haven't even addressed the financial burden on the tax payers. I can't go out and pray in public because that would be me forcing my religeon and morality on someone, offending them, but I am supposed to pay taxes that go to abortions for anyone who wants one, forcing ME to pay for YOUR beliefs, IMmorality, and irresponsibility? Uh-uh, I have a problem with that. THAT offends me, so bring in the Political Correctness police!

I would be agreeable to having my tax dollars pay for abortions accomplished for the sole documented & proven reason of the mother or baby's safety.

You want one for any other reason, that is ELECTIVE surgery - the mother's own choice, which you say she has the right to , sorta like a boob job! If she wants one simply because she doesn't want the baby, SHE can accept responsibility and pay for it. Don't have the money, have the FAMILY (NOT the Goverment) take care of it.

You still want the Principal to have the right to take my teenage daughter to get an abortion during school hours without my knowledge - then HE can pay for it!

Don't force your immorality on me, tell me I have no say in the matter, strip me of my parental rights, then tell me, on top of all that, that I have to pay for it,too!
 
Last edited:

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
easyt65 said:
In this case, the person who is going to die gives his consent to be allowed to die. Who speaks for the fetus? Except the mother who, more often than not, murders the baby because it would inconvenience HER life to have the baby instead of faces the consequences of her own actions.
When I chose to have children, I took on the responsibility of speaking on their behalf, I took on the responsibility of doing for them things they were and are incapable of doing or do not have the rights to do. This is no different. Whether taking life from me or me giving them life, what is done is MY choice, MY responsibility until such time as they are old enough either by maturation or legal means, to make their own choices. This is my right. The right to NOT have children, in any means short of killing my born kids, is also mine, should I choose to exercise that right. It is protected by law. Should I be so negligent in exercising my rights that the children I have borne suffer, I lose MY rights. "Murders the baby" can only occur after birth, which of course, takes all my rights away and justly so. Where this 'more often than not' came from, I have no clue...more babies are born than aborted by far. Pregnancy, labor, birth should not be meted out as punishment, something you are suggesting by stating 'faces the consequences of her own actions'. Had men been given the ability to conceive, you know sure as hell, they wouldn't be forced to pass an 8lb'er through their penis.
easyt65 said:
Maybe instead of handing out condoms, whisking underaged girls away to have abortions, and hacking up viable fetus during Late term abortions, we ought to spend more time explaining to young girls the consequences of their actions, what it means for the rest of their lives, and that the alternative is to murder an unborn child, possibly denying the world of the scientist who would someday discover the cure to some grave disease, the next Mozart, or Einstein. Maybe accountability and education, and stop making it so easy to get an abortion ("I'll have the cheeseburger combo meal, fries, go large, and an abortion...") would rsult in us not having so many!
If you think it's that easy, I've got some swampland in Florida you'd be foolish not to buy by midnight. Sex education in schools is pretty graphic and thorough-depending on a child's mental maturity, perhaps a bit too thorough. The number of teenage pregnancies has been in a small but steady decline the past 20 years-in fact, the largest number of abortions are not performed on school-aged girls, but women 18-35.
easyt65 said:
We haven't even addressed the financial burden on the tax payers. I can't go out and pray in public because that would be me forcing my religeon and morality on someone, offending them, but I am supposed to pay taxes that go to abortions for anyone who wants one, forcing ME to pay for YOUR beliefs, IMmorality, and irresponsibility? Uh-uh, I have a problem with that. THAT offends me, so bring in the Political Correctness police!
You tax dollars, penny for penny, go very little toward state-funded abortions. There are dumber things-funny how no one protests researching the life cycles of roaches or how entire generations of families live off welfare.
easyt65 said:
I would be agreeable to having my tax dollars pay for abortions accomplished for the sole documented & proven reason of the mother or baby's safety.
These procedures are probably the least done.

easyt65 said:
You want one for any other reason, that is ELECTIVE surgery - the mother's own choice, which you say she has the right to , sorta like a boob job! If she wants one simply because she doesn't want the baby, SHE can accept responsibility and pay for it. Don't have the money, have the FAMILY (NOT the Goverment) take care of it.

You still want the Principal to have the right to take my teenage daughter to get an abortion during school hours without my knowledge - then HE can pay for it!

Don't force your immorality on me, tell me I have no say in the matter, strip me of my parental rights, then tell me, on top of all that, that I have to pay for it,too!
And don't force your beliefs on others nor tell me or another woman what she must do simply because of your beliefs. If you were stripped of your parental rights, you more than likely deserved to be. As for immorality, your assumption is insulting, ignorant and biased. You pay for the dumbest things through government taxes you could think of and probably a few you wouldn't dream of. We don't fill out questionaires of where it 'should' go-you live here, you pay for things-war, social security, the bridges you cross when you drive, medical care and welfare, art museums and parks, none of which had to meet with your approval before being paid for.
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
When I chose to have children, I took on the responsibility of speaking on their behalf, I took on the responsibility of doing for them things they were and are incapable of doing or do not have the rights to do.
1. Thank you for making my argument that it is the parent’s responsibility to determine whether or not our teenage children wil or will not have an abortion – NOT the government’s decision! They should NOT have the right to take my kids to have an abortion without even having to inform me!
2. You took the responsibility….that means you acted responsibly and chose to have children. But you are defending the practice of people who act without thinking then seek to erase their mistake by taking a life – killing a child! Abortion is NOT a contraceptive!

Murders the baby" can only occur after birth..
- Again, the verdict in the Scott Peterson Murder case proves you wrong. Peterson was found guilty of murdering 2 individuals, Laci and his UNBORN baby. He was NOT found guilty of murder for taking away a ‘choice/option’. Based on your own bias, you interpret these decisions a totally different way, which is why I say the Supreme court will eventually hear these arguments and have to give a decision.

Where this 'more often than not' came from, I have no clue...more babies are born than aborted by far.
- My point was that the majority of abortions that occur are done as a choice not a necessity due to some medical condition or to save either the mother or baby’s life! They are ‘Elective’ surgery paid for at tax payer expense because the mother is unwilling to face the consequences of her actions!

Pregnancy, labor, birth should not be meted out as punishment, something you are suggesting by stating 'faces the consequences of her own actions'.
- Pregnancy, labor, and birth are NOT ‘punishments’ – they are part o life - the consequences of actions that are taken! If you don’t want to get pregnant, keep your pants on or use a condom! Every time you have unprotected sex, you run the risk of 2 things possibly happening – an STD and/or pregnancy! THAT is a fact! If pregnancy occurs because you ignore this fact, guess what?! YOU accepted the chance when you went through with it! Again, abortion is NOT a contraceptive to be used later because you were too irresponsible! What is it with liberals being so against accountability? That is a large part of what is wrong with this country! Make a mess, blame someone else, and take the easy way out instead of taking the responsibility and be held accountable! And why does a baby have to be murdered simply because 'you' let hormones override common sense and now don't want to accept responsibility for 'your' actions?

Had men been given the ability to conceive, you know sure as hell, they wouldn't be forced to pass an 8lb'er through their penis.
- WHAT?! Where did this garbage come from? This isn’t an issue of who has to have a baby! It is a question or morality, of accountability. It is a question of actually facing the consequences of your actions, which you are making a case against by comments like the previous on and this stupid one!

You tax dollars, penny for penny, go very little toward state-funded abortions. There are dumber things-funny how no one protests researching the life cycles of roaches or how entire generations of families live off welfare.
- My money going to researching the life cycle of a roach is a little different than the funding of the murdering of thousands of babies each year. Funding research on cockroaches does not equate to the immoral practices that may be totally against my faith, which the Dems are trying to outlaw anyway, and forcing me to pay for the murder of children so that ignorant people who think an abortion is a contraceptive can $crew like rabbits but never be held accountable for their actions.

Easy: I would be agreeable to having my tax dollars pat for abortions accomplished for the sole documented & proven reason of the mother or baby’s safety.
NGdawg: These procedures are probably the least done.

- THAT is my point! Most of the abortions done are ‘elective’ surgery to get rid of a child they don’t want, so they aren’t ‘punished’ – held accountable for their actions.

And don't force your beliefs on others nor tell me or another woman what she must do simply because of your beliefs.
- Great – then have her pay for her own abortion, keep her and the federal government’s hands out of my pockets, and keep the federal government’s hands off my daughter. It, as you said, is MY job to raise my daughter, not THEIRS!

If you were stripped of your parental rights, you more than likely deserved to be.
- THAT is your defense for Pro-Abortion groups and the Federal government making it possible for them to usurp the right of a parent, that even YOU acknowledged with your own words? That is an abuse of power and the weakest excuse I have ever heard to justify it because YOU happen to believe everyone ought to have tax payer funded abortions!

As for immorality, your assumption is insulting, ignorant and biased.
- How so? The argument of when life begins has waged for years. The Pope believes life begins at conception. Murder is addressed in one of the 10 commandments. ‘Igonorant’? Hardly! Biased – highly, based on my own faith and personal beliefs. As far as Late term abortions, I guess many countries agree with me, as I have cited that many countries we consider ‘3rd world’ won’t even do them because they are considered ‘barbaric’…but its ok for you and the rest of the Pro-Abortion crowd.

You pay for the dumbest things through government taxes you could think of and probably a few you wouldn't dream of. We don't fill out questionaires of where it 'should' go-you live here, you pay for things-war, social security, the bridges you cross when you drive, medical care and welfare, art museums and parks, none of which had to meet with your approval before being paid for.
- Right: “You’ pay for all these other things, so what is the big deal about paying for free abortions for people who believe abortion is a contraceptive and that butchering a viable fetus in the late stages is perfectly ok?” What a pathetic argument!
 
Last edited:

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What is pathetic is that you believe what you are told in order to validate your own ideas.
Numerous sites in other parts of this forum have been posted.
You can not murder an embryo. Peterson, Hicks and other cases were based on the length of term and laws put in place after 1999. Read the links.
The people who 'act without thinking' are those that strictly base their arguments on personal emotion. Finding out you are in dire straits for whatever reason and taking action is not the same thing.
Not every abortion is paid through taxpayer's money. Not every abortion is akin to a boob job. It's not YOUR place to judge nor to set the rules.
And men not being able to conceive is not 'garbage'-they simply have NO clue what transpires because of that inability-the emotional, physical, spiritual aspects of the entire process, so it's very easy to say 'she must have it'-and there are women too who are so overwhelmed by their 'motherhood', they take the same view.
War and poverty are parts of life too-we deal with it. Saying pregnancy is just a part of life is moot. You are treating it like a punishment by calling it a 'consequence'. Raging hormones????? "oh, come, baby, you know I love you and only you and if you loved me....." raging hormones go both ways, but only one has to 'face the consequences'. Another pointless argument. which goes back to saying if the man had to carry it......The point IS, for the 1,000th time, it is a personal CHOICE that has NOTHING to do with YOU.

And isn't it a wonder how anti-choicers come in with their rationalities, then resort to the same words over and over in an ever-boiling over stew of hyperbole and emotional word-twisting....when do you guys meet up? Mondays?:roll:
 

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You pro-choice people claim you are so committed to liberty and it has nothing to do with us. Well, I am a libertarian, a pro-life libertarian, a 100% pro-life libertarian. I am opposed to abortion and euthanasia (as well as capital punishment, war, and eugenics, don't get me wrong) out of one belief, that life is sacred and the right to life is ultra-important because without that right, you are not free to experience liberty and pursuit of happiness. Sure abortion has nothing to do with me, but it has everything to do with our sacred right to life. You say your body and your choice, but what about the child's body and the child's choice?
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Your signature is completely hypocritical. Free will is just that. You can't be "100% pro-life" and yet place restrictions. You are not a libertarian-more like ultra-conservative who doesn't like the way the government is run.
Rights are accorded to citizens-embryos are not citizens.
You're vegan, I assume....
 

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No I'm not vegan, I'm more of a meatitarian, so to speak. Also, I think rights belong to all human beings, and in ignoring those we are restricting liberty. You pro-choicers are restricting the rights of people to live. Most pro-choicers are also against war and death penalty, I don't get how they are against those and still for abortion and euthanasia. I think to be anything on that sacred issue, it has to be 100% either way. Now, unlike many pro-lifers, I don't think you're Hitler just for being pro-choice, simply misguided into eugenicist views.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Let me put this as succinctly as I can without being rude:
As a free woman, I have the right to give of myself as I see fit. If I want 20 kids, I'll attempt to have 20 kids and suffer the physical maladies producing them would result in. As a free woman, I also have the right to say I don't want to reproduce and, should something go wrong with a birth control method, I have the right to take the steps I deem necessary.
As an anti-choicer, you have the right to say you are, you do NOT have the right to tell any woman what she should do with her life, her body and the life she has become responsible for, whether by mishap, rape or anything else.
"You pro-choicers" is akin to saying "you negroes" or worse. It is bigoted, small minded and devoid of any intelligent debate.
It is not me who is misguided as I make my decisions based on what I learn and feel as a result of that learning.
To be against a woman's personal right to choose, against a person's right to die with dignity goes against everything you claim to be and makes your beginning statements null and void. You are misguided, but what you believe is your burden-you have no right to make it mine.
 

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ngdawg said:
Let me put this as succinctly as I can without being rude:
As a free woman, I have the right to give of myself as I see fit. If I want 20 kids, I'll attempt to have 20 kids and suffer the physical maladies producing them would result in. As a free woman, I also have the right to say I don't want to reproduce and, should something go wrong with a birth control method, I have the right to take the steps I deem necessary.
As an anti-choicer, you have the right to say you are, you do NOT have the right to tell any woman what she should do with her life, her body and the life she has become responsible for, whether by mishap, rape or anything else.
"You pro-choicers" is akin to saying "you negroes" or worse. It is bigoted, small minded and devoid of any intelligent debate.
It is not me who is misguided as I make my decisions based on what I learn and feel as a result of that learning.
To be against a woman's personal right to choose, against a person's right to die with dignity goes against everything you claim to be and makes your beginning statements null and void. You are misguided, but what you believe is your burden-you have no right to make it mine.
I just fear the whole eugenics/abortion/euthanasia movement will lead to Nazism like it did before. Failure to remember the past means it will repeat itself. I do not mean it is as a personal insult, but how can you have so little regard for the innocent? I even have enough regard for the evil as humans that I would not kill Hitler or Stalin, but you will even go so far as to slaughter the weakest and most innocent.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Axismaster said:
I just fear the whole eugenics/abortion/euthanasia movement will lead to Nazism like it did before. Failure to remember the past means it will repeat itself. I do not mean it is as a personal insult, but how can you have so little regard for the innocent? I even have enough regard for the evil as humans that I would not kill Hitler or Stalin, but you will even go so far as to slaughter the weakest and most innocent.
When did I say that? When you're in school, do you read Shakespeare and think Dr. Suess???
A) Nazism had nothing to do with any eugenics/abortion/ euthanasia movement-it was the 'ethnic cleansing' of a nation brought on by a misguided lunatic blaming Jews for his own and his country's woes and his psychopathic attempts to rid Europe of anyone he deemed unworthy to live, and make it his own to rule. A sick version of Napoleanic visions for himself. Instead of reading the sicko's version of history, try reading more objective views.
B) Before you go accusing someone of something, you best be sure you have your facts straight, young man. You would be wise to go back and actually read other threads. Pro-choice does NOT mean going out and 'slaughter innocents'-it means giving a woman the right to choose what happens to her, her body, her pregnancy, her life-without government interference.
 

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ngdawg said:
When did I say that? When you're in school, do you read Shakespeare and think Dr. Suess???
A) Nazism had nothing to do with any eugenics/abortion/ euthanasia movement-it was the 'ethnic cleansing' of a nation brought on by a misguided lunatic blaming Jews for his own and his country's woes and his psychopathic attempts to rid Europe of anyone he deemed unworthy to live, and make it his own to rule. A sick version of Napoleanic visions for himself. Instead of reading the sicko's version of history, try reading more objective views.
B) Before you go accusing someone of something, you best be sure you have your facts straight, young man. You would be wise to go back and actually read other threads. Pro-choice does NOT mean going out and 'slaughter innocents'-it means giving a woman the right to choose what happens to her, her body, her pregnancy, her life-without government interference.
Look, what I meant by that was that lowered value for human life (which pro-choice movement is) is what leads to Nazism and things that involve mass death. Of course, abortion is worse than Nazism because it kills more people. So I must say that the President of NARAL makes Hitler look like a teddy bear.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
easyt65 said:
I believe your point on what the case results mean is obviously open to interpretation, as per your arguments...
Nope. The law and the case itself is clear on that, your claim is false.
 
Top Bottom