Obtaining an illegal abortion [W:306]

[minnie616]

You originally claimed that legally declaring a fetus a person would be struck down based on constitutional merits. That is different than what you just cited.

Of course this assumes that "Paul Parker of life news" should be considered an authority on the subject, to begin with

I still claim and believe that personhood laws will be struck down.

 

[AGENT J]

I still claim and believe that personhood laws will be struck down.

theres really no logical reason to think otherwise because doing so would turn the system and constitution on its head, the many others things this would impact and rights of others it would infringe on would be to much for this to ever happen.

at most i think abortion could get a national time limit put on it like 21 weeks or something but it will never be banned nor will flat out personhood ever be granted at conception.

 

[choiceone]

How is killing a human being not murder? Are you saying abortions are acts of self defense? How, if a fetus is a human being with rights, is killing one not murder?

I have explained this in a post above. The blastocyst mindlessly implants into the woman's endometrial tissue by penetrating into it. It takes some of that tissue, which belongs to the woman, to make a placenta. It directs that placenta to kill some of the T-cells of the woman's immune system by producing hCG, cells that protect her body from viruses and infections, and to produce an enzyme, indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase, which catabolizes the local amino acid L-tryptophan in her body, the basic nutrient of those cells, and thus to starve those cells, which have to go into latency to survive, a state in which they cannot reproduce or function to protect her from viruses and infections. It directs that placenta to re-channel her blood so that it is accessible to the embryo it becomes, and it then takes oxygen and nutrients out of her blood which would otherwise serve her body's well being. It puts its toxic waste into her blood and leaks not only its own cells but also isolated chromosomes, including chromosomes which did not come from her, into her blood.

This behavior might be okay if she had consented to it, but if the woman did not consent to pregnancy, this is assault, and specifically assault in one of her sex organs (the uterus), and robbery (taking her tissue, oxygen, and nutrients without permission). You cannot claim that the woman consented to pregnancy when she consented to sex, because the human being she had sex with is, if the embryo is a distinct human being, not the same human being that had sex with her. Hence, the woman has every right to say that the blastocyst/embryo has no right to implant in her tissue, use her tissue, attack her immune cells, kill some of her immune cells, starve her immune cells, re-channel her blood and take things out of it and put other things into it.

In NY state law, the laws of some other states, and, as I understand it, in federal law, a person has a right to defend himself/herself against what he/she perceives to be a threat of rape, sexual assault, kidnapping, or robbery, or to stop an actual rape, sexual assault, kidnapping, or robbery and to use deadly force if necessary to prevent or stop it even if one knows that one's life is not being threatened. And those same laws allow a third party the right to help defend that person and to use deadly force if necessary to prevent or stop one of those crimes.

So I think this supports the claim that, if a woman has not consented to a particular pregnancy with a particular zygote/morula/blastocyst/embryo/fetus, she has the right to use deadly force if necessary to stop it and a third party has the right to use deadly force if necessary to help stop it.

 

[KevinKohler]

I have explained this in a post above. The blastocyst mindlessly implants into the woman's endometrial tissue by penetrating into it. It takes some of that tissue, which belongs to the woman, to make a placenta. It directs that placenta to kill some of the T-cells of the woman's immune system by producing hCG, cells that protect her body from viruses and infections, and to produce an enzyme, indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase, which catabolizes the local amino acid L-tryptophan in her body, the basic nutrient of those cells, and thus to starve those cells, which have to go into latency to survive, a state in which they cannot reproduce or function to protect her from viruses and infections. It directs that placenta to re-channel her blood so that it is accessible to the embryo it becomes, and it then takes oxygen and nutrients out of her blood which would otherwise serve her body's well being. It puts its toxic waste into her blood and leaks not only its own cells but also isolated chromosomes, including chromosomes which did not come from her, into her blood.

This behavior might be okay if she had consented to it, but if the woman did not consent to pregnancy, this is assault, and specifically assault in one of her sex organs (the uterus), and robbery (taking her tissue, oxygen, and nutrients without permission). You cannot claim that the woman consented to pregnancy when she consented to sex, because the human being she had sex with is, if the embryo is a distinct human being, not the same human being that had sex with her. Hence, the woman has every right to say that the blastocyst/embryo has no right to implant in her tissue, use her tissue, attack her immune cells, kill some of her immune cells, starve her immune cells, re-channel her blood and take things out of it and put other things into it.

In NY state law, the laws of some other states, and, as I understand it, in federal law, a person has a right to defend himself/herself against what he/she perceives to be a threat of rape, sexual assault, kidnapping, or robbery, or to stop an actual rape, sexual assault, kidnapping, or robbery and to use deadly force if necessary to prevent or stop it even if one knows that one's life is not being threatened. And those same laws allow a third party the right to help defend that person and to use deadly force if necessary to prevent or stop one of those crimes.

So I think this supports the claim that, if a woman has not consented to a particular pregnancy with a particular zygote/morula/blastocyst/embryo/fetus, she has the right to use deadly force if necessary to stop it and a third party has the right to use deadly force if necessary to help stop it.

So how do we arrest the culprit.....sperm?

 

[KevinKohler]

That would be a debate worth having.

Then lets. It heavily applies to this subject, so I don't see it as thread hijacking. It's simply the opposite side of the coin. Dead folks don't have rights. Only the living do.

Yes. In fact, by law they do.

Many people have been arrested and imprisoned for violating a dead person's body.

No, they don't. The reason we send someone violating a dead body to prison are many and varied, but in no court, or any judge...is the argument being made that a corpse's rights have been violated. Someone digs up a body and takes things from the coffin, that's grave robbing, and they get arrested for that, because the property buried with the body is there by the will of the deceased, or his kith and ken. Someone desecrates a body, and again, they go to jail, because the living relatives have a right to defend the corpse of their deceased loved one. Someone messes around with a dead Jane or John Doe, they go to jail, again, because THOSE are the property of the government.

It also stands to reason that someone who violates dead bodies is not someone you want out "roaming" around.

 

[Removable Mind]

I still claim and believe that personhood laws will be struck down.

I think we need to start a thread that we list all of the social issues that would potentially plague our nation by giving personhood to fetuses.

Now, I suspect that even if it were possible to legislate personhood. It might be tied in with the current viability limits that now used as guidelines. I think even Dr. Chuckles made comments to such.

But, Minnie....actually...naaaaaaaaawh, I'm with you...I too opine that its just not going to happen.

 

[KevinKohler]

As much as I am opposed to most abortions, I do believe that there are rare occasions (tubal pregnancies) where one could be justified as an act of self defense.

Many pro-lifers prefer to call that procedure something other than an abortion and that's fine.

I call it an abortion because that's what the radical choicers are going to call it anyway.

Yeah, but no one in any of these abortion debates are talking about those. I doubt anyone opposes those. I'm simply calling something for what it is, if you hold a certain belief. Which is to say, if you think a fetus is a human being, with rights...then killing one is murder, plain and simple. Murder, by definition, is taking anyone's life without their consent. And a fetus can give no consent, one way or the other.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

nope this is why you have failed for pages, my argument NEVER went beyond this, only in your head

I don't think you can convincingly claim you never made an argu.net that you spent 15 plus pages of text arguing for.

thank you for again proving me right, there was no other argument thats way you ave been wrong this whole time and i kept repeating my original and only point LMAO

thanks again

Ahh, over compensation. I get it now.

 

[iguanaman]

There is no proof anywhere in the world that that would happen. There is proof, in fact, that imposing restrictions on abortion lowers the abortion rate assuming of course that birth control is made readily available. Perhaps in the future you would like to post something other than assumptions?

It is a fact that abortion rates are HIGHER in countries that ban the practice. Why do you fail to realize that making it illegal does nothing to reduce the demand it only allows the shady and greedy to capitalize on the need? It you cared about reducing abortions you would be working to make sex education and contraception more available.

Abortion Rates Are Higher In Countries Where Procedure Is Illegal, Study Finds

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

So how do we arrest the culprit.....sperm?

Lol, don't even bother asking.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)I don't think you can convincingly claim you never made an argu.net that you spent 15 plus pages of text arguing for.



Ahh, over compensation. I get it now.

1.) another blantant lie LAMO

weird i kept mainly repeating the same argument over and over again and now you are magically claiming it was a "different one" :laughat:

2.) nope just facts proven by thread history

 

[JayDubya]

Murder, by definition, is taking anyone's life without their consent.

Murder, by definition, is a crime. It is an unlawful homicide.

 

[KevinKohler]

Lol, don't even bother asking.

Deputized condoms.....

 

[KevinKohler]

Murder, by definition, is a crime. It is an unlawful homicide.

So, if shooting people in the head were legal, it would not be murder.


So, Germans never once murdered a single Jew.

 

[Welliam Wittier]

Murder, by definition, is a crime. It is an unlawful homicide.

So, if shooting people in the head were legal, it would not be murder.

So, Germans never once murdered a single Jew.

The law has to be constitutional and that's the point.

The laws that say it's not a crime -for mother to kill her child with an abortion are unconstitutional laws.

That goes especially for when we have laws that say killing the child in a robbery or shooting is a murder but when she kills it herself, it's not.

 

[KevinKohler]

The law has to be constitutional and that's the point.

The laws that say it's not a crime -for mother to kill her child with an abortion are unconstitutional laws.

That goes especially for when we have laws that say killing the child in a robbery or shooting is a murder but when she kills it herself, it's not.

So, is abortion murder, or not?


Did the Nazi's MURDER jews, or just cause them to stop living, lol.

 

[AGENT J]

The law has to be constitutional and that's the point.

The laws that say it's not a crime -for mother to kill her child with an abortion are unconstitutional laws.

That goes especially for when we have laws that say killing the child in a robbery or shooting is a murder but when she kills it herself, it's not.

i see you keep pushing this opinion as fact with nothing to back it up, why do you think its solid logic since you have nothing to support it?

also taking away womans rights and making her a lesser would be unconstitutional why are you ok with that? seems completely dishonest and hypocritical to me

 

[Henrin]

So, if shooting people in the head were legal, it would not be murder.

Exactly.

So, Germans never once murdered a single Jew.

Yes, exactly. You seem to be catching on.

 

[KevinKohler]

Exactly.



Yes, exactly. You seem to be catching on.

Well, I'll make you a deal. You go find you some older jewish folks, and explain to them how Nazis were not murderers, and see how they like your semantics, and then, only then, will I buy your argument.

 

[AGENT J]

So, is abortion murder, or not?

abortion is factually not murder, some people simply dont get that, not sure why though

 

[choiceone]

So how do we arrest the culprit.....sperm?

You misunderstand the law. When a legally insane man rapes a person, he has committed rape, but his legal insanity at the time of the rape and afterward would make it impossible to prosecute him in a court of law and win the case. He would be apprehended and be put in treatment for mental illness in a hospital. The blastocyst/embryo is, in fact, the culprit here, but is legally innocent because of having no mind at all. But in the process of raping, the legally insane man can be killed, and in the process of violating the woman's tissue, immune system, etc., the embryo can be aborted, because the violation is in process. Actually, because the zygote itself produces hCG and only later, as a blastocyst/embryo causes the placenta to produce it, and hCG causes cell apoptosis (cell death) in the woman's T-cells, she is within her rights to stop the zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus - as this behavior is a threat to her immune system and then an attack on it. The only difference between the wanted and unwanted z/m/b/e/f is the woman's consent, just as the only difference between the rapist and a lover is the woman's consent and the only difference between the robber and a guy receiving charity is the woman's consent. Got it?

 

[Welliam Wittier]

So, is abortion murder, or not?

Did the Nazi's MURDER jews, or just cause them to stop living, lol.

The argument or claim is that it is a murder.

Present day legality will not prove against the facts in the future.

Using slavery as an example - when slavery was legal it was no crime against slaves or humanity at all.

Looking back at it now, we know it was both.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Murder is by definition - one person unjustly killing another person.

No it's the *illegal* killing of a person by a person. Illegal does not in and of itself mean it's unjust.

The fact that we have murderers in prison and serving time for murdering a prenatal child?

Not in my country.

 

[Welliam Wittier]

No it's the *illegal* killing of a person by a person. Illegal does not in and of itself mean it's unjust.

Not in my country.

I'm not trying to change or challenge the laws in your country.

 

[KevinKohler]

abortion is factually not murder, some people simply dont get that, not sure why though

It's semantics, though. You take someone's life without their consent...that is murder. If Dr Kevorkian ended his patients lives AGAINST their will, that is murder. Pretty cut and dry.


The argument being made is, because abortion is legal, it's not murder. But they turn around and say that a fetus is a human being, a living human being. So, I point back to my first statement...Murder is taking a life from someone against their will.

It's an important little something that needs to be clarified, and I think they KNOW it, which is why we have three pages of dancing around the subject. Why is it important? Because MURDER is the taking of a life without the OWNER of that life's consent.

A fetus cannot give consent, nor has a will in the first place. There is no being in a fetus, no self, until after the cerebral cortex develops.