Toning down the rhetoric [W:164,483]

[Lursa]

So it is inconvenient. But why, as a culture, do we think it is okay to terminate a human life for convenience just so long as it isn't yet born? But we, as a culture, think it is not okay to terminate a human life, however inconvenient, after it is born? What really makes the difference?

(Oh and thank you for wading in on a very difficult and often uncomfortable question. That takes guts or intellectual honesty. Maybe both. )

Bold = judgement

The word convenience is always a giveaway.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Toning down the rhetoric

If it is a baby, abortion SHOULD be murder because it is unconstitutional.

No it's not and that information has been provided for you many times.


Why is the unborn entitled to life and a potential future MORE than a born person?

 

[Fedor50]

Re: Toning down the rhetoric

No it's not and that information has been provided for you many times.


Why is the unborn entitled to life and a potential future MORE than a born person?

Your question is nonsensical. The unborn AND the already born person are BOTH entitled to the right to life and one human being should not be allowed to kill another human being for no better reason than convenience.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Toning down the rhetoric

Your question is nonsensical. The unborn AND the already born person are BOTH entitled to the right to life and one human being should not be allowed to kill another human being for no better reason than convenience.

No, they cannot be treated equally under the law. The state cannot protect the life and potential future of the unborn without grossly infringing on the right to life and a potential future of the born individual, including risking her life against her will.

 

[mpg]

I am afraid that that is not nearly enough to convince others.

I'm not trying to change people's minds; I just want people to agree to disagree and tone down the rhetoric.

 

[mpg]

It's not acceptable to kill her born baby to harvest an organ to save her life, is it?

The closest thing that we have to that is when one Siamese twin is sacrificed to save the sibling, and I don't have a problem with that.

 

[mpg]

Who's beliefs?

everybody's

 

[mpg]

Agreed, and if there were no evidence that the embryo or fetus infringes on the basic rights of the woman, who was obviously here first, people might be more amenable to imagining them to be persons. But because of that evidence, it's clear that they can't live without infringing on a person's basic rights. That's one of the reasons why so many people think it's absurd to imagine them to be persons.

"absurd"? I guess you're not a fan of toning down the rhetoric.

 

[mpg]

Then you should have no real quarrel with Minnie. She's saying that any change in the legal definition of person such that it could extend to zygotes, embryos, or fetuses would in fact require a constitutional amendment, because the uses of the word person in the US Constitution do not carry implications such that it could meaningfully apply to the unborn. And that is also shown by the history of case law related to the unborn and by the fact that abortion was legal at the time of the founding of the nation, writing of the constitution, and early years of the latter's application.

Who said I had a quarrel with her? I'm on the side of toning down the rhetoric.

 

[mpg]

No, your personal private core beliefs, not everybody else's core beliefs. They too have core beliefs just like my core belief is that it is purely down to the pregnant women in the early part of the pregnancy.

I never claimed that everyone's core beliefs were the same; I merely pointed out that no one can say when a person becomes a person without relying on their core beliefs.

 

[mpg]

Where did I say it did? Your response has nothing to do with what you quoted of my post.

If you're talking about rights in general, rather than just Constitutional rights, it defies logic to use the word "FACT". I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I assumed that you were referring to Constitutional rights.

 

[Peter King]

I never claimed that everyone's core beliefs were the same; I merely pointed out that no one can say when a person becomes a person without relying on their core beliefs.

I just pointed out that there is no universal core belief, that is all I wanted to say with that.

 

[mpg]

I just pointed out that there is no universal core belief, that is all I wanted to say with that.

Let's not go in a circle.

 

[Lursa]

The closest thing that we have to that is when one Siamese twin is sacrificed to save the sibling, and I don't have a problem with that.

Why did you ignore the rest of that? Where I asked why almost all people accept that it's ok to kill the fetus to save the mother. The example I used was a woman needing chemo for her cancer but the chemo would kill the unborn.

What is the difference there?

 

[Lursa]

everybody's

Apparently not.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Toning down the rhetoric

Your question is nonsensical. The unborn AND the already born person are BOTH entitled to the right to life and one human being should not be allowed to kill another human being for no better reason than convenience.

No, it goes directly to the heart of the issue....you are just avoiding it because you cannot answer it.

Practically, they cannot have equal rights because you cannot give them to the fetus without grossly infringing on the rights of the woman.

 

[Lursa]

]I never claimed that everyone's core beliefs were the same[/B]; I merely pointed out that no one can say when a person becomes a person without relying on their core beliefs.

Then what did 'everybody's' mean?

 

[mpg]

Then what did 'everybody's' mean?

everybody = the voters

 

[mpg]

Why did you ignore the rest of that? Where I asked why almost all people accept that it's ok to kill the fetus to save the mother. The example I used was a woman needing chemo for her cancer but the chemo would kill the unborn.

What is the difference there?

It sounds like two different ways of saying the same thing.

 

[X Factor]

Re: Toning down the rhetoric

You mean the part of the quote you have quoted there? The one where you unfairly selected a part of her quote that made it read differently than actually meant in her quote?

Because her post, in a discussion was the following:



In other words she was saying that if someone is of the opinion that a zygote is a person than this person is illegally penetrating/in her body, if it indeed is a person than that would make it rape of sorts, the zygote would violently seize the uterus. I doubt she meant that it was a sexual rape.

What you are doing is selectively quoting by not posting the rest of her quote or the rest of the discussion in which the quote was made. That is not fair nor is it representative or accurate/honest representation of her opinion.

Her opinion is that a preborn child is just the same as a rapist and should be treated the same. My sig accurately represents that opinion. She has zero regard for the preborn at any stage and feels they are of less than negative value. For her it's completely fine to compare the preborn to rapists, robbers, kidnappers, cancer and parasites but compare it to actual babies at any stage offends her.

Now, since you'll advance her ridiculous argument (only the extremists don't recognize how ridiculous it is) you tell me since she won't, since I presume you'll acknowledge (do let me know if I'm over estimating you) that the fetus is not in a position to commit all these heinous crimes on it's own and wouldn't be there but for the actions of the mom, explain to me how that doesn't make her an accomplice. How is someone a victim of a crime they're an accomplice to?

 

[X Factor]

Re: Toning down the rhetoric

Ironic, isn't it?

I've been involved on the pro life side for awhile now but I hadn't experienced the just contempt for the preborn before joining this forum.

 

[X Factor]

Re: Toning down the rhetoric

Whether or not it's a baby, abortion is not murder. That is a FACT.

This is something I've pointed out before. Even if it was conclusively proven that the preborn were, indeed, human babies in the womb, it would make no difference to some of you so I don't know why you all spend so much time denying it's humanity.

 

[Lursa]

It sounds like two different ways of saying the same thing.

So you dont understand it then. Ok.

 

[Lursa]

everybody = the voters

No, that's not the case. No one on in the US has ever voted on people having 'the right to life. That is in the Const.

 

[Peter King]

Re: Toning down the rhetoric

Her opinion is that a preborn child is just the same as a rapist and should be treated the same. My sig accurately represents that opinion. She has zero regard for the preborn at any stage and feels they are of less than negative value. For her it's completely fine to compare the preborn to rapists, robbers, kidnappers, cancer and parasites but compare it to actual babies at any stage offends her.

Now, since you'll advance her ridiculous argument (only the extremists don't recognize how ridiculous it is) you tell me since she won't, since I presume you'll acknowledge (do let me know if I'm over estimating you) that the fetus is not in a position to commit all these heinous crimes on it's own and wouldn't be there but for the actions of the mom, explain to me how that doesn't make her an accomplice. How is someone a victim of a crime they're an accomplice to?

You are not telling the truth about her post, she said that IF a zygote is a person it can be seen as a rapist because it is embedding itself into the woman's uterus without permission. She calls that rape, she could also call it breaking and entering, kidnapping, holding for ransom, etc. etc. etc. but she called it rape because it is something that is invading her uterine wall.

But she does not believe it is a person and if you take away the pre-condition to her rapist story away then you are left with what she has been saying all the time. A ZEF is not a person hence it is not a rapist, it would only be a rapist if it were a person (which it is not)

But were are not talking about other comments she made about ZEF's, we were talking about the incorrect and selective quotation that you have in your sig. It is not fair, it is not honest and it does not represent what she said in that post.

I do not advance her position, I am saying that you are being dishonest in the way you are quoting her, that is all I am advancing. It is you who are advancing an unfair characterization of Choiceone. I do not know why you are doing it but it is not conductive for fair and productive forumming and discussing but that is just my opinion.

A ZEF does not have the right to life, a woman has rights. One of those rights is that a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy and she does not have to give any reasons, excuses because it is nobody's business if or why she chooses to have an abortion. There is no crime, that is bull crap, you seem to be selectively ignoring Roe v. Wade and as it is not a crime there are no accomplices.