Pro-Choice Activist Killed by Christo-Fascist Radicals! by PirateCat

Read my above post and you'll see that my answer is yes. Until the time that it goes wrong. When nature mucks it up, then it's not viable anymore. Until such time - and I know I'm going out on a limb, and again understand this is probably more emotion and religious belief than fact talking - it should be regarded as a human life.

I'll use this logic:

A person is also like a train station. We have every intention of living a full and happy life and arriving at a destination of our choosing. Sometimes NATURE has a hand in making that trip a little shorter than we'd like. Other times it's the interferance of another human being that ends it. More often than not that interferance is called murder when it's done intentionally.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 6:15 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"You are saying that a potential should have the same rights as an actual person."

"Read my above post and you'll see that my answer is yes."

I'll use your logic - every time I drive a car I have the potential to cause significant damage, injury, and even loss of life. By your logic, it is the same thing as actually doing so, since the conditions are such that it COULD happen. By your logic, just going to work should get me thrown in jail.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 6:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
What I'm trying to say is that despite the "gone awry" pictures, they're still recognizably human and can logically result in a positive pregnancy test. At least to me. Just because they are mal-formed doesn't or shouldn't designate them a "tumor". The cells were attempting to form a human fetus, not a tumor. Does that make sense?

You're perhaps confusing tumor with cancer. Tumor just means an abnormal growth of cells. Tumor encompasses cancer, but it also encompasses benign growths. A failed pregnancy is arguably under the purview of tumor.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 6:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"You are saying that a potential should have the same rights as an actual person."

"Read my above post and you'll see that my answer is yes."

I'll use your logic - every time I drive a car I have the potential to cause significant damage, injury, and even loss of life. By your logic, it is the same thing as actually doing so, since the conditions such that it COULD happen. By your logic, just going to work should get me thrown in jail.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Well, you could say the potential is there, but what is your intent? As I stated above (or at least I thought I implied), I believe the INTENT of those cells formed by a sperm and an egg is to form a human being. Let's face it. The main reason for sex is pro-creation - to create a new life. Or else there wouldn't be sperm involved that could reach an unfertalized egg. The pleasure is an added bonus.

So, yes, the potential to cause harm or injury is there when you drive a car or wield a knife or a gun. But unless your INTENT is to purposefully kill someone, then your point is moot. Your intent is to get to a specific destination (much like those cells attempting to reach personhood), NOT to kill someone.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 6:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Cells do not have "intent". The only intent that you can assume is the intent of a Creator.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 6:33 AM

BYTEMITE

I'm not so sure I'm prepared to say that a human in it's early stages can be considered a tumor, although all I've ever heard someone call it is a "blob of cells" here. Maybe I missed that post. Anyway.

I will say that there are types of tumors that are extremely strange. Some of them grow mouths with teeth that open and close, or eyes that would be functional if there were a brain attached, or hair, or bones, even fingers.

Many doctors believe that the person with the strange tumor absorbed a foetal twin in the early stages of development. So an embryo can, technically, become a tumor, and not a human being.

Are non-functioning, non-living embryos therefore tumors?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 6:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Cells do not have "intent". The only intent that you can assume is the intent of a Creator.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

And as I freely admited, religious belief plays a major part in my opinion.

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 6:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
A person shouldn't have to submit to the violation of their bodies because of a mistake, but if it impacts someone else to the point of their lives being in danger, and a choice is made to not help them, is that ethical?

Really that's irrelevant. The question is should the Government legislate the decision.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 6:45 AM

BYTEMITE

The government legislates ethics all the time. And ethics are a large part of this decision, but the people writing the laws, and the public, tend to see only one side of the debate: either that it's unethical to force the women to full term, or that it's unethical to kill the embryo.

But I agree that the decision is the mother's, so perhaps it is an irrelevant point of discussion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 6:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And as I freely admited, religious belief plays a major part in my opinion.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. But as a matter of LAW you should leave me to my ethics as I leave you to yours, since you cannot show human-ness of a fetus, only potential and/or intent.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 6:57 AM

I agree to agree to disagree

*********************************************
Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 7:02 AM

SERGEANTX

I just disagree.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 7:17 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You're willing to throw out any and all provisions of privacy and the right to self-determination in your effort to control whether and when women are forced to become incubators.

I'm not throwing out the right to privacy. It still exists. The Court has always recognized that rights, even fundamental express rights like speech, can be limited by the Govt if there is a compelling govt interest and the intrusion is as limited as possible to protect that interest.

The State has an interest in preserving order, in safety, and in preventing panic. Thus while you cannot yell "fire" in a theater, you can yell fire outside a theater.

My argument acknowledges the right to privacy. I agree that while the Bill of Rights enumerates specific rights, it also creates a "penumbra" in which we find a variety of implied rights.

Including, according to the United States Supreme Court, a right to abortion. Thus, we have a medical doctor performing a LEGAL medical procedure and being murdered by a terrorist for his troubles.

Quote:

However, I feel that there are two competing interests with the mother's privacy rights. One is the child's right to life. If life begins at conception then the child has certain civil rights we must define and protect. That is the Christian argument and this argument was ultimately rejected by the Court in Roe.

Because we're not a "christian" nation, but rather a nation predominated by christians.

Quote:

Second, is the State's interest in life. If life begins at viability, then the child has civil rights which the State must protect (including the most basic right of being born). The State's interest trumps the privacy interest at the point of viability. This is the legal argument and the one adopted by the Court by Roe.

The two positions are not incompatable. If conception and viability occured at the same time, then both arguments would be valid.

I'm smellin' an awful lotta "IF" comin' off this plan...

Quote:

Roe says the State can interfere at conception.

Does it? Does Roe give THE STATE the right to abort your fetus if it wants to, or does it give WOMEN the right to "interfere" at conception?

Quote:
If medical science pushes viability back to conception then the whole abortion debate will simple die a natural death (no pun intended).

Again with the "IF". If wishes were horses, we'd all be eatin' steak. If my aunt had a penis, she'd never need an abortion...

Quote:

As a Christian Lawyer I can understand and accept the legal reasoning of Roe AND the moral reasoning of the Pro Life position.

Is that your way of saying that while you know it's illegal to kill your neighbor (to use your earlier example), it's fine to kill your neighbor if he believe in the right to abortion? The "moral reasoning" of the anti-choice position has been that it's fine to "abort" doctors who perform abortions.

Quote:
Should a woman who is pregnant be allowed to abort the baby because of its race (she does not want a baby that's half black, so I'm talking about a purely race based reason)?

Yes. It's abhorrent to do so, but it's legal, so yes, she IS allowed to do just that. She can abort the fetus just because she had a fight with the "baby-daddy" if she wants to.

Quote:
Should she be allowed to abort the baby because of its gender?

Yes.

Quote:
Genetic predisposition?

Yes.

Quote:
Are there any reasonable limits?

Probably. Being in labor might be a limit...

Quote:
What about mental capacity (of the mother), can an insane person make this decision,

Probably a good question for her doctors. CAN she make a decision in her own self-interest? If so, then YES, she can decide whether or not to have a child.

Quote:
can the decision be forced on her (Octamom's next baby for example)?

No. Which is what we're arguing about. You seem to believe that women as a gender are wholly incapable of making decisions for themselves when it comes to reproduction. You want to force "the State's" viewpoint on them at gunpoint.

Quote:
What about age, can a 12 year old make this decision without the parent (no other medical treatment can be performed without parental consent unless there is a danger to the child's life)?

Well, if there's a danger to the child's life, I'd say she can absolutely have an abortion without parental consent. Otherwise, parental consent might be necessary. But what if she's pregnant due to an act of incest? What then? Does the girl's rapist have the right to decide whether or not she has to keep his hellspawn?

Quote:

What about a 12 year old who WANTS the baby, can a parent force an abortion on their child who does not want it (we already know that medical treatments can be performed without the child's consent)?

Good question. I think I'd want to send this case to a family court.

Quote:
I am in favor of removing the govt from the bedroom. Most abortions don't happen in the bedroom, so we can leave the govt outside.

Well, if RU-486 were available over the counter like it SHOULD BE, most WOULD happen in the bedroom, which is rather WHY I think you on the right are so dead-set against it being an over-the-counter treatment, becuase it takes control over the issue and debate out of your hands.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 7:38 AM

Quote:

It's a unique, individual, human life; however frail and inviable. Even parasites are living creatures, and human beings remain parasitic in nature long after birth. I don't think this line of argument/terminology really diminishes human beings at any stage - it's just the way things are.

I take it you're against anti-bacterials, anti-virals, treating cancers and tumors, and eating anything that is at some point a "living creature", then? After all, ALL of those are "living creatures" - don't they ALL deserve to have their right to life protected? Cows? Anthrax? E Coli? Carrots? Poison Ivy? Hornets?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 8:03 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I'm actually of the same mind regarding the pictures, that's some nightmare fuel right there, and I gotta full tank already.

I still think we're arguing from the wrong end though, as I favor doing our very best on every possible level to ensure an unwanted pregnancy doesn't happen.

Even then it likely will, sometimes - and yes, it's a horrible concept to terminate one, but everyone seems to act like it's an all or nothing thing, which just ain't true when we have a lot of untapped ability to REDUCE the number of times when that decision might become necessary.

And I firmly believe we should do exactly that.

Hell, on THAT particular front, RIPWASH might even reach agreement with some of us.

Oddly enough, although not so much religious in nature, I share the horror at the concept, you see - but having seen some things in my time, what happens to unwanted children, especially those put up for adoption and never adopted...

Let's just say there's times where quick and clean (such as is possible) is far more merciful, if not quite as moral.

But far and away better to prevent the situation from coming about in the first place, isn't it ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 8:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I just disagree.

I agree.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 8:25 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I just disagree.

I agree.

What's that supposed to mean? Must you always resort to personal attacks?!

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 8:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
What's that supposed to mean? Must you always resort to personal attacks?!

Yes. Wanna make something of it Yank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 8:53 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'll use your logic - every time I drive a car I have the potential to cause significant damage, injury, and even loss of life.

I note for the record that every state has laws that require you to carry insurance because of your potential harmfull behaivor.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:38 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I note for the record that every state has laws that require you to carry insurance because of your potential harmfull behaivor."

But you don't get charged with causing an accident until you've actually, in real life, as a fact --- caused one. That's the difference between potential and actual - a difference, I might add, you seem to want to obscure.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:44 AM

PIRATECAT

FF, just not a hypocrite. My good buddy's wife is a nurse who quit after the queer doctor she worked for constantly got the aids patients and not to mention the one chic who had 7 abortions. Yeh I do have issues with lazy women who can't get on the pill. Women who get abortions are wacked for the rest of their lives. Now these dudes who were lifers in the military get out become a big liberal kinda gets on my nerves cause these were the dick heads when I was in. So I just needed to rant about that. I like straight up people. Now I have to get back to my civilization game where I set the rules.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:59 AM

PIRATECAT

Oh Yeh, I forgot I was on the east coast at Atlanic Beach this marine wildlife lib was all upset about fishermen taking hammers to the sea turtles that got in their nets. Don't worry about human babies that's ok. But man don't kill a pitt bull breeded for fighing that's just wrong. Vick is innocent. PETA is all crap.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:59 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by PirateCat:
Women who get abortions are wacked for the rest of their lives.

This is exactly how NOT to have a discussion. A question, properly phrased, or a theory to be posed would do it.
This is a biased, rock-hard ignorant statement that shows the intent of blurting out whatever bs happens to be floating nearest the top at the moment.

And BTW, I know a couple of females that had abortions in their youth that are fully functional peeps 20+ years later, and in no way "wacked", but since this doesn't fit your self-serving view of things, I don't expect this to have much effect on your thoughts.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 10:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Bit o' history here.

In my youth, I got pregnant a couple of times. I was married and I was using effective birth control, so I honestly never could figure the conception date. Fortunately I spontaneously aborted. From what I could see, the reason both times was anencephaly. As I got older I changed my mind about having children. I was a careful mom-to-be. But my kiddo had a bad brain bleed at birth, for no apparent reason. At a later date, I got pregnant again- by accident. (That's four pregancies in a 30-year marriage BTW.) I thought long and hard... VERY long and hard... about whether or not I COULD raise another child given the problems I was dealing with. With much regret, I had an elective abortion.

Years later, medical science discovered the likely cause of my kiddo's brain bleed: a platelet incompatibility. Apparently, I had destroyed my baby's platelets, and she (being a big baby) bled out into her brain with the stress of birth. It turns out that if I had had a second child there would have been a very good chance that it would have happened again. I always look back at the elective abortion with some regret, but it was the best decision I ever made.

I look at some women (women on disability) who have child after child with neurofibromatosis or mito disease or similar conditions and I wonder What the hell are they thinking? And yanno what? I'll bet a lot of right-wingers would think the same, seeing as these kids are a serious drain on everyone around them,

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:02 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

It's a unique, individual, human life; however frail and inviable. Even parasites are living creatures, and human beings remain parasitic in nature long after birth. I don't think this line of argument/terminology really diminishes human beings at any stage - it's just the way things are.

I take it you're against anti-bacterials, anti-virals, treating cancers and tumors, and eating anything that is at some point a "living creature", then? After all, ALL of those are "living creatures" - don't they ALL deserve to have their right to life protected? Cows? Anthrax? E Coli? Carrots? Poison Ivy? Hornets?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

Citizen was arguing that a human foetus is not a living creature. I argued back that it was - i've never suggested that all plant/animal/human life is equivalent...(??)

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:14 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
A person shouldn't have to submit to the violation of their bodies because of a mistake, but if it impacts someone else to the point of their lives being in danger, and a choice is made to not help them, is that ethical?

Really that's irrelevant...

Maybe not irrelevant to the mother.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:20 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But you don't get charged with causing an accident until you've actually, in real life, as a fact --- caused one. That's the difference between potential and actual - a difference, I might add, you seem to want to obscure.

It's interesting, though, how you actually get punished more for not having insurance (even if you don't cause an accident) than you do for causing an accident. I'm not saying that's right, but Hero's right to compare the reasoning for outlawing abortion with the reasoning behind mandatory insurance. It's equally wrong in both cases. But it's consistent.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Maybe not irrelevant to the mother.

But still irrelevant to the discussion of the legality of the issue, as implied.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:24 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
People get switched off of life support all the time, with nothing like the moral hand wringing.

These people don't have potential for future human life and personhood, otherwise there would be hand wringing.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:29 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Maybe not irrelevant to the mother.

But still irrelevant to the discussion of the legality of the issue, as implied.

Who put those boundaries on the discussion? I don't see why we can't discuss whether abortion is ethical in this thread!

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:34 AM

Quote:
...and again understand this is probably more emotion and religious belief than fact talking - it should be regarded as a human life.

But Ripper, what you don't want to understand is that I don't share your emotion and religious belief - so why should I be subjected to your subjective views of what is and is not a fully-formed "human" with full human rights?

Hell, just to put an extra little spin of snark on it all, try this one on:

Many are arguing from a perspective that every fetus is a potential Mozart or Einstein. I could as well argue that every fetus is a potential Hitler or Bin Laden. How's about we just refer to aborted fetuses as "terrorists", celebrate that we killed them all before they could kill us, and call it all good. We're fightin' 'em in the womb so they don't put us in a tomb!

In fact, I have seen classified memos that prove categorically that every fetus aborted was going to grow up to be a terrorist bent of destroying the United States. I'm asking the President to declassify those memoes, but I don't think he's got the guts to do it.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Who put those boundaries on the discussion? I don't see why we can't discuss whether abortion is ethical in this thread!

And yet it's still completely irrelevant to whether it should be illegal or not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
In fact, I have seen classified memos that prove categorically that every fetus aborted was going to grow up to be a terrorist bent of destroying the United States. I'm asking the President to declassify those memoes, but I don't think he's got the guts to do it.

Not with that gutless commie in the white house.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:42 AM

Quote:
The main reason for sex is pro-creation - to create a new life.

Again, you are trying to force your own morality onto others who don't share it. I've never once in my life had sex with the intention of procreation. I've taken great pains to STOP myself from procreating, in fact.

That's something the anti-choice crown never has figured out. They're trying to make us follow THEIR "new puritanism", yet they insist it's the other way 'round, and it's US wanting THEM to follow OUR sinful ways. I don't want anyone else to follow my lead. I'm not going to FORCE anyone to get an abortion. I'm also not going to deny anyone such a procedure. So I'm in no way forcing my beliefs on you.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
These people don't have potential for future human life and personhood, otherwise there would be hand wringing.

That's a rather blanket statement.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
These people don't have potential for future human life and personhood, otherwise there would be hand wringing.

How do you know that? Maybe it's a 16-year old car accident victim who would've woken up in another three days, if they had only given her a little more time? Someone who talked with God, and would have changed the world with her inspiration?

I mean, heck, I read a news story about a woman who was on life support, had been tesetd as brain dead and was actually going into rigor. The family was talking to the doctor about maybe harvesting her organs, and the next thing they knew, this "dead" woman was telling the nurse "That's Ok dearie".
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:55 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Also bear in mind you are weighing the death of one, against only stress and inconvenience to the other.

But you say that like the stress and inconvenience of the other person doesn't count.

Why shouldn't it count?

No, of course it counts. Just pointing out that in terms of rights, the foetus's rights are transgressed more.

Heads should roll

Which is what I disagree with. No person has a right to live based on using another person as a biological host. Be that through organ harvestation, forced blood/bone marrow donation... or pregnancy. The fetus is not an independently viable individual, whose right to being left in peace is being transgressed. The fetus's very existence transgresses the woman's right to be left in peace. Only her voluntary agreement makes this a beautiful and non-damaging (mentally, morally) process.

Taking away termination options unfairly favors the biologically dependent over the "host" they need to survive, by wrongfully equating needs with rights.

Okay forget about 'rights' - unfortunate choice of wording. I merely meant to point out that harshness of punishment should be factored into the moral calculation - the question is more complex than 'which is worth more, the life of the mother or the foetus?' since the life of the mother is not typically at risk.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ah... here's the story...

Dead woman wakes up

http://www.enews20.com/news_Woman_Wakes_Up_after_Heart_Stopped_Rigor_M
ortis_Had_Set_In_08157.html

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:24 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
These people don't have potential for future human life and personhood, otherwise there would be hand wringing.
How do you know that? Maybe it's a 16-year old car accident victim who would've woken up in another three days, if they had only given her a little more time? Someone who talked with God, and would have changed the world with her inspiration?

I mean, heck, I read a news story about a woman who was on life support, had been tesetd as brain dead and was actually going into rigor. The family was talking to the doctor about maybe harvesting her organs, and the next thing they knew, this "dead" woman was telling the nurse "That's Ok dearie".
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

I get the impression you don't know what point I'm making. Maybe you've been through this debate so many times before that you're a little over-eager with your counterpoints.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:47 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"It's equally wrong in both cases. But it's consistent."

It's not consistent. Consistent would be the state forcing all people having sex to use mandatory birth control - because the potential to need an abortion is there.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:57 PM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

Okay forget about 'rights' - unfortunate choice of wording. I merely meant to point out that harshness of punishment should be factored into the moral calculation - the question is more complex than 'which is worth more, the life of the mother or the foetus?' since the life of the mother is not typically at risk.

But that's my point exactly.

It doesn't matter whether there is physical risk for the woman. And it's not a question of worth. Both are of equal worth.

But you can take two worthy individuals and very fairly sentence one to death if the only way it can survive is to harvest another person's body against their will.

It's a conflict of interest that the fetus cannot win unless you artificially increase its status and worth over that of the mother, by eliminating her right to say no to being a host and thus strip her of her right to physical self-determination. Hardly fair and hardly consistent with human rights.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
People get switched off of life support all the time, with nothing like the moral hand wringing.

These people don't have potential for future human life and personhood, otherwise there would be hand wringing.

Heads should roll

Says who? People have awakened from profound and deep comas, long after the time when most thought their life support should be terminated. OF COURSE they have the "potential" for future human life and personhood. It's just not particularly LIKELY. As with a great many pregnancies...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 1:01 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
These people don't have potential for future human life and personhood, otherwise there would be hand wringing.

That's a rather blanket statement.

But do you understand what point I'm making?

I sometimes make the effort to grasp what you're getting at in your posts even when they're not perfectly phrased, cit.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 1:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

It's a unique, individual, human life; however frail and inviable. Even parasites are living creatures, and human beings remain parasitic in nature long after birth. I don't think this line of argument/terminology really diminishes human beings at any stage - it's just the way things are.

I take it you're against anti-bacterials, anti-virals, treating cancers and tumors, and eating anything that is at some point a "living creature", then? After all, ALL of those are "living creatures" - don't they ALL deserve to have their right to life protected? Cows? Anthrax? E Coli? Carrots? Poison Ivy? Hornets?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

Citizen was arguing that a human foetus is not a living creature. I argued back that it was - i've never suggested that all plant/animal/human life is equivalent...(??)

Heads should roll

Perhaps I misunderstood. You seemed to be arguing that fetuses, no matter how frail and inviable, are still living creatures, even if they are parasites.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 1:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
But do you understand what point I'm making?

Your statement, as written indicates there's never a moral question in turning off a life support machine. Yet there is, hence my statement regarding your blanket, and I might add incorrect, statement. There's still no widespread call to ban pulling the plug though.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I sometimes make the effort to grasp what you're getting at in your posts even when they're not perfectly phrased, cit.

Well, that rather sounds like an insult, do I grasp that or is it not perfectly phrased?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 1:30 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
You seemed to be arguing that fetuses, no matter how frail and inviable, are still living creatures, even if they are parasites.

Not parasites but "parasitic in nature"

Fetuses, infants, children, teenagers... we shouldn't abort teenagers, and so forth.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 1:36 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Your statement, as written...

Not what I asked.

Quote:
Well, that rather sounds like an insult...

How?? Aimed at the grammar in your posts?

One of the poorest attempts to play the victim card ever...

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 1:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
The main reason for sex is pro-creation - to create a new life.

Again, you are trying to force your own morality onto others who don't share it. I've never once in my life had sex with the intention of procreation. I've taken great pains to STOP myself from procreating, in fact.

That's something the anti-choice crown never has figured out. They're trying to make us follow THEIR "new puritanism", yet they insist it's the other way 'round, and it's US wanting THEM to follow OUR sinful ways. I don't want anyone else to follow my lead. I'm not going to FORCE anyone to get an abortion. I'm also not going to deny anyone such a procedure. So I'm in no way forcing my beliefs on you.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

I don't ever recall saying you all MUST agree with me "or else." I am in NO way whatsoever trying to force my beliefs upon you. I'm merely stating my opinions based on my beliefs. You're jumping to a conclusion that was never implied. At least not implied on purpose. It's not my "job" to force my beliefs on you and not my "job" to judge. and if you took it that way, I sincerely apologize.

The intent of that particular statement was to say that (not to get too graphic) it would appear the way we were made (or evolved, however you desire to see it) makes it fairly clear that sex is used for procreation. Before the miracles of science, the only way to procreate was to have sex. To my knowledge, the only time other species have sex is to procreate (the female goes into heat, the act occurs and then babies are born - to keep it extremely simple). Humans are the only species that do it for pleasure. Am I right? It may not be the intent of those taking part in the act to procreate, but all of the ingredients are there TO procreate. Am I right?

Now I'll go a step further and clarify my position a little more, if we're talking about education and whatnot. Yes, I think that people should have sex ed. I think abstinence should be promoted more strongly than the other aspects, but I also understand the need for the other types of education as well. I have questions and issues as to at what age that should actually take place, but that's beside the point. I agree with all of you on that particular front, as Frem said earlier.

*********************************************
"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 1:54 PM