Romney and Republicans Wrong On Abortion by Jongsstraw

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Abortion is not genocide, or a holocaust, and certainly not murder. Why? It is because a fetus is not a person. A fetus is not a baby. There is a reason we have different words for these different stages.

I'm sorry, any right a fetus has to life is not greater than a women's rights to her own body. I also don't agree with that argument that all life is precious.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

Dreamtrove has this thing about there being a conspiracy of forced abortions. Forced abortions are abhorrent, but does the abortions rights lobby subcribe to this concept. No. Do you, I or any other person on the board who supports choice. So Dreamtrove consistently argues against legalised abortion because of his belief that there may be/is forced abortion. Another flawed argument.

I see no evidence in this world that all life is precious. Quite the contrary.

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

Saturday, October 13, 2012 3:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Abortion is not genocide, or a holocaust, and certainly not murder. Why? It is because a fetus is not a person. A fetus is not a baby. There is a reason we have different words for these different stages.

I'm sorry, any right a fetus has to life is not greater than a women's rights to her own body. I also don't agree with that argument that all life is precious.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Saturday, October 13, 2012 4:18 PM

"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 Magonsdaughter:
And I guess that is where the debate becomes somewhat clinical - and indeed we've had it before many times. Does the state have the right to infringe on the rights of the individual to force them to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy vs the rights of the foetus.

And does the state have the right to impose YOUR religious views on ME regardless of my views on your religion?

"Hero" here is trying to tell me that because HIS religion believes a certain thing about pregnancy and abortion, *I* have to follow his views in my actions. I don't. I don't accept his views as valid.

If your religion doesn't believe in abortion, then I suggest you follow your religion. Sucks to be you, but what are you gonna do? Ditto shellfish, bacon, liquor, and coffee. Follow your beliefs, knock yourselves out. I will follow my beliefs, and they are fine with abortion availability, shellfish, bacon, booze, and caffeine, at least in moderation.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

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

Saturday, October 13, 2012 4:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

I see no evidence in this world that all life is precious. Quite the contrary. And I'm not sure that we could survive as a species if we held this view.

All life *should* be precious. On that day when it finally is, there will likely be little need for abortion.

People who insist that life is precious don't generally care a bit about that life once it's cleared the birth canal. At that point, life goes from "precious" to "moocher forty-seven-percenter".

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

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

Saturday, October 13, 2012 5:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
And I guess that is where the debate becomes somewhat clinical - and indeed we've had it before many times. Does the state have the right to infringe on the rights of the individual to force them to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy vs the rights of the foetus.

I note for the record that the Supreme Court has said that the State's interest in preserving life outweighs the woman's right to privacy and control of her body. Little known case...Roe v. Wade.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

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

Saturday, October 13, 2012 5:55 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I note for the record that the Supreme Court has said that the State's interest in preserving life outweighs the woman's right to privacy and control of her body. Little known case...Roe v. Wade.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

Dude, what have you been smoking ? Roe v Wade makes abortion legal, everywhere, and free, to any woman, any where, any time she damn well wants.

DUH!

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

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

Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:19 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

So, 'Hero', last time this topic came up you ran way from a thread where I asked you two simple questions. You never could answer them, it seems. Remember what they are?

"The 14th Amendment says all persons born or naturalized are "citizens" but goes on to say that the State cannot deny a "person" their basic right to life without Due Process."

So, do you support drone killings? Yes or no.

Life is a continuous tree all the way back to the root, any branch liable to being cut at any time. "Personhood' is a whole different concept, far more legal and social. Hero - give me the legal definition of a 'person'.

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

Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:29 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

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

Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

All life *should* be precious. On that day when it finally is, there will likely be little need for abortion.

People who insist that life is precious don't generally care a bit about that life once it's cleared the birth canal. At that point, life goes from "precious" to "moocher forty-seven-percenter".

Taking a somewhat oblique philosophical approach, nature does not hold life to be precious. The system we live within requires that life must end in order to sustain new life and it happens without regard to fairness or compassion. Animal and plant life cease when they become food and habitat for other animals. Species become extinct and new ones evolve.

Rather than life being precious, I'd say as humans our relationships are considered precious. That is why murder is considered abhorrent.

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

Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor

Dude, what have you been smoking ? Roe v Wade makes abortion legal, everywhere, and free, to any woman, any where, any time she damn well wants.

Roe v. Wade is the historic Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas interpretation of abortion law and making abortion legal in the United States. The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without legal restriction, and with restrictions in later months, based on the right to privacy.

The U.S. Congress has barred the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except when the woman's life would be endangered by a full-term pregnancy or in cases of rape or incest.
About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds, virtually all of which are state funds. 17 states (Ala., Ariz., Calif., Conn., Hawaii, Ill., Mass., Md., Minn., Mont., N.J., N.M., N.Y., Ore., Vt., Wash., W.Va.) pay for abortions for some poor women.

Read more: Abortion in the United States — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904509.html#ixzz29FHsT5i7

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

Saturday, October 13, 2012 7:12 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Rather than life being precious, I'd say as humans our relationships are considered precious."

Would that that were true. There are things we value FAR more than human relationships, either near and, one hopes, dear, or distant and abstract.

"That is why murder is considered abhorrent."

And 'murder' is a slippery concept.

So, on to the first one. For example - here we let people die all the time for lack of medical care. In that case, our money is far more precious to us than our human relationships. We as a society go out and kill people in other countries, so apparently our power is far more important than our human relationships. We have the death penalty, so apparently our vengeance is far more important than our human relationships. In this country at least I don't think we can claim that our human relationships are of primary importance above all else.

As for murder, even though there are many circumstances where one individual person dies as the result of the action taken by another individual person, we don't call them all murder. Because we somehow make exceptions. So there's a lot of doublethink about people killing people, and some is OK b/c we say it's OK, and some is not OK b/c we say it's not OK. I don't find a hard and fast objective dividing line that separates one from the other. There's only the lines we draw in our heads for reasons we create in our heads.

As for our society - I've done some reading on the Greeks and Romans. Apparently they considered social duty or personal honor to be a higher than life per se, which is why many of their games involved killing people as a spectator sport. Fate was harsh, it was the way one faced it that made one a person of honor, or not. The Spartans seem to me like a society built on destroying any natural empathy one could have - especially parents for children. So while there was a lot of killing and death going about in those societies, it was not necessarily a bad thing to be a person who could kill other people.

Our society wants people to be nicer to other people, to not be able to make a personal decision to kill someone else and then carry it out. We'd rather be hypocrites and have it done for us by some abstract system or removed decision, as an example like an economic system that values profit more than human life.

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

Saturday, October 13, 2012 7:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Roe v Wade makes abortion legal, everywhere, and free, to any woman, any where, any time she damn well wants.

"Show me where I said something, which I knew to be false, yet presented the opposite to be true.

You can't do it, because it NEVER happened. Not on this board. Ever. "

So, are you so monumentally stupid that you believe what you said about Roe to be the truth, or were you lying and stating as fact something which you know to be false?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 2:14 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Roe v Wade makes abortion legal, everywhere, and free, to any woman, any where, any time she damn well wants.

"Show me where I said something, which I knew to be false, yet presented the opposite to be true.

You can't do it, because it NEVER happened. Not on this board. Ever. "

So, are you so monumentally stupid that you believe what you said about Roe to be the truth, or were you lying and stating as fact something which you know to be false?

Sarcasm not made its way out to your little patch of Texas, has it ? Seems not.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:01 AM

DREAMTROVE

Nick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention

Strangely, this thread started out with Jongs doubts and Rap's response, but I think it's Raps response that has most of us here talking about the issue, and it seems that this person in the video was talking to us very much like a person, so yeah, I'm going to go with, it's a person.

Secondly, no, it's not her body. It's the child's body. You would not have the right to kill a conjoined twin that was attached to you, I don't see that this is any different.

As for holocaust. 1.2 billion children. That can't just be chalked up to fickle female behavior, that's systematic slaughter.

Quote:
I also don't agree with that argument that all life is precious.

Then we're not going to get anywhere. You know I'm a Taoist so you're basically posting you think my belief is wrong, and you might as well have just posted "I don't see the world the way DT does."

Quote:
Magon
Dreamtrove has this thing about there being a conspiracy of forced abortions.

Sorry, that's fucking rude. I'm standing right here. If you want to say something to me, say something to me, don't go third person defining who I am to someone else in front of me.

There are forced abortions, 400,000 so far in china, but that's only 0.1% of abortions in china. Most abortions are situationally or economically forced or encouraged. No woman with a soul would kill her own child out of anything but pure necessity, so TPTB have made sure that it becomes a necessity. They undermine any other outlet for getting the child a new life, where the mother would then have the power to undo this most horrific of mistakes later in life.

Quote:
So Dreamtrove consistently argues against legalised abortion because of his belief that there may be/is forced abortion. Another flawed argument.

none of this is remotely true. I never argue against the law, only the practice, and i never use forced abortion as the crux of my argument, in fact, i can't recall mentioning it before now. I think you have me confused with PirateNews

Speaking of. PirateNews has something right that most people here have wrong, and that's where the spirit of this lies: Resistance to TPTB. What makes the most sense in opposing TPTB is not to find a team that you think is not as owned and controlled by TPTB and side with it, but rather to look at what TPTB do and what their agenda is for doing it, and then oppose that as the root evil of our situation.

Do you oppose the bombing of baghdad? the coming war with iran? the increasing gap between the rich and the poor? slave labor camps overseas that make iphones? prison camps oversease that torture americans? All these things are connected and not in a conspiracy way. No Knights of the British Empire MKULTRA chemtrail UFOs are necessary to draw the lines between these things. Just follow the money.

Everything we oppose follows a pattern of real world transactions that link each part to every other part. More than a conspiracy, it's a world game played by a very powerful ruling class. That group has a collective agenda, even if there is no illuminati star chamber and no document proclaiming the protocols of the elders of zion or whoever anyone thinks is running the thing. It's governed by an unofficial set of de facto rules that just happen because of the way people in power behave. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that if you want to oppose the result of that agenda, like all the things I just listed, the only effective way to do that is to oppose the cause of those effects, and that being the rules of the power game being played.

The main objective of the ruling class is to oppress the commoner class. This is why there is a rigged credit economy. This is why there is a derivatives market. This is why there is a police state, TSA, homeland security, it's why there are TV shows telling you who your heroes are. All this stuff is bought and paid for by major power players who want to keep you out of their game.

Abortion is one of the major weapons the ruling class uses to cull the population of everyone else. When folks is shooting at you, it's not exactly a BDH approach to get down on your knees and say "but they have to shoot at us to protect our rights."

Quote:
KWICKO
All life *should* be precious. On that day when it finally is, there will likely be little need for abortion.

I find myself in agreement with Mike here. The problem is we need to reduce the "need" for abortion, rather than ban it. I think that need is artificially created by those who had a vested interest in seeing abortion balloon as it did from a few thousand a year to 42 million a year.

Quote:

People who insist that life is precious don't generally care a bit about that life once it's cleared the birth canal.

but not with this. When i was pro-choice I used to here this all the time from my fellow pro-choicers. What that meant to me was that it was a talking point, and that's what it is.

Sure, one could support that statement by saying "look at dobson" but dobson is just a horrific failure of a childcare guru. At least they have childcare gurus, and actual school and childhood education plans that do not resemble the pink floyd video the way our public education system does. I don't agree with everything that the christian right does with its children, i disagree with a lot of it, but I think it's not fair to say they don't care. I think they care a great deal. Not just their own kids, they create programs for kids all over. It's just not a fair statement, it's a talking point.

Also, there's an issue that gets lost when someone is debating me or any of a number of people of non-asian descent who have adopted an eastern faith like Taoism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc. that life is sacred, that we also fall under the umbrella of "people who think life begins at conception." Maybe it's new age, am I new age? is that what's happened? But if so, maybe it's time for a new age. I assure you that these people care a great deal for children.

Oh, and Mike, watch Rap's video if you haven't, it's definitely worth watching

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Sure, one could support that statement by saying "look at dobson" but dobson is just a horrific failure of a childcare guru. At least they have childcare gurus,

It's not just dobson. Many pro-lifers are pro-death penalty and pro-war. Their rationale is that they are pro-innocent-life only.

You, as a Taoist and pacifist, are at least consistent in your pro-life stance. You don't think it is ok to murder people later. You are truly pro-life. But many pro-lifers aren't.

Quote:
You would not have the right to kill a conjoined twin that was attached to you, I don't see that this is any different.

This cannot be underscored enough.

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Roe v Wade makes abortion legal, everywhere, and free, to any woman, any where, any time she damn well wants.

"Show me where I said something, which I knew to be false, yet presented the opposite to be true.

You can't do it, because it NEVER happened. Not on this board. Ever. "

So, are you so monumentally stupid that you believe what you said about Roe to be the truth, or were you lying and stating as fact something which you know to be false?

Sarcasm not made its way out to your little patch of Texas, has it ? Seems not.

Your challenge didn't say "Show me where I said something in a non-sarcastic way, which I knew to be false, but presented the opposite to be true."

Did it?

Do you know what you posted about Roe to be false, or do you believe it to be true?

Simple question.

"I have no real clue of what you're speaking." - AuRaptor.

"Yes. I was wrong. I am sorry." - AuRaptor.

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51196

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:50 AM

It was very obvious to me Rappy was being sarcastic about Roe v Wade.

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 4:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
It was very obvious to me Rappy was being sarcastic about Roe v Wade.

As I already pointed out, Rappy's challenge didn't preclude sarcastic statements, did it? He challenged others to show him where he'd EVER posted something which he knew to be untrue, because it NEVER happened.

There's also him claiming that he never, ever, not once, not anywhere, claimed that it bugged him that the president is black, and I handed him his ass on that one, too.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 4:05 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Nick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention

Strangely, this thread started out with Jongs doubts and Rap's response, but I think it's Raps response that has most of us here talking about the issue, and it seems that this person in the video was talking to us very much like a person, so yeah, I'm going to go with, it's a person.

Secondly, no, it's not her body. It's the child's body. You would not have the right to kill a conjoined twin that was attached to you, I don't see that this is any different.

As for holocaust. 1.2 billion children. That can't just be chalked up to fickle female behavior, that's systematic slaughter.

The convention is talking about people, a fetus is not a person by definition. You can go with anything you would like, it does not make that correct.

Yes, it is a woman's body. It never starts belonging to a fetus. Parents acting on behalf of conjoined twins have in fact made the decision before to separate the twins which results in the death of one.

1.2 billion abortions, not one of them was a child. Plus your assertion that abortion would be a fickle female behavior shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what a women would go through in making such a decision. It is not something that is taken lightly.

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:Then we're not going to get anywhere. You know I'm a Taoist so you're basically posting you think my belief is wrong, and you might as well have just posted "I don't see the world the way DT does."

I do think your belief is wrong. On this and other things I know the way you see the world is not the way it really is. Plus everything I have ever read or looked at about Taoism says that in general abortions are allowed.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 4:07 AM

America loves a winner!

The point of being sarcastic, or attempting humor, is that you don't SAY " ok now, here's a joke ! " each and every time you follow up w/ a joke.

Idiot.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 4:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The convention is talking about people, a fetus is not a person by definition.

The definition can change. It used to mean person. Now it doesn't. In some countries, a fetus is defined as a person. In others, it isn't.

That's what we're arguing about. Should the definition change?

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 4:24 AM

America loves a winner!

Is a fetus a tadpole ? A kangaroo ? A hat ? A broach ? How about a Pterodactyl ?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 4:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Your challenge didn't say "Show me where I said something in a non-sarcastic way, which I knew to be false, but presented the opposite to be true."

I think the spirit of the challenge excludes obvious falsehoods like sarcasm. You don't really win any points by holding him to the letter of the challenge, at least not with onlookers like me.

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 4:39 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The convention is talking about people, a fetus is not a person by definition.
The definition can change. It used to mean person. Now it doesn't. In some countries, a fetus is defined as a person. In others, it isn't.

That's what we're arguing about. Should the definition change?

In those places where fetus means person what do they call the fetuses of other animals?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 5:21 AM

America loves a winner!

Can a fetus vote ? Can a fetus get a driver's license ? Can a fetus buy alcohol ?

No.

Can a 7 year old do any of those things, legally ?

No.

Is a 7 yr old an "animal" any more or less than we ? Or a fetus ?

As a former fetus, as we all are, I tend to side w/ the whole " they're human " definition.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 5:28 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Can a fetus vote ? Can a fetus get a driver's license ? Can a fetus buy alcohol ?

No.

Can a 7 year old do any of those things, legally ?

No.

Is a 7 yr old an "animal" any more or less than we ? Or a fetus ?

As a former fetus, as we all are, I tend to side w/ the whole " they're human " definition.

I was unaware that person-hood was defined by the ability to vote, or get a drivers license or buy alcohol. In that regard non-citizens of the US are not people in at least two regards.

Also a 7 year old is an animal, just as much as you and I are. Oh and human fetuses are human. They are just not people.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 6:01 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson: Oh and human fetuses are human. They are just not people.

Got it. Glad we cleared THAT up.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 6:19 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

And I see 'Hero' has once again failed to answer my two simple questions.

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 6:27 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Taoists aren't pacifists. The way that can be named is not the way. What they are against is imposing your individual will on the world. What they are for is responding to the world in its full range. Heaven and earth are not humane.

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 10:33 AM

DREAMTROVE

Mike,

Why intentionally seek a non-existent conflict? I'm still an undecided voter in this election. The you vs. rappy election that is. In the Obama vs. Romney I'm very decided. No power on this earth could make me vote for either one.

Nick,

Did I ask you to define me? Do I sit at home thinking "I wonder if M52Nickerson approves of what I'm thinking right now?" I didn't think so.

Quote:
1.2 billion abortions, not one of them was a child.

Oh really, not one? not even the one in the video at the start of this thread? cause you know that what we all are talking about.

Hey, is W'all a word?

Quote:
On this and other things I know the way you see the world is not the way it really is.

Oh you do really know that don't you.

If a Taoist says they support abortion then I would be very dubious of their understanding of the Tao. The sacred nature of forces in motion remaining in motion is more essential to the Tao than any other principle including the sanctity of life. Even if you weren't willing to admit that a foetus was alive, you would still have to admit that a pregnancy was a force in motion. To the Tao this makes it basically the literal hand of God. The flow of the forces is the Tao, it's the divine hand in taoism. Taoism isn't as literal and direct in its ideas as western religions because it is designed to be understood only by those who have actually followed the path and lived according to its principles. You cannot simply cherry pick lines and convince people you're a taoist. Lao Tzu intentionally designed it that way, which is why it opens with the tao which can be spoken is not the true tao. So, when taoists believe something, it should because that idea is intrinsic to concept. Free Market economics, for example, is generally believed to be intrinsic to the Tao, because of its connection to forces in motion as opposed to human regulation and action as an economic guiding hand. This interpretation led Mao Tse Dong to ban the text for years, but I think it's correct, and most Taoists still hold to it, even though nowhere in the Tao does it say "the monetary system should be a free market one" or anything to that effect really. For me, by contrast, the issue of abortion is pretty clearly spelled out. That said, I suspect you could find Citizen if he's still here would probably agree with you. He and I don't see eye to eye on the tao.

I concur with 1kiki

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 10:57 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Nick,

Did I ask you to define me? Do I sit at home thinking "I wonder if M52Nickerson approves of what I'm thinking right now?" I didn't think so.

You posted your opinion, your beliefs on a public forum. I commented on them. If you don't what to know what I or others think don't post.

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Oh really, not one? not even the one in the video at the start of this thread? cause you know that what we all are talking about.

She is now an adult. When her mother underwent an abortion she was still a fetus up until the point she was born.

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:Oh you do really know that don't you.

Yes. If I remember correctly you are the person who cannot accept that some chemicals breakdown in nature.

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:If a Taoist says they support abortion then I would be very dubious of their understanding of the Tao. The sacred nature of forces in motion remaining in motion is more essential to the Tao than any other principle including the sanctity of life. Even if you weren't willing to admit that a foetus was alive, you would still have to admit that a pregnancy was a force in motion. To the Tao this makes it basically the literal hand of God. The flow of the forces is the Tao, it's the divine hand in taoism. Taoism isn't as literal and direct in its ideas as western religions because it is designed to be understood only by those who have actually followed the path and lived according to its principles. You cannot simply cherry pick lines and convince people you're a taoist. Lao Tzu intentionally designed it that way, which is why it opens with the tao which can be spoken is not the true tao. So, when taoists believe something, it should because that idea is intrinsic to concept. Free Market economics, for example, is generally believed to be intrinsic to the Tao, because of its connection to forces in motion as opposed to human regulation and action as an economic guiding hand. This interpretation led Mao Tse Dong to ban the text for years, but I think it's correct, and most Taoists still hold to it, even though nowhere in the Tao does it say "the monetary system should be a free market one" or anything to that effect really. For me, by contrast, the issue of abortion is pretty clearly spelled out. That said, I suspect you could find Citizen if he's still here would probably agree with you. He and I don't see eye to eye on the tao.

In the end your religious beliefs mean little to me and the arguments regarding abortion.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 11:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"The 14th Amendment says all persons born or naturalized are "citizens" but goes on to say that the State cannot deny a "person" their basic right to life without Due Process."

So, do you support drone killings? Yes or no.
"Personhood' is a whole different concept, far more legal and social.

Your answers in reverse order.

All people are persons, not all persons are citizens.

Yes, I support drone strikes, no I don't support drone strikes, but keep in mind I support them, but no I don't support them...in other words, yes and no depending on the situation...just like all other forms of military action.

Lastly, your reading of the 14th Amendment leaves out essential express elements such as 'in the United States' and 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. From the abortion standpoint, an unborn child is not a citizen, but strict reading of the language suggests they are persons. I suggest you read all the language and not just the parts you like.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 11:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Taoists aren't pacifists.

Some people are both taoist AND pacifist. And maybe even a firefly fan too.

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 12:31 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

'Hero'

I got it. Basically, you have no answers to my two simple questions.

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 12:35 PM

SOCKPUPPET

DT,

You are arguing with someone whose own prime directive is exterminate and ya think you can appeal to their kinder inner nature? He may have a sense of style but you sir have sprung a wire loose in your circuitry. And don't think for a second I'm going to way in on your pet issue here 'cause sure as hell I ain't, and you damn well know what I think of it, and don't need me weighing in here to remind ya, or do I? Didn't think so. Now surely you have better things to do than to waste your time debating a pointless wedge issue with Nickerbot. Now git, move along.

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 12:47 PM

JONGSSTRAW

Before Roe v. Wade.......

Too bad every girl back then and now in the present doesn't have a Steve McQueen around to save her, hold her, and eventually change his mind and marry her. There'd be almost no need for any abortions. Until that happens, Roe must stand.

Hmmm, better than Reuben's.
..One more.
Ben!
..My last one.
Okay.

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 1:50 PM

OK, DT, since you took great offense at my post, I'll direct this one at you. but don't expect it to be pleasant.

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
As for holocaust. 1.2 billion children. That can't just be chalked up to fickle female behavior, that's systematic slaughter.

I see lines like this and it makes my blood boil. Fickle female behaviour, WTF???????? This is an outrageous blatently misogynist statement. Women who have abortions are not demonstrating fickle behaviour. Do you know ANYTHING about women? Have you ever actually been in a relationship? Geez, that just sucks. As does the comparison to the Holocaust, to the victims of Holocaust, men, women and children herded into cattle trains, starved, tortured, worked to death. You really are a piece of work.

YOU continually bring up forced abortions in this issue, so excuse me if I respond to that. I am against forced abortions as would any abortion rights advocate, who support CHOICE, not coercion one way or another. If there are forced abortions anywhere, then I stand against them. But that still leaves the issue of choice, which you propose to take away because in your own misogynist, ignorant way is that "No woman with a soul would kill her own child out of anything but pure necessity". Basically you cannot concieve that anyone other than a souless woman, whatever the fuck that means, would have an abortion except by some economic choice purposefully manufactured by the powers that be. In other words, women are mindless drones, unable to take control of their own lives, at the mercy of this mythical, all powerful TPTB as you call it.
Well, my friend, you are flat out wrong. There are many, many reasons why women choose to terminate, including economic reasons, but in case you haven't notice many women proceed with pregnancy in similar circumstances. SO whether you can get your head around women being sentient, there is choice involved.

and the rest of your post is just mad gibberish, off topic and paranoid.

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 2:05 PM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by SOCKPUPPET:
You are arguing with someone whose own prime directive is exterminate and ya think you can appeal to their kinder inner nature?

Wow, I'm honored!

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 2:13 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

A while ago DT was on a kick that went to the effect that a new superbug was concocted over at Bagram. When I pointed out that that superbug had been detected years earlier in the street/ sewers of Delhi probably as a result of rampant use of antibiotics, and the the person with the superbug didn't come from Bagram but from Delhi and had been sent to Bagaram for expert medical care, he went on a long multipost fantasia of an argument of how it was all concocted to look like it had been discovered earlier when it was really new, but 'they' had made it at Bagram but spread it around Delhi ... etc.

At this point I just scroll past DT's posts, like I scroll past PN's. Way too long, way too pointless.

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 2:33 PM

Yes, quite right. We're already veering down the well trodden path of eugenics that enters any abortion debate that DT is involved in, so maybe its time I bowed out of this thread.

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 2:33 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
OK, DT, since you took great offense at my post, I'll direct this one at you. but don't expect it to be pleasant.

Well, I enjoyed it.

*reaches for the popcorn*

ETA: your urge to bow out is understandable. I have also experienced how pointless discussions with DT can be. But leave knowing that you opened a serious can of whoopass when it was called for. Thank you.

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 2:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
YOU continually bring up forced abortions in this issue,

Um, no, Magon, you do. Copy and paste where he's brought up forced abortions in this thread. Then count how many times YOU have brought it up and ascribed it to him.

Classic red herring.

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 2:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
'Hero'

I got it. Basically, you have no answers to my two simple questions.

I answered your questions, you just don't like the answers.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:40 PM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
'Hero'

I got it. Basically, you have no answers to my two simple questions.

Holy shit, don't take a page out of Rappy's book.

Hero answered your questions and did so pretty clearly.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:44 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Your answers were, in reverse order of which you gave them

do you support drone strikes? > yes and no

what is the legal definition of a person? > I imagine one in the 14th amendment

They were words, not answers.

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Your answers were, in reverse order of which you gave them

do you support drone strikes? > yes and no

what is the legal definition of a person? > I imagine one in the 14th amendment

They were words, not answers.

Like your reading of the 14th Amendment, you clearly did not read what I wrote, just what little you chose to see in order to support you preconceived, but incorrect, notions.

Drone strikes? It depends on the situation...same as my support for everything from embargoes to nuclear war.

Person? That's pretty much everybody...and that is the legal answer.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:56 PM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Your answers were, in reverse order of which you gave them

do you support drone strikes? > yes and no

what is the legal definition of a person? > I imagine one in the 14th amendment

They were words, not answers.

Hero said her supports drone strikes in some situation but not others, that is a clear answer.

He also said that a fetus is not considered a citizen and as such is not protected by the 14th. Again a pretty clear answer.

1kiki, give it up.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 4:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Hero said her supports drone strikes in some situation but not others, that is a clear answer.

He also said that a fetus is not considered a citizen and as such is not protected by the 14th. Again a pretty clear answer.
.

Actually I said a fetus is not a citizen. It's 14th Amendment protection depends on if its a person, since jurisdiction and not citizenship are the only triggers for protection of "all persons". The 14th Amendment says a citizen is any person born or naturalized and so on...but that suggests that status as a person can, strictly speaking, predate naturalization OR birth. The issue had never been litigated from that perspective. I want thank you all for giving me another argument to use should I get the chance.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

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

Sunday, October 14, 2012 4:25 PM