Famous Abortionist Killed in Church

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]pushharder wrote:

You must not have understood. The example was a child (fetus) in the womb of the mother who is killed in the armed robbery. Yes, if the robber shot the woman in the belly and killed the fetus he could be charged with murder. Murder of the unborn child. If the woman had hypothetically gone into Tiller’s clinic right before she went to the convenience store she could have had Tiller legally end the life of the child.
[/quote]

I understood your example, I just have a tendencey to take shortcuts, sorry.

She decides if she wants to have that little human or not. Yes, that is how I think.

[quote]
She decides whether it is human or not? What if she doesn’t know? What if she doesn’t care? What if she’s wrong? What if she’s right, she thinks it’s human but decides to kill/abort it anyway? If so, why can’t she decides this after that baby is born as well?[/quote]

You mean that if I want to allow abortions then I must defend infanticide also? There’s nothing to defend, but psychosis after giving birth do occur, that’s true.

303

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Wrong, a mother and father can have a fertilized egg implanted in a surrogate mothers womb. The fetus does not rely on the DNA mother 100% of the time. Therefore you have created a situation where a surrogate mother has the right to abort the baby, which was implanted in her by the DNA parents of the child. And I would even venture to go as far as saying, in the next 10-20 years we may very well see a partially developed fetus, removed from a mothers womb, and still brought along in it’s development by either implanting it in a new mother, or nourishing it via artificial means.

V[/quote]

…why would you want to abort a wanted pregnancy?

306

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Wrong, a mother and father can have a fertilized egg implanted in a surrogate mothers womb. The fetus does not rely on the DNA mother 100% of the time. Therefore you have created a situation where a surrogate mother has the right to abort the baby, which was implanted in her by the DNA parents of the child. And I would even venture to go as far as saying, in the next 10-20 years we may very well see a partially developed fetus, removed from a mothers womb, and still brought along in it’s development by either implanting it in a new mother, or nourishing it via artificial means.

V

…why would you want to abort a wanted pregnancy?
[/quote]

You’re saying someone can’t change thier mind? At first the Surrogate mothership seems like a good idea, but after say 19 weeks, the surrogate mother comes to realize she has had more than she bargained for and goes to an abortion clinic and aborts the baby. She is not charged with murder. Look, if you guys can use the daddy raping daughter scenario, then I can use my own far fetched but possible scenarios as well. You have stated it is her right to do this and therefore you are ok with this.

And saying it is wanted or not does not make it more or less human, or it having more or less right to it’s own life. I showed you a scenario where the DNA parents do not provide the imediate blood nutrition and oxygen for the developing fetus. and you didn’t respond to that part. So lets take it back there again, who gets to abort the baby before 16 weeks the surrogate mother or the DNA parents?

V

307

[quote]pushharder wrote:
ephrem wrote:
John S. wrote:What if the mother lives in a remote region with only the child, then does she have the right to not feed it? Again I ask you to rework your argument.

…if the mother does not have enough food for both her and her child, it’s not uncommon that the child is abandoned in favor of the mother’s survival…

What if it has nothing to do with “survival” but rather “convenience”?[/quote]

…if a woman gives birth to a child and then decides to kill it because she feels it inconveniences her, then that’s murder and she should be prosecuted. The only reason why i say it’s okay to abort a pregnancy within the first 16 weeks is because i don’t see that clump of cells equal to a newborn baby, or an unborn in it’s third trimester. Not equal enough to deny women any choice in the matter. This is where we disagree, and we can go on for 20 more pages, but that won’t change a thing…

308

[quote]Vegita wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Wrong, a mother and father can have a fertilized egg implanted in a surrogate mothers womb. The fetus does not rely on the DNA mother 100% of the time. Therefore you have created a situation where a surrogate mother has the right to abort the baby, which was implanted in her by the DNA parents of the child. And I would even venture to go as far as saying, in the next 10-20 years we may very well see a partially developed fetus, removed from a mothers womb, and still brought along in it’s development by either implanting it in a new mother, or nourishing it via artificial means.

V

…why would you want to abort a wanted pregnancy?

You’re saying someone can’t change thier mind? At first the Surrogate mothership seems like a good idea, but after say 19 weeks, the surrogate mother comes to realize she has had more than she bargained for and goes to an abortion clinic and aborts the baby. She is not charged with murder. Look, if you guys can use the daddy raping daughter scenario, then I can use my own far fetched but possible scenarios as well. You have stated it is her right to do this and therefore you are ok with this.

And saying it is wanted or not does not make it more or less human, or it having more or less right to it’s own life. I showed you a scenario where the DNA parents do not provide the imediate blood nutrition and oxygen for the developing fetus. and you didn’t respond to that part. So lets take it back there again, who gets to abort the baby before 16 weeks the surrogate mother or the DNA parents?

V[/quote]

…i don’t know.

309

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Vegita wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Wrong, a mother and father can have a fertilized egg implanted in a surrogate mothers womb. The fetus does not rely on the DNA mother 100% of the time. Therefore you have created a situation where a surrogate mother has the right to abort the baby, which was implanted in her by the DNA parents of the child. And I would even venture to go as far as saying, in the next 10-20 years we may very well see a partially developed fetus, removed from a mothers womb, and still brought along in it’s development by either implanting it in a new mother, or nourishing it via artificial means.

V

…why would you want to abort a wanted pregnancy?

You’re saying someone can’t change thier mind? At first the Surrogate mothership seems like a good idea, but after say 19 weeks, the surrogate mother comes to realize she has had more than she bargained for and goes to an abortion clinic and aborts the baby. She is not charged with murder. Look, if you guys can use the daddy raping daughter scenario, then I can use my own far fetched but possible scenarios as well. You have stated it is her right to do this and therefore you are ok with this.

And saying it is wanted or not does not make it more or less human, or it having more or less right to it’s own life. I showed you a scenario where the DNA parents do not provide the imediate blood nutrition and oxygen for the developing fetus. and you didn’t respond to that part. So lets take it back there again, who gets to abort the baby before 16 weeks the surrogate mother or the DNA parents?

V

…i don’t know.
[/quote]

Will you think about it and get back to me? I have no problem with someone needing to think about a complex matter. Hopefully some of my points in the argument will help you see the value inherint in every human life, not just the ones that are convenient for the parents.

V

311

[quote]Vegita wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Vegita wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Wrong, a mother and father can have a fertilized egg implanted in a surrogate mothers womb. The fetus does not rely on the DNA mother 100% of the time. Therefore you have created a situation where a surrogate mother has the right to abort the baby, which was implanted in her by the DNA parents of the child. And I would even venture to go as far as saying, in the next 10-20 years we may very well see a partially developed fetus, removed from a mothers womb, and still brought along in it’s development by either implanting it in a new mother, or nourishing it via artificial means.

V

…why would you want to abort a wanted pregnancy?

You’re saying someone can’t change thier mind? At first the Surrogate mothership seems like a good idea, but after say 19 weeks, the surrogate mother comes to realize she has had more than she bargained for and goes to an abortion clinic and aborts the baby. She is not charged with murder. Look, if you guys can use the daddy raping daughter scenario, then I can use my own far fetched but possible scenarios as well. You have stated it is her right to do this and therefore you are ok with this.

And saying it is wanted or not does not make it more or less human, or it having more or less right to it’s own life. I showed you a scenario where the DNA parents do not provide the imediate blood nutrition and oxygen for the developing fetus. and you didn’t respond to that part. So lets take it back there again, who gets to abort the baby before 16 weeks the surrogate mother or the DNA parents?

V

…i don’t know.

Will you think about it and get back to me? I have no problem with someone needing to think about a complex matter. Hopefully some of my points in the argument will help you see the value inherint in every human life, not just the ones that are convenient for the parents.

V[/quote]

…in this case i’d assume legal documents were drawn up. I’d assume the surrogate mother waves all and any claims to the child as her own in exchange of a sum of money. If the surrogate decides to abort, at any time, during the pregnancy she is in violation of the contract and therefore subject to prosecution, because it wasn’t her decision to make. The biological parents can prosecute for that violation and press charges for murder in the first degree because the abortion was against their wishes…

…if it was the other way 'round, and the biological parents decided that they did not want the child, and it was still within the legal time limit, the surrogate mother would have no other option than to agree to an abortion. I would stipulate that in the contract…

312

[quote]pushharder wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pushharder wrote:
ephrem wrote:
John S. wrote:What if the mother lives in a remote region with only the child, then does she have the right to not feed it? Again I ask you to rework your argument.

…if the mother does not have enough food for both her and her child, it’s not uncommon that the child is abandoned in favor of the mother’s survival…

What if it has nothing to do with “survival” but rather “convenience”?

…if a woman gives birth to a child and then decides to kill it because she feels it inconveniences her, then that’s murder and she should be prosecuted. The only reason why i say it’s okay to abort a pregnancy within the first 16 weeks is because i don’t see that clump of cells equal to a newborn baby, or an unborn in it’s third trimester. Not equal enough to deny women any choice in the matter. This is where we disagree, and we can go on for 20 more pages, but that won’t change a thing…

So you’ve ruled out the final 12 weeks as permissible to abort. You’ve ruled in the first 16. What do you do with the other 10 - 12 weeks, Eph?[/quote]

…i’d treat those weeks as a safety margin, and err of the side of caution. You see, i don’t think that there’s anyone that likes abortion. It’s a sad and traumatic experience, and women who have an abortion because being pregnant is inconvenient are stupid people, and you know what: i do think that if you outlaw abortion these women think twice about abortion and probably won’t go through with it, have the child and be a happy or unhappy mother. That doesn’t change my opinion though, so you’d better give up on me [smiley face]…

315

[quote]pushharder wrote:
ephrem wrote:

…The biological parents can prosecute for that violation and press charges for murder in the first degree because the abortion was against their wishes…

Even in the first 16 weeks? You would advocate for murder charges if it occurred in the first 16 weeks of gestation? If yes, do you realize what this does to your aforementioned argument?

[/quote]

…because it’s not the surrogates decision to make. She’s only gestating, for which she’s compensated. Only the biological parents can make the decision to abort within the legal time frame…

319

[quote]pushharder wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pushharder wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pushharder wrote:
ephrem wrote:
John S. wrote:What if the mother lives in a remote region with only the child, then does she have the right to not feed it? Again I ask you to rework your argument.

…if the mother does not have enough food for both her and her child, it’s not uncommon that the child is abandoned in favor of the mother’s survival…

What if it has nothing to do with “survival” but rather “convenience”?

…if a woman gives birth to a child and then decides to kill it because she feels it inconveniences her, then that’s murder and she should be prosecuted. The only reason why i say it’s okay to abort a pregnancy within the first 16 weeks is because i don’t see that clump of cells equal to a newborn baby, or an unborn in it’s third trimester. Not equal enough to deny women any choice in the matter. This is where we disagree, and we can go on for 20 more pages, but that won’t change a thing…

So you’ve ruled out the final 12 weeks as permissible to abort. You’ve ruled in the first 16. What do you do with the other 10 - 12 weeks, Eph?

…i’d treat those weeks as a safety margin, and err of the side of caution. You see, i don’t think that there’s anyone that likes abortion. It’s a sad and traumatic experience, and women who have an abortion because being pregnant is inconvenient are stupid people, and you know what: i do think that if you outlaw abortion these women think twice about abortion and probably won’t go through with it, have the child and be a happy or unhappy mother. That doesn’t change my opinion though, so you’d better give up on me [smiley face]…

I’m not giving up on you. Already you have come quite a ways, it seems to me.

We finally have someone on the so called pro-abortion side who says it’s reasonable to err on the side of caution. See, Eph, we really aren’t that far apart. We both agree to err on the side of caution. We’re just a mere 16 weeks apart. [/quote]

…that’s pro-choice for ya!

320

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Here’s your problem, Eph. From a philosophical and debating standpoint you would be so much better off to just maintain a “Life begins at birth” standpoint. Because you have now created an elaborate, complex, ethical conundrum from which it is getting exceedingly difficult to extricate yourself.[/quote]

…actually, that’s what you make of it push, but it really isn’t.

321

[quote]pushharder wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pushharder wrote:
ephrem wrote:

…The biological parents can prosecute for that violation and press charges for murder in the first degree because the abortion was against their wishes…

Even in the first 16 weeks? You would advocate for murder charges if it occurred in the first 16 weeks of gestation? If yes, do you realize what this does to your aforementioned argument?

…because it’s not the surrogates decision to make. She’s only gestating, for which she’s compensated. Only the biological parents can make the decision to abort within the legal time frame…

If it’s murder it’s murder.

[/quote]

…so is the deathpenalty. That is why, in most civilised countries, it’s abolished…