Famous Abortionist Killed in Church

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
325

[quote]pushharder wrote:
ephrem wrote:
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.

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

You are an ostrich with your head buried in the sand if all you can say is “It really isn’t.”

[/quote]

…allright, let me qualify that statement, “but it really isn’t to me”…

326

[quote]pushharder wrote:
ephrem wrote:
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.

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

Can’t leave this one alone. It’s just too fuckin juicy.

I find it utterly surreal that many consider it uncivilized to execute bonafide guilty first degree murderers and at the same time also think it is uncivilized to ban the execution of innocent children. Bizarre beyond words. Think about this, people. This goes light years beyond irony.

[/quote]

…i thought you might take the bait. What this is about is how we justify exceptions to what we otherwise see as immoral or wrong. I too think it’s wrong to abort a pregnancy, but only if it’s past 16 weeks. You see murder as wrong, but not if it’s justified in some way. Where we draw the line is arbitrary push: you do it, i do it, we all do it. That’s just the way it is…

328

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

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

Can’t leave this one alone. It’s just too fuckin juicy.

I find it utterly surreal that many consider it uncivilized to execute bonafide guilty first degree murderers and at the same time also think it is uncivilized to ban the execution of innocent children. Bizarre beyond words. Think about this, people. This goes light years beyond irony.

…i thought you might take the bait. What this is about is how we justify exceptions to what we otherwise see as immoral or wrong. I too think it’s wrong to abort a pregnancy, but only if it’s past 16 weeks. You see murder as wrong, but not if it’s justified in some way. Where we draw the line is arbitrary push: you do it, i do it, we all do it. That’s just the way it is…

Take the bait, my ass. I need a face palm pic right about now.

You are ludicrously attempting to make the point that implemented death penalties against convicted murderers are unequivocally comparable with the murders of an innocent human beings who are executed with no trial and indeed not even an accusation of wrongdoing. This is a dead end for you. Retreat now before the comical becomes insane.

[/quote]

yea cuz EVERYONE who gets executed was completely guilty, hahah yea right.

murder is murder. why and how is just a pissing contest over semantics.

330

…don’t run your victory lap just yet, and please pay attention: i wasn’t comparing the two as if they’re equal, i’m showing that how we justify exceptions to behaviour we otherwise would find reprehensible is equal. In you view abortion is murder, and therefore abortion should be illegal. I’m making an exception to that rule in favor of giving women a choice within a certain timeframe, justifying that exception by saying that a fetus cannot hold precedence over the mother when it’s still “a clump of cells”. Are you with me so far?

331

[quote]pushharder wrote:

OK, now we’re getting somewhere. You agree the baby is a human. You must agree that the human baby is innocent. And you state explicitly and implicitly that FOR ANY REASON the mother has the right to end the life of an innocent human being.

Wow.[/quote]

You haven’t been paying attention. I never said that an unborn baby is not a human, I have actually said the contrary. If I pass the ball to you it doesn’t mean that you must immediately start running.

Two points to make:
The innocence of the baby is pretty irrelevant to the whole question since the baby is neither innocent nor quilty, the baby is not born yet.
Entirely justifiable is your choice of words, not mine. I don’t applaud abortions, it doesn’t make me happy when a baby dies. I’m arguing that legal abortions are preferable to illegal ones.

Do I need to answer to this? You have already decided to do my thinking for me.
I do not know if you are aware of it, but your insistence to think about the subject solely in terms of right/wrong does create a communication problem. May I ask you, where does this inalienable right to life that the you grant the baby come from?

332

[quote]ephrem wrote:
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

…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…

[/quote]

I work in the insurance industry, we deal with legal contracts all day long. You do realize that I cannot write up a contract with you saying you will carry my cookies till the end of the day and not eat one. But if you do eat one, you have broken the contract and since I love the cookies so much, you will be charged with murder.

Likewise, I cannot give you my 2 year old son to watch for the day, but in order to do so you make me sign a contract that says you are not to be held responsible for anything that happens to the child, even if he dies by your hand, you cannot be charged with murder.

See a contract must still be within the limits of what is legal. So in your case all your assumptions are incorrect. EVEN if they have a contract, it has to be within the confines of the law, so who has the right to abort? The DNA Mother? the Surrogate Mother? Or the DNA Parents? Again, I’m using my far fetched scenario so it was wanted and then one party decides against it.

V

333

[quote]Vegita wrote:I work in the insurance industry, we deal with legal contracts all day long. You do realize that I cannot write up a contract with you saying you will carry my cookies till the end of the day and not eat one. But if you do eat one, you have broken the contract and since I love the cookies so much, you will be charged with murder.

Likewise, I cannot give you my 2 year old son to watch for the day, but in order to do so you make me sign a contract that says you are not to be held responsible for anything that happens to the child, even if he dies by your hand, you cannot be charged with murder.

See a contract must still be within the limits of what is legal. So in your case all your assumptions are incorrect. EVEN if they have a contract, it has to be within the confines of the law, so who has the right to abort? The DNA Mother? the Surrogate Mother? Or the DNA Parents? Again, I’m using my far fetched scenario so it was wanted and then one party decides against it.

V[/quote]

…what is illegal in that contract then? I have to know that first before i can answer the other questions.

334

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Vegita wrote:I work in the insurance industry, we deal with legal contracts all day long. You do realize that I cannot write up a contract with you saying you will carry my cookies till the end of the day and not eat one. But if you do eat one, you have broken the contract and since I love the cookies so much, you will be charged with murder.

Likewise, I cannot give you my 2 year old son to watch for the day, but in order to do so you make me sign a contract that says you are not to be held responsible for anything that happens to the child, even if he dies by your hand, you cannot be charged with murder.

See a contract must still be within the limits of what is legal. So in your case all your assumptions are incorrect. EVEN if they have a contract, it has to be within the confines of the law, so who has the right to abort? The DNA Mother? the Surrogate Mother? Or the DNA Parents? Again, I’m using my far fetched scenario so it was wanted and then one party decides against it.

V

…what is illegal in that contract then? I have to know that first before i can answer the other questions.

[/quote]

They cannot charge someone with a crime, when no crime has been commited. If it is legal to get an abortion, they cannot charge her with murder just because they didn’t want her to.

Here is where I’m getting at, when I pressed you earlier as to why the WOMAN got to choose, you said, Beacuse it is her womb. Now I give you a very real scenarion where it isn’t her womb, and I think you are leaning to the DNA PARENTS having the say, which brings up two more problems for me. You can’t use the womb as a reason for abortion, and if you say the DNA, then in a regular abortion, the father should have just as much say as the mother. This is where your ideas are not consistant. In reality, I do not think you like abortion at all, I think you would be happy if no child was aborted period. I mean if you had to choose I think you value life. But and trust me, I have been there before, society has had an impact on you, your surroundings your peers, your elders, people have discussed thier viewpoint with you on this topic and you really never cared all that much about it, you never thought long and hard about all the implications, so you accepted thier ideas because i’m sure they made good strong emotional arguments, much like some of the ones you have made in this very thread.

So whith all that being said, in our continuing ongoing scenarion, I cannot make somthing illegal via contract that is clearly legal. Like I said, I could not charge you with murder for eating my cookie. So either the 12 week old fetus is a human deserving of the right to life, or it is the property of the Womb it resides in or it is the property of the DNA parents, not just the mother. You know what my position is.

V

335

[quote]dhickey wrote:
how about taking a step back.

If you can remove a baby without killing it, why wouldn’t you?

A line must be drawn. It will be arbitrary, but many laws are.[/quote]

None of the pro-choicers want to address this?

336

[quote]dhickey wrote:
dhickey wrote:
how about taking a step back.

If you can remove a baby without killing it, why wouldn’t you?

A line must be drawn. It will be arbitrary, but many laws are.

None of the pro-choicers want to address this?[/quote]

Some of the problems seem to stem from the fact that they do not view the fetus before a specific timeframe as a human baby. Therefore, they don’t view it as killing anything, I guess they equate it to removing an undesireable clump of cells, maybe like a benign tumor or something. Thier arbitrary line seems to be exactly that, one will say 12 weeks, another 16 weeks, and yet another 20 weeks. I’m sure if you took an anonymous poll of every single pro choicer in the country you would have a timeframe for abortion that was allowable at any time. because the problem is, if someone argues there should be a cutoff and then argues why it is viable to do so before thier cutoff, the person with a later cutoff can essentially use the same arguments against them that they use against someone who wishes for no abortions period.

The good news is that I think we have at least established that the doctor in question was a scumbag and while his killing may not have gone down as some of us would have wanted, in the end, he can’t kill anymore late term babies, so at least thats a good thing.

(oh just remembered I am on your blocked list, so I guess this response is for everyone else.)

V

337

[quote]Vegita wrote:
dhickey wrote:
dhickey wrote:
how about taking a step back.

If you can remove a baby without killing it, why wouldn’t you?

A line must be drawn. It will be arbitrary, but many laws are.

None of the pro-choicers want to address this?

Some of the problems seem to stem from the fact that they do not view the fetus before a specific timeframe as a human baby. Therefore, they don’t view it as killing anything, I guess they equate it to removing an undesireable clump of cells, maybe like a benign tumor or something. Thier arbitrary line seems to be exactly that, one will say 12 weeks, another 16 weeks, and yet another 20 weeks. I’m sure if you took an anonymous poll of every single pro choicer in the country you would have a timeframe for abortion that was allowable at any time. because the problem is, if someone argues there should be a cutoff and then argues why it is viable to do so before thier cutoff, the person with a later cutoff can essentially use the same arguments against them that they use against someone who wishes for no abortions period.

V[/quote]

You act as if arbitrary cut off points were not the norm for such problems.

Why can you drive at 16? Or 18? Or 14?

Why have sex at 14? Or 16? Or 21?

Why own a gun, drink or vote at a certain age?

In all these cases there is no clear cut off point and therefore we compromise.

338

[quote]Vegita wrote:They cannot charge someone with a crime, when no crime has been commited. If it is legal to get an abortion, they cannot charge her with murder just because they didn’t want her to.

Here is where I’m getting at, when I pressed you earlier as to why the WOMAN got to choose, you said, Beacuse it is her womb. Now I give you a very real scenarion where it isn’t her womb, and I think you are leaning to the DNA PARENTS having the say, which brings up two more problems for me. You can’t use the womb as a reason for abortion, and if you say the DNA, then in a regular abortion, the father should have just as much say as the mother. This is where your ideas are not consistant. In reality, I do not think you like abortion at all, I think you would be happy if no child was aborted period. I mean if you had to choose I think you value life. But and trust me, I have been there before, society has had an impact on you, your surroundings your peers, your elders, people have discussed thier viewpoint with you on this topic and you really never cared all that much about it, you never thought long and hard about all the implications, so you accepted thier ideas because i’m sure they made good strong emotional arguments, much like some of the ones you have made in this very thread.

So whith all that being said, in our continuing ongoing scenarion, I cannot make somthing illegal via contract that is clearly legal. Like I said, I could not charge you with murder for eating my cookie. So either the 12 week old fetus is a human deserving of the right to life, or it is the property of the Womb it resides in or it is the property of the DNA parents, not just the mother. You know what my position is.

V[/quote]

…it is legal in Holland, in most cases, to agree to something contractually that’s contrary to the law. [EDIT: i may have had a brainfart writing this, it was late and you’ve complicated things, so i can’t say without a shadow of a doubt this is the case] I’d want to know which exceptions the law makes in the US in regards to extraordinary cases like the one you made here, otherwise i’m shooting in the dark. As science advances the law has to advance aswell, and as these cases unfold precendence will be made. Please grant me the honor to let me think and decide for myself. I’m pigheaded enough, and dispassionate enough, not to be swayed by appeals to emotion first and foremost because i think laws should not be based on emotion, but on reason…

…so to answer your question: if the surrogate mother decides to abort the pregnancy within the legal timeframe, she has the legal right to do so. The biological parents are within their rights to file a lawsuit for breach of contract, but not for murder because the abortion wasn’t illegal…

…on the subject of who holds the property rights to the fetus in this case, that’s a legal quagmire i’m not willing venture in to. My knowledge is too limited to make a reasonable judgment what this case is concerned…

339

[quote]dhickey wrote:
dhickey wrote:
how about taking a step back.

If you can remove a baby without killing it, why wouldn’t you?

A line must be drawn. It will be arbitrary, but many laws are.

None of the pro-choicers want to address this?[/quote]

…who would pay for keeping the baby alive?

340

[quote]ephrem wrote:
dhickey wrote:
dhickey wrote:
how about taking a step back.

If you can remove a baby without killing it, why wouldn’t you?

A line must be drawn. It will be arbitrary, but many laws are.

None of the pro-choicers want to address this?

…who would pay for keeping the baby alive?
[/quote]

Where do other unwanted babies go? What happens when an insured or uninsured mother gives birth prematurely?

341

Here I come
They call me
A beast like none before
I suck the abscess of dead infants
I want some more
I Am Baby Killer
I kill pregnant sluts and whores!!

Splaying inside the womb
Red and wet I tear chunks from the pussy Red and wet mangled unborn baby
Eat the meat dripping from filthy…
Cumstained, blood-soaked, rotten cunt Infant skull exploding in my mouth
It’s brain on the floor
I grab it’s tongue and tear it out
Dead meat for me. I can’t believe
How much this baby is bleeding
It’s tiny stumps pours out more
Than it’s dead mothers open sores
It’s guts paint the floor
It’s flesh I shall gorge.
It seems feasting on young infant flesh has made my semen leak.
I am aroused. Fuck I’m crazy
I fuck the blood. I need meat on my cock.
No meat can satisfy me. I must spew my seed
Spunk flows throughout the mangled infant. now I’ll chop it up
Chunks of guts fly as i stand with baby skin all over me
Forcing the blood-soaked gore unmercifully down my throat
Pieces of baby are lodged inside of me
Over and over I feast on it’s death
It’s all gone. I want some more
I turn to it’s mother
Blood is still flowing strongly from her butchered pussy
I drink from her fountain, stench of menstrual gore
Gagging on chunks of sliced up pussy
I feel pressure…
Pushing in my brain
The force caves in my head
My eyes eject slowly
Where’s my knife?
I plunge my knife in
Inside my head
My veins are seeping
Warm streams of red
My tongue tastes so horrid
I must swallow it
Gore taste so scrumptious
Enough to wash it down with piss