Famous Abortionist Killed in Church

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
362

…if the father’s physical wellbeing was comprimised, like the mother’s health is by simply being pregnant, because a pregnancy is absolutely no picknick and may even result in the mother’s death, then i’d grant the father a say in the matter. Since this is obviously not the case, and the father does not have to go through the physical ordeal of simply being pregnant, he does not get a say in this matter…

[quote]Now, on to decisions and thier effect on peoples rights. If I come into your house and steal your TV, I will go to prison. The act of putting me in prison is taking away some of my rights as an individual. But I don’t hear any outcrying that my rights are being taken away, it is expected, I have free will and made a choice which put me into the situation I am in, so I must live with the consequences of my decisions and actions, even if they result in my rights being taken away. And in the case of stealing your TV, they would only be taken away temporarily, say for a year.

So Since the woman made a choice to have consentual sex, why is it wrong for society to force her to live with the temporary loss of her rights to her body, to prevent a crime from being committed, the murder that would take place should she abort the fetus. In my view, this follows precise logic, and is justifiable according to our current societal standards. This would be my basic position should we view the human fetus as an individual human being, who has by the mere fact of it’s existance, been granted the right to life. So I’m going to hold to my position now that no abortions should be legal until someone can explain to me a scientific reason why a fetus at any stage they want, is not a human being. But for your amusement, I will contend that if that notion is never accepted, I feel that at the very least, A father should have the right to oppose an abortion at any stage, and by law, his word should hold as much weight as the mothers.

V[/quote]

…because, more often than not in the case of abortion, both consenting adults took measures to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, but due to failure on the part of the contraceptive, the woman becomes pregnant. I must assume that, within reason, the precautions i’ve taken to prevent a pregnancy work, otherwise you’d simply have to abstain. That’s not gonna happen, is it? I agree with you that if i engage in sex, knowing full well the possible consequences of that act, without taking the necessary precautions to prevent a pregnancy, and my partner gets pregnant, i have to suck it up and have the child [bad choice of words, i know]. I also don’t think that’s a reason for abortion, altough i reluctantly agree that it’s within a woman’s right to abort said pregnancy…

…this issue must be an either/or scenario, giving the fact that you can’t take away the right to self determination of a woman. This is why there is no middle ground, except for placing an arbitrary cut-off point. As a nation/society we should educate first, and provide contraceptives to sexually active people in order to reduce abortions, and not outlaw abortion alltogether. That is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater [lol]…

363

Please kill all non-virgin unwed girls, workers who work on Sabbath, Muslim, Jew, abortionist, pagan, homosexual, and/or Arab.

With love,
God

364

[quote]orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:

And by birth we are talking about coming into existance on this planet right? Not an event which occurs later in it’s development, like say going from one environment to another? If not, would you also argue then, that when someone is put on life support, which for all intents and purposes is an environment similar to a womb, the person then again loses the rights they had?

V
[edited for too many signatures, this is exhausting! lol]

Ah, I did not know that now the meaning of the word “birth” needs to rearranged too, like “human being”.

Also, you are making no distinction between a right and the power to exercise that right.

As science advances is it not uncommon for words to be updated to have a better representation of thier true meaning? If Birth Literally means coming out of a mothers womb, then if I grew a baby in a test tube, and nurtured him to infancy through artificial means, much like a life support system would, he would technically have no birth if we used the old definition, and would you say this human has no birth rights? Or do we update the word birth to accomodate this new human so that he has rights from the moment he exists? And if we do not extend these rights to him, why? what are the downsides? That we cannot legally kill him now if he has rights?

And with regard to the power to exercise a right, a fetus has all the power it needs to execute it’s right to life. If it no longer posessed that power, it would die on it’s own accord. The fact that it continues to live proves it is excercising that right.

V

The first one is an interesting question. Yes, we would have to decide when someone like that was born. To think that that would automatically be the moment of fertilization is a stretch though.

A fetus has no power to live on its own. Remove it, however gently, from its live support system and it dies.

As well as you have no right to make me pay for someone elses live support you have no right to force a mother to support a fetus because that would mean violating the rights of someone who most definitely a human being in order to protect the rights of a fetus that is arguably not.

The most you could do is make her get the fetus out as gently as possible and see if it lives.

[/quote]

A fetus has just as much power to live on it’s own as a 1 year old baby does, if you take it’s food away it is going to die, no questions about it. But we keep looping back to this and so far I don’t think we have agreed that a human is granted rights when it can fend for itself.

And with regard to violating rights, She made a choice, and the result of that choice (with the exception of rape) was that she became pregnant. Even if she attempted to prevent it, no person has ever been told that any form of birth control is 100% so even though she minimized her chance, she still willingly ran the risk. With the stealing of the TV example, I showed how a persons actions could lead them to forfeit thier rights, either temporarily or permanantley. There is nowhere in the constitution or any other document of our government which states you get to keep all of your rights without question regardless of your actions. I don’t see people fighting to get a inmate who robbed a house out of prison because we are infringing on his rights, why then would we be trating women as human rights victims because they got themselves pregnant?

Also please address my point about an adult on life support. If you remove the life support the person dies. If I walked in and stabbed the person in the heart would I be charged with murder? Generally speaking a person is put on life support because they may at some point in the future recover and be able to live independantly of the machine. A fetus also has a pretty good chance of living off the life support of the womb, sometime in the future.

V

365

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Vegita wrote: You claim legal exception for my exraordinary case and yet you present me with one in defense of your position. Can we then agree that based upon your definition of a 16 week or younger fetus being property, in a normal pregnancy, where two parties engaged in consentual sex, the father should have the right to oppose the abortion, I mean legally speaking. I am not totally opposed to having a set of laws that cover the routine, and then have certain exceptions to the law for extraordinary circumstances, this is far better in my opinion than blanketing all pregnancies so that women who get raped have a legal option to abort thier babies. Again, this would be my position if I were forced to believe as you do that the fetus is not a human being until after 16 weeks.

…if the father’s physical wellbeing was comprimised, like the mother’s health is by simply being pregnant, because a pregnancy is absolutely no picknick and may even result in the mother’s death, then i’d grant the father a say in the matter. Since this is obviously not the case, and the father does not have to go through the physical ordeal of simply being pregnant, he does not get a say in this matter…

[/quote]

But in the other scenario(surrogate mother), the woman going through the ordeal of pregnancy did not have the right to abort, and the DNA Parents did. So how can you support the rights of the DNA father only if the baby is not being carried in the womb of the biological mother? I mean is there some magical combination of actual right and level of ordeal which make a legal matter concrete? Why not have a non-arbitrary system where no one has to do guesswork, scenario evaluation and have laws with 100 different addendums. I think the bottom line for me is, either the womans rights supercede that of the fetus or they don’t. As in the case of my TV theft again, my choices and actions can result in the temporary or permanant loss of my rights, and no one bats an eye. But a woman gets pregnant, and we now not only cannot possibly infringe her rights, but we also will allow her to eliminate another life to allow her to continue to live her life with her full set of rights.

V

366

[quote]Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:

And by birth we are talking about coming into existance on this planet right? Not an event which occurs later in it’s development, like say going from one environment to another? If not, would you also argue then, that when someone is put on life support, which for all intents and purposes is an environment similar to a womb, the person then again loses the rights they had?

V
[edited for too many signatures, this is exhausting! lol]

Ah, I did not know that now the meaning of the word “birth” needs to rearranged too, like “human being”.

Also, you are making no distinction between a right and the power to exercise that right.

As science advances is it not uncommon for words to be updated to have a better representation of thier true meaning? If Birth Literally means coming out of a mothers womb, then if I grew a baby in a test tube, and nurtured him to infancy through artificial means, much like a life support system would, he would technically have no birth if we used the old definition, and would you say this human has no birth rights? Or do we update the word birth to accomodate this new human so that he has rights from the moment he exists? And if we do not extend these rights to him, why? what are the downsides? That we cannot legally kill him now if he has rights?

And with regard to the power to exercise a right, a fetus has all the power it needs to execute it’s right to life. If it no longer posessed that power, it would die on it’s own accord. The fact that it continues to live proves it is excercising that right.

V

The first one is an interesting question. Yes, we would have to decide when someone like that was born. To think that that would automatically be the moment of fertilization is a stretch though.

A fetus has no power to live on its own. Remove it, however gently, from its live support system and it dies.

As well as you have no right to make me pay for someone elses live support you have no right to force a mother to support a fetus because that would mean violating the rights of someone who most definitely a human being in order to protect the rights of a fetus that is arguably not.

The most you could do is make her get the fetus out as gently as possible and see if it lives.

A fetus has just as much power to live on it’s own as a 1 year old baby does, if you take it’s food away it is going to die, no questions about it. But we keep looping back to this and so far I don’t think we have agreed that a human is granted rights when it can fend for itself.

And with regard to violating rights, She made a choice, and the result of that choice (with the exception of rape) was that she became pregnant. Even if she attempted to prevent it, no person has ever been told that any form of birth control is 100% so even though she minimized her chance, she still willingly ran the risk. With the stealing of the TV example, I showed how a persons actions could lead them to forfeit thier rights, either temporarily or permanantley. There is nowhere in the constitution or any other document of our government which states you get to keep all of your rights without question regardless of your actions. I don’t see people fighting to get a inmate who robbed a house out of prison because we are infringing on his rights, why then would we be trating women as human rights victims because they got themselves pregnant?

Also please address my point about an adult on life support. If you remove the life support the person dies. If I walked in and stabbed the person in the heart would I be charged with murder? Generally speaking a person is put on life support because they may at some point in the future recover and be able to live independantly of the machine. A fetus also has a pretty good chance of living off the life support of the womb, sometime in the future.

V[/quote]

To claim that a fetus can live on its own like a baby is prima facie ridiculous.

Then, there are women who made no choice regarding the matter, depending on whether you call it a choice to be raped or to die.

Someone on live support has someone willing to support that live support. I would be very much against any “right” to remain on live support that has to be provided for by others unless they are under contractual obligati9ons to do so.

367

[quote]orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:

And by birth we are talking about coming into existance on this planet right? Not an event which occurs later in it’s development, like say going from one environment to another? If not, would you also argue then, that when someone is put on life support, which for all intents and purposes is an environment similar to a womb, the person then again loses the rights they had?

V
[edited for too many signatures, this is exhausting! lol]

Ah, I did not know that now the meaning of the word “birth” needs to rearranged too, like “human being”.

Also, you are making no distinction between a right and the power to exercise that right.

As science advances is it not uncommon for words to be updated to have a better representation of thier true meaning? If Birth Literally means coming out of a mothers womb, then if I grew a baby in a test tube, and nurtured him to infancy through artificial means, much like a life support system would, he would technically have no birth if we used the old definition, and would you say this human has no birth rights? Or do we update the word birth to accomodate this new human so that he has rights from the moment he exists? And if we do not extend these rights to him, why? what are the downsides? That we cannot legally kill him now if he has rights?

And with regard to the power to exercise a right, a fetus has all the power it needs to execute it’s right to life. If it no longer posessed that power, it would die on it’s own accord. The fact that it continues to live proves it is excercising that right.

V

The first one is an interesting question. Yes, we would have to decide when someone like that was born. To think that that would automatically be the moment of fertilization is a stretch though.

A fetus has no power to live on its own. Remove it, however gently, from its live support system and it dies.

As well as you have no right to make me pay for someone elses live support you have no right to force a mother to support a fetus because that would mean violating the rights of someone who most definitely a human being in order to protect the rights of a fetus that is arguably not.

The most you could do is make her get the fetus out as gently as possible and see if it lives.

A fetus has just as much power to live on it’s own as a 1 year old baby does, if you take it’s food away it is going to die, no questions about it. But we keep looping back to this and so far I don’t think we have agreed that a human is granted rights when it can fend for itself.

And with regard to violating rights, She made a choice, and the result of that choice (with the exception of rape) was that she became pregnant. Even if she attempted to prevent it, no person has ever been told that any form of birth control is 100% so even though she minimized her chance, she still willingly ran the risk. With the stealing of the TV example, I showed how a persons actions could lead them to forfeit thier rights, either temporarily or permanantley. There is nowhere in the constitution or any other document of our government which states you get to keep all of your rights without question regardless of your actions. I don’t see people fighting to get a inmate who robbed a house out of prison because we are infringing on his rights, why then would we be trating women as human rights victims because they got themselves pregnant?

Also please address my point about an adult on life support. If you remove the life support the person dies. If I walked in and stabbed the person in the heart would I be charged with murder? Generally speaking a person is put on life support because they may at some point in the future recover and be able to live independantly of the machine. A fetus also has a pretty good chance of living off the life support of the womb, sometime in the future.

V

To claim that a fetus can live on its own like a baby is prima facie ridiculous.

Then, there are women who made no choice regarding the matter, depending on whether you call it a choice to be raped or to die.

Someone on live support has someone willing to support that live support. I would be very much against any “right” to remain on live support that has to be provided for by others unless they are under contractual obligati9ons to do so.
[/quote]

Ok, this is my last one for today, I’m getting married saturday so I won’t be able to revisit this until tuesday at the earliest.

Niether a 1 year old nor a fetus can survive on it’s own. If thrown out in the woods, both would have a 100% chance of death. Yes the fetus would die much quicker, like instantly, but that does not mean they are disimilar in thier ability to survive on thier own.

None of my arguments have been made towards rape victims. I am ONLY discussing legal abortion for those people who have consentual sex and then want to have an abortion. I think we can agree that rape victims are the exeption and you don’t make a law that caters to the exceptions.

So if you lacked the financial ability to pay for a hospital to put you on life support, or say one of your family members, you think the person should just be allowed to die? First off, the hospital doesn’t run a credit check in an emergency situation, all hospitals save the life and then ask questions later. If a person is crashing, they will be put on life support, and then the financials are worked out later. Either the hospital takes a loss on it, insurance pays for it, or they garnish someones wages. Or the government kicks money at it. This is the reality of our current healthcare climate, no we could start a whole new thread about if that is right or not, but based on our current healthcare climate, you would be put on life support weather you could afford it or not. Especially if there was a decent chance you could recover.

V

368

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Ok, this is my last one for today, I’m getting married saturday so I won’t be able to revisit this until tuesday at the earliest.

Niether a 1 year old nor a fetus can survive on it’s own. If thrown out in the woods, both would have a 100% chance of death. Yes the fetus would die much quicker, like instantly, but that does not mean they are disimilar in thier ability to survive on thier own.

None of my arguments have been made towards rape victims. I am ONLY discussing legal abortion for those people who have consentual sex and then want to have an abortion. I think we can agree that rape victims are the exeption and you don’t make a law that caters to the exceptions.

So if you lacked the financial ability to pay for a hospital to put you on life support, or say one of your family members, you think the person should just be allowed to die? First off, the hospital doesn’t run a credit check in an emergency situation, all hospitals save the life and then ask questions later. If a person is crashing, they will be put on life support, and then the financials are worked out later. Either the hospital takes a loss on it, insurance pays for it, or they garnish someones wages. Or the government kicks money at it. This is the reality of our current healthcare climate, no we could start a whole new thread about if that is right or not, but based on our current healthcare climate, you would be put on life support weather you could afford it or not. Especially if there was a decent chance you could recover.

V[/quote]

Congratulations then.

369

[quote]Buff HardBack wrote:
wow. someone needs a hug…or a psyc eval. Either or.[/quote]

I don’t know man, the song is actually pretty groovey.

370

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Ok, this is my last one for today, I’m getting married saturday so I won’t be able to revisit this until tuesday at the earliest.[/quote]

Congrats!

372

Indeed, congratulations, maybe a technicality, but still a definitive choice of course.

373

[quote]Vegita wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Vegita wrote: You claim legal exception for my exraordinary case and yet you present me with one in defense of your position. Can we then agree that based upon your definition of a 16 week or younger fetus being property, in a normal pregnancy, where two parties engaged in consentual sex, the father should have the right to oppose the abortion, I mean legally speaking. I am not totally opposed to having a set of laws that cover the routine, and then have certain exceptions to the law for extraordinary circumstances, this is far better in my opinion than blanketing all pregnancies so that women who get raped have a legal option to abort thier babies. Again, this would be my position if I were forced to believe as you do that the fetus is not a human being until after 16 weeks.

…if the father’s physical wellbeing was comprimised, like the mother’s health is by simply being pregnant, because a pregnancy is absolutely no picknick and may even result in the mother’s death, then i’d grant the father a say in the matter. Since this is obviously not the case, and the father does not have to go through the physical ordeal of simply being pregnant, he does not get a say in this matter…

But in the other scenario(surrogate mother), the woman going through the ordeal of pregnancy did not have the right to abort, and the DNA Parents did. So how can you support the rights of the DNA father only if the baby is not being carried in the womb of the biological mother? I mean is there some magical combination of actual right and level of ordeal which make a legal matter concrete? Why not have a non-arbitrary system where no one has to do guesswork, scenario evaluation and have laws with 100 different addendums. I think the bottom line for me is, either the womans rights supercede that of the fetus or they don’t. As in the case of my TV theft again, my choices and actions can result in the temporary or permanant loss of my rights, and no one bats an eye. But a woman gets pregnant, and we now not only cannot possibly infringe her rights, but we also will allow her to eliminate another life to allow her to continue to live her life with her full set of rights.

V[/quote]

…i’m sure there’s a proper word for it, but i don’t think you can use an extraordinary situation and apply it’s exceptions to the normal situation as if they’re comparable…

…because life and law aren’t like that. As i tried to explain to pushharder, we make allowances for behaviour we’d otherwise find reprehensible if that behaviour appeals to a sense of right or wrong: murder vs the deathpenalty and liberty vs outlawing abortion for instance…

…now, i trust you had a wonderful ceremony, and an even better wedding-night, and i wish you and your wife all the best [and probably many, many children]!