Famous Abortionist Killed in Church

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Vegita wrote:I can’t wait till you tell me how nobody can tell us what we can do to our bodies. This should be good when you advocate that Crack cocane and Heroine should be fully legal substances.

Well, wait no longer, because I just did.

To your point about A woman being able to do to her body what she wants. Even if you believe that, since the fetus has separate DNA, it is not part of her body. It may be attached to it, but it isn’t “her” so Sure if she can figure out a way to remove the fetus and have it continue it’s development normally without killing it, then sure she may have the right to do that, she does not have the right to KILL another Human Being, regardless the impact on her body.

Wrong again. Actually think about this before robotically dashing off an ill-considered response. Even if I were to grant you that the fetus is not a part of her body (since that’s pretty much like saying her arm isn’t a part of her body), it wouldn’t make any difference, because she is still required to support it and house it, su whether or not you think it’s part of her body, it still certainly requires the (not inconsiderable) use of her body, which she is entitled to grant or to deny.

she does not have the right to KILL another Human Being, regardless the impact on her body.

I can’t wait until you’re attacked and you kill the guy, and they send you to prison for the rest of your life for homicide, because “you do not have the right to KILL another human being, regardless the impact on your body.”

Actually, I know right now, there are women who will carry a couples child for them if the mother has a medical reason she cannot. The egg is fertalized in a petrie dish and inserted into the host mother. Now, are you going to tell me, that this host mother has the right to abort the baby at any time she sees fit? Do the DNA Parents have a say in it? Curiously waiting for your response.

It depends. Is there a contract involved? If so, then no; she has made a binding agreement to carry the child to term. If not, then yes. But there really should be a contract involved in that situtation.

[/quote]

I fail to see how a contract has anything to do with it. Slavery is illegal and one cannot contract themselves into slavery. Therefore if you are claiming natural born rights of a woman to do what she wants to do, when she wants to do it with her own body, which you are including a fetus, both of her own genetic offspring and now of a completely unrelated source of genetic material, then a contract cannot trump those rights. So by your logic, A woman who is carying a child for another couple regardless of her motives, can walk into an abortion clinic and kill HER baby because it is her body. I mean maybe not legally, but you think it is her right to do so?

V

122

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
But it is still SUBJECT TO THE WISHES OF THE MOTHER. It’s HER body, not the fetus’s. It put that in bold because you seem to be having a hard time seeing it.[/quote]

I am not having a hard time seeing it, I actually recently had lazer eye surgurey, so my vision is quite good, but thank you for your concern. What you are not getting out of my point is that, the fetus is not doing her any permanant harm, it is not threatening her life, and unless she was raped, she was directly involved with the creation of the baby concentually. Therefore, she does not have the right to kill another human being who is posing no immediate threat to her life. Regardless of the circumstances with regard to the use of her body. Like I said, if she finds a way to remove the fetus without killing it and it can still develop normally, thats just fine with me. No one wants to punish a woman with pregnancy, we just don’t think it is right to kill an innocent unless the innocent is posing a direct threat to the mothers life.

V

123

How are you missing this? The only thing that matters here is whether or not the woman agrees to carry the child to term. If it’s her own child, she of course needs no contract. In the situation you mentioned, the mother’s (actually, whomever is delivering the child) consent is still what matters.

However, since you now have a situation involving an agreement among several parties, it’s best to physically document the consent. To be really specific, if there is no contract, I would say yes, she has the right to abort it at any time. The parents should have realized that there might be a conflict and thus should have a sought a written agreement. If there is a contract, then she has given her consent, with the understanding that it may not be arbitrarily revoked.

124

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Do you promise to read my post this time? Because it’s apparent reading this one that you did not read my others.

pushharder wrote:One more time. I do NOT cherish all life. Got that?

Since when does “they” and “you” mean the same thing? Pay attention and this won’t take as long.

The comparison is exquisitely appropriate because you pled your case based on the legality of the action. I made the point that legality does not make something “right” or “wrong”. If you think that point is contestable, have at it with the slavery issue. Again, I say, “Go.”

I said it was the mother’s right. This does not depend on its legal status. If it were illegal, I would still support it and my arguments would not need to change. I know you think you’re being really clever here, but slavery is not a valid comparison.

You deny the rights of the baby and impose your will on its body when you crush its brain with a steel tool and vacuum its remains through a medical Hoover and discard its body in a trash can or incinerator.

The rights of the baby? Does this include the right to deny others their rights? It’s funny that we rail against tyrants and encroachments on our liberties on this board all the time, yet the right of the baby (whose status as a person is very debatable at this point) to completely trump the mother’s rights is held up as self-evident. Like it or not, to have a case, you have to justify this annulment of the woman’s right to control her body, and this against her better judgement. “No ma’am, we know better than you whether or not you should have this baby.”

So were back to the old “whose rights are the royal flush on the table?”

Well, the baby has a right to “want” to be born (if only they knew), and the mother has a right to allow or not allow the baby to be born. They can both make decisions, but due to biology, the mother’s wishes carry the day. If the baby can find some other way to be born, he is perfectly free to avail himself of this opportunity.

But that’s not what this debate is about. It’s about how to be pro-life and what distinctions are made in being so.

You mean, it’s about deciding what critical pieces of information to ignore in crafting your arguments?

[/quote]

That’s right no responsibility for your actions,

you are forgetting that by getting pregnant int he first place you performing an act, you are in essence ientering into contract with both the child and partner. Thus waiving these so called rights you are claiming, but most people don’t understand the idea of responsibility and accountability why should you.

I am not pro-life, I am pro common sense, pro responsibility and pro accountability. I believe in finishing someone to defend others. I believe it is called the good sumaritan law in some states,

If the guy were smart he would use arguments such as these or the very late term abortion argument in his defense. but by getting caught and running he has proven he is not that.

125

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
But it is still SUBJECT TO THE WISHES OF THE MOTHER. It’s HER body, not the fetus’s. It put that in bold because you seem to be having a hard time seeing it.

I am not having a hard time seeing it, I actually recently had lazer eye surgurey, so my vision is quite good, but thank you for your concern. What you are not getting out of my point is that, the fetus is not doing her any permanant harm, it is not threatening her life, and unless she was raped, she was directly involved with the creation of the baby concentually. Therefore, she does not have the right to kill another human being who is posing no immediate threat to her life. Regardless of the circumstances with regard to the use of her body. Like I said, if she finds a way to remove the fetus without killing it and it can still develop normally, thats just fine with me. No one wants to punish a woman with pregnancy, we just don’t think it is right to kill an innocent unless the innocent is posing a direct threat to the mothers life.

V[/quote]

What I want to know is, why are you basing this on the notion of “permanent harm?” I have the right to drive a car. However, I may not simply take my neighbor’s new car out for a spin simply because I have the right to drive a car. To argue that, well, I did no permanent harm makes absolutely no difference. It’s their car, not mine. I can drive it with their consent, but not without.

About removing the fetus, IT is using HER body, so the burden of finding another dark, warm spot is frankly not the mother’s problem.

126

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
tedro wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Half a page of rubbish.

I do hope you support abortion right up until the moment that the baby is born. You know, to be ‘logically consistent’.

Actually, you should probably support murder until the age of 12 or so if you really want to be ‘logically consistent’, seeing as children under the age of 12 do tend to rely on others’ ‘benevolence’ for their existence.

Another right wing goon who can’t actually figure out a way to refute arguements he doesn’t like. What’s it like being so insecure about your opinions that you’re afraid to question them at all?[/quote]

I can’t refute your arguement until I understand it. Are you like 99% of other abortionists that cannot form a logical arguement and arbitrarily pick cut-off points for when abortion is acceptable, or are you willing to accept it into the 40th week right up until the moment of birth?

Also, does your stance depend on forcing benevolence, or is there something deeper? I would really hate to have to condone murder for all those that are dependant on another.

127

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
How are you missing this? The only thing that matters here is whether or not the woman agrees to carry the child to term. If it’s her own child, she of course needs no contract. In the situation you mentioned, the mother’s (actually, whomever is delivering the child) consent is still what matters.

However, since you now have a situation involving an agreement among several parties, it’s best to physically document the consent. To be really specific, if there is no contract, I would say yes, she has the right to abort it at any time. The parents should have realized that there might be a conflict and thus should have a sought a written agreement. If there is a contract, then she has given her consent, with the understanding that it may not be arbitrarily revoked.[/quote]

How is that the only thing that matters? You are so focused on that one aspect of a very complicated idea that you aren’t seeing the forest for the trees. Why are the rights of the fetus thrown out the window? I can’t even agree that it is part of her body because it has it’s own genetic code. It is not it’s mother. So you are arguing your point based on your own beliefs and assumptions. In this light you will never sucessfuly argue your point to me because you are using ideas as facts which are highly contestable. So at the very least we can’t know who is right or wrong on those issues, and at the most, you are dead wrong and the fetus is NOT her body.

If you live with your uncle and your presence causes a drain on his resources, and thus he eats less, and thus loses weight, does he have the right to kill you because of it? I mean you are effecting his body? What if he can’t get aroused knowing you are in the house and therefore can’t have sex with his wife? Can he kill you then? Does he have a right to have perfect homeostasis in his body, regardless of the rights of each person around him? What if two peoples rights are interfering with eachothers? Duel to the death?

V

128

[quote]apbt55 wrote:That’s right no responsibility for your actions,

you are forgetting that by getting pregnant int he first place you performing an act, you are in essence ientering into contract with both the child and partner. Thus waiving these so called rights you are claiming, but most people don’t understand the idea of responsibility and accountability why should you.

I am not pro-life, I am pro common sense, pro responsibility and pro accountability. I believe in finishing someone to defend others. I believe it is called the good sumaritan law in some states,

If the guy were smart he would use arguments such as these or the very late term abortion argument in his defense. but by getting caught and running he has proven he is not that.
[/quote]

I agree that using abortion as a primary means of birth control is reprehensible, but no matter how hard you try, you cannot legitimately take away the woman’s right to her body.

Now I don’t know about you, but I’ve never signed any pieces of paper before having sex. Your concept of some implicit contract is terribly forced and artificial. Besides, the man takes no responsibility for his actions. It’s no skin off his back if she gets pregnant.

So anyway, I know abortion is gross and sometimes “feels” wrong, but you guys have to realize that not everything in life is warm and fuzzy all the time, and the fact that something is uncomfortable doesn’t make it wrong.

129

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

The rights of the baby? Does this include the right to deny others their rights? It’s funny that we rail against tyrants and encroachments on our liberties on this board all the time, yet the right of the baby (whose status as a person is very debatable at this point) to completely trump the mother’s rights is held up as self-evident. Like it or not, to have a case, you have to justify this annulment of the woman’s right to control her body, and this against her better judgement. “No ma’am, we know better than you whether or not you should have this baby.”

[/quote]

You are getting dangerously close to arguing against welfare using libertarian arguments.

That you do that in the case of abortion is interesting.

130

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
But it is still SUBJECT TO THE WISHES OF THE MOTHER. It’s HER body, not the fetus’s. It put that in bold because you seem to be having a hard time seeing it.

I am not having a hard time seeing it, I actually recently had lazer eye surgurey, so my vision is quite good, but thank you for your concern. What you are not getting out of my point is that, the fetus is not doing her any permanant harm, it is not threatening her life, and unless she was raped, she was directly involved with the creation of the baby concentually. Therefore, she does not have the right to kill another human being who is posing no immediate threat to her life. Regardless of the circumstances with regard to the use of her body. Like I said, if she finds a way to remove the fetus without killing it and it can still develop normally, thats just fine with me. No one wants to punish a woman with pregnancy, we just don’t think it is right to kill an innocent unless the innocent is posing a direct threat to the mothers life.

V

What I want to know is, why are you basing this on the notion of “permanent harm?” I have the right to drive a car. However, I may not simply take my neighbor’s new car out for a spin simply because I have the right to drive a car. To argue that, well, I did no permanent harm makes absolutely no difference. It’s their car, not mine. I can drive it with their consent, but not without.

About removing the fetus, IT is using HER body, so the burden of finding another dark, warm spot is frankly not the mother’s problem.[/quote]

The fetus didn’t put itself in her womb, It was HER actions which caused the fetus to be in her womb, so that argument is gone, done. If she wants it gone, it is HER responsibility to find it another home. How the fuck is a fetus supposed to find another home for itself. You are obviously in way over your head now and you are clinging to some very slippery slopes. If you continue down this road, I am going to bury youin the hole you are digging, just a forewarning. You can still turn back to logic at this point.

V

131

[quote]tedro wrote:I can’t refute your arguement until I understand it. Are you like 99% of other abortionists that cannot form a logical arguement and arbitrarily pick cut-off points for when abortion is acceptable, or are you willing to accept it into the 40th week right up until the moment of birth?

Also, does your stance depend on forcing benevolence, or is there something deeper? I would really hate to have to condone murder for all those that are dependant on another.[/quote]

That didn’t stop you from dashing off a hasty reponse beforem, why should you try to understand now?

In all seriousness, if my previous dozen posts or so can’t give you some general idea of my thesis, then I don’t know what to tell you. But once more, the whole issue is that the fetus requires the immediate and direct use of someone’s body. You can’t commandeer someone’s body, and so if the woman doesn’t want to support the child, that’s just tough if you disagree.

I am not opposed to some cut-off period for abortions. Respecting a right, and allowing a generous, but not unlimited (in respect of the fetus’s status as human) span of time in which that right may be realized is not unreasonable, I think.

132

Because they are necessarily subject to the decision of the mother. You cannot absolutely protect the rights of the fetus without absolutely denying those of the mother.

133

It DOES NOT MATTER. The right to your body is not contingent on some arcane set of rules and implicit contracts. It is a fundamental right.

You’re going to use logic to “bury me?” Well then how about finding a logical way to effectively confiscate a woman’s body?

134

Ryan Lets re-cap so far. Your argument is that It is the womans body, Including the fetus? Or is that irrelevant to you? Clarify this for me the fetus is/isn’t part of the mothers body.

I am arguing that the Fetus is a separate entity, and since it is a human, has it’s own set of rights, including the right to life. I can back my argument up with simple scientific data such as different DNA, Different Blood, ETC… it is easily scientifically provable that a fetus is in no way shape or form, a part of the mother. This can further be illustrated by the fact tha a man and woman can have a fertalized egg inserted into another woman and the fetus will ATTACH and grow inside the womans womb.

Your belief is that the womans womb is like an apartment, only you don’t need to give 30 days notice and instead of simply evicting the tanant(s) you can just chop them up and suck them out of the apartment. After all, they may have not paid their security deposit and may do some short term damage to the apartment. Since the little bastards never signed a lease agreement for the space, they are not entitled to it, and the logical solution is to kill them.

Ok, let me know if I got any of your points wrong. Then we can go from there.

V

135

[quote]orion wrote:You are getting dangerously close to arguing against welfare using libertarian arguments.

That you do that in the case of abortion is interesting.[/quote]

I have already PMed you my thoughts on welfare. Did you get them?

136

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
But it is still SUBJECT TO THE WISHES OF THE MOTHER. It’s HER body, not the fetus’s. It put that in bold because you seem to be having a hard time seeing it.

I am not having a hard time seeing it, I actually recently had lazer eye surgurey, so my vision is quite good, but thank you for your concern. What you are not getting out of my point is that, the fetus is not doing her any permanant harm, it is not threatening her life, and unless she was raped, she was directly involved with the creation of the baby concentually. Therefore, she does not have the right to kill another human being who is posing no immediate threat to her life. Regardless of the circumstances with regard to the use of her body. Like I said, if she finds a way to remove the fetus without killing it and it can still develop normally, thats just fine with me. No one wants to punish a woman with pregnancy, we just don’t think it is right to kill an innocent unless the innocent is posing a direct threat to the mothers life.

V

What I want to know is, why are you basing this on the notion of “permanent harm?” I have the right to drive a car. However, I may not simply take my neighbor’s new car out for a spin simply because I have the right to drive a car. To argue that, well, I did no permanent harm makes absolutely no difference. It’s their car, not mine. I can drive it with their consent, but not without.

About removing the fetus, IT is using HER body, so the burden of finding another dark, warm spot is frankly not the mother’s problem.[/quote]

Not so fast.

Even if someone trespassed on your property you cannot simply shoot them in the head if there are milder options.

In the case of late term abortions there most certainly are.

IS she not required to evict an embryo as gently as possible, especially if it might survive on its own?

137

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Ryan Lets re-cap so far. Your argument is that It is the womans body, Including the fetus? Or is that irrelevant to you? Clarify this for me the fetus is/isn’t part of the mothers body.

I am arguing that the Fetus is a separate entity, and since it is a human, has it’s own set of rights, including the right to life. I can back my argument up with simple scientific data such as different DNA, Different Blood, ETC… it is easily scientifically provable that a fetus is in no way shape or form, a part of the mother. This can further be illustrated by the fact tha a man and woman can have a fertalized egg inserted into another woman and the fetus will ATTACH and grow inside the womans womb.

Your belief is that the womans womb is like an apartment, only you don’t need to give 30 days notice and instead of simply evicting the tanant(s) you can just chop them up and suck them out of the apartment. After all, they may have not paid their security deposit and may do some short term damage to the apartment. Since the little bastards never signed a lease agreement for the space, they are not entitled to it, and the logical solution is to kill them.

Ok, let me know if I got any of your points wrong. Then we can go from there.

V[/quote]

I guess if you stuck a gun to my head, I’d argue that it is a part of the woman’s body, but like I’ve already said, this point is TOTALLY IMMATERIAL to the issue at hand. I can see why you want to dwell on it, as it’s the only way to get around the commandeering of the woman’s body, but it just is not relevant.

138

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:You are getting dangerously close to arguing against welfare using libertarian arguments.

That you do that in the case of abortion is interesting.

I have already PMed you my thoughts on welfare. Did you get them?

[/quote]

Yes, but I did not read them yet because this week I have to work like hell and your PMs require serious thinking sometimes.

Meaning I will look into it when I am not brain dead.

139

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
That didn’t stop you from dashing off a hasty reponse beforem, why should you try to understand now?
[/quote]

I did the exact opposite of dashing off a hasty response. I was simply making sure I understood whether or not you were willing to abort babies regardless of the gestation period before I made a further response.

I think V has refuted this very well already, so I won’t add anything.

Well that doesn’t make any sense. It is still the mother’s body, why would it be subject to time constraints? Your arguement does not depend on the development of the baby, only the mother’s desire to support it. It is much easier to carry a baby during the first trimester than it is the third. The risk and wear on the mother’s body is also much greater as the pregnancy continues. By your logic, shouldn’t she be given greater freedom to abort as the pregnancy continues? Wouldn’t it be more altruistic to let the baby live in the womb up until the point where the pregnancy just becomes so unbearable that the mother must abort?

140

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Vegita wrote:The fetus didn’t put itself in her womb, It was HER actions which caused the fetus to be in her womb, so that argument is gone, done. If she wants it gone, it is HER responsibility to find it another home. How the fuck is a fetus supposed to find another home for itself. You are obviously in way over your head now and you are clinging to some very slippery slopes. If you continue down this road, I am going to bury you in the hole you are digging, just a forewarning. You can still turn back to logic at this point.

It DOES NOT MATTER. The right to your body is not contingent on some arcane set of rules and implicit contracts. It is a fundamental right.

You’re going to use logic to “bury me?” Well then how about finding a logical way to effectively confiscate a woman’s body?

[/quote]

I don’t have to find a way to confiscate her body, it is her duty to not get it confiscated in the first place. You don’t have the right to kill another human FIRST. Secondly would be rights that are not life and death, you are putting her right to the pursiut of happiness above the fetus’ right to live. That is ass backwards. I do not have a right to be happy if it causes the death of another innocent person. Otherwise I would begin a campaign of plundering and claim it is making me happy so these people by not dying would be hindering MY rights. Also, your government doesn’t even believe you have a right to do with YOUR body as you see fit, so at the VERY VERY least the government is in a hypocrytical state right now and either one or the other needs to be changed.

V