Famous Abortionist Killed in Church

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]orion wrote: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?

[/quote]

I am not specifically arguing for late term abortions. If there is some alternative that preserves the woman’s rights, I am not opposed to mandating that they be tried. I’m not a fan of killing babies, but I also believe that no matter how much it may offend you, you cannot take away a woman’s right to choose. Limit it to a certain timeframe, fine. Attempt alternatives first, no problem. But at the end of the day, the woman’s wishes are to be respected.

142

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

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.

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

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.

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?

[/quote]

I couldn’t have said it better. He is beginning to double back on his own theories now, his implosion is almost upon us. I expect soon a few “does not compute” type posts and then a glorious explosion. Like a B sci-fi flick explosion.

V

143

[quote]orion wrote:
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?

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.

[/quote]

Understood. I was wondering why you hadn’t responded, as there is enough potentially inflammatory stuff in there. I thought, “maybe I’ve offended him so deeply this time that he no longer wants anything to do with me,” ha.

144

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote: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?

I am not specifically arguing for late term abortions. If there is some alternative that preserves the woman’s rights, I am not opposed to mandating that they be tried. I’m not a fan of killing babies, but I also believe that no matter how much it may offend you, you cannot take away a woman’s right to choose. Limit it to a certain timeframe, fine. Attempt alternatives first, no problem. But at the end of the day, the woman’s wishes are to be respected.

[/quote]

Per your own logic, there can be no time limits on a womans right to choose what to do with her own body. And if she has the right to kill the fetus in the first trimester, then she also has the right to kill it an hour before her delivery. You aren’t backing away from this one that easy.

V

145

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
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.

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.

[/quote]

Ever heard of child support, I’m not saying feels wrong, trust me I am the last person in the world that thinks things are warm and fuzzy,

I just think you need to understand that actions have consequences, and be accountable for your actions by being responsible for the outcome of those actions.

If I were to break into your house in the middle of the night I would fully expect you to shoot and or beat me to death to protect yourself, your property or your family. even though in this fuedal system we don’t really own our houses or land. But if you invite me into you house because I recently had surgery and will need you to help me for 9 months, then decide it is inconvenient for you, you do not have the right to kill me and throw me in the dumpster.

not a great analogy I know but this is one is really hard to be analogous with.

I believe that people should be punished for the safety of others and when your government won’t step in and do it’s job because of ignorrant and naive babies that cry murders should be protected someone need’d to bite the bullet and do it.

Now to you this case may not have provided that justification, but to those of us who believe everyone should get at least one chance to prove themselves. The doctor was a murder not being punished and by most techincal definitions a mass muderer, really if you want to play with words we could say leading a genocidal crusade. If you consider fetuses a subclass of people.

All depends on your perspective.

Here is something else to help clarify my position, I don’t believe in abortion, but do believe in say planb or the morning after pill stuff like that, if you think you may have made a mistake, nip it in the bud, don’t allow the problem to progress, not only that but in the cases of rape as well. And don’t give me the she is afraid bullshit, any female over 17 can walk into a pharmacy and get plan b and no one has to know you were raped, but then you don’t have to worry about becoming pregnant with some assholes baby who will grow in you for 9 months and remind you of it every day of your life.

Like I say be responsible and accountable for your actions. If I do something I am fully prepared to take accountability for my actions and deal with said outcomes.

146

Well, that’s about what I thought. After exhausting all possible means of circumlocution, you’re down to bare bones patriarchy.

147

[quote]tedro wrote: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?
[/quote]

Well, let’s think about it for a minute. Since I’ve already said, my whole argument is contingent upon the fact that the delivery of the fetus requires the use of the woman’s body. It’s just that easy. So taking this, we can conclude that once birth has taken place, and the baby is an independent person, that argument no longer applies. I certainly don’t support the right of the mother to eat her baby after delivery. So her choice is naturally limited in time anyway, to the duration of gestation.

Now, because I support abortion rights, does not mean I think abortion is attractive, or desirable in itself. In fact, I do support attempts to reduce the number of abortions which do not infringe upon the mother’s rights. It’s a small step then, to place a limit on the term during which the mother may seek an abortion, in the interest of compromise, if nothing else. I do not at all think it a contradiction to ask that the mother to consider the fetus’ rights, while not stripping her of her own.

The difference is, while I don’t like abortion, I do not consider it my right to deprive the mother of control of her body.

148

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Well, that’s about what I thought. After exhausting all possible means of circumlocution, you’re down to bare bones patriarchy.[/quote]

Here is a situation that may be similar. I throw a rager at my house. Fire outside, everyone is drunk. A few friends of friends are over who I have never given direct implicit consent to enter my home, but nor did I tell them upon arriving to my homestead that they were forbidden to enter my home. So as the party rages on people go in and out of the house to replenish thier alcohol supply and to use the restroom facilities. I am wasted and my judgement is impaired. I stumble into my bed at a late hour and pass out. Upon waking I see a person on my couch. I do not know the person, and when I try to wake them I am unseccesful. They are now imposing themselves on my own private personal property and are unresponsive in my request for them to vacate my premesis immediately.

Can I shoot them and throw them out into the street? Do I have a time limit? do I have to wait 30 minutes? 1 hour? 6 hours? I NEVER consented to this person sleeping on my couch and loitering in my home for the next morning. What if he wakes up and I ask him to leave and he says he will in a minute he is still drunk and doesn’t want to get pulled over. Can I shoot him then? Where in your mind does the infringement on someone get to the point where murder is a justafiable means of dealing with the situation. After all, Life is the most basic right ANYONE has.

V

149

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote: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?

I am not specifically arguing for late term abortions. If there is some alternative that preserves the woman’s rights, I am not opposed to mandating that they be tried. I’m not a fan of killing babies, but I also believe that no matter how much it may offend you, you cannot take away a woman’s right to choose. Limit it to a certain timeframe, fine. Attempt alternatives first, no problem. But at the end of the day, the woman’s wishes are to be respected.

Per your own logic, there can be no time limits on a womans right to choose what to do with her own body. And if she has the right to kill the fetus in the first trimester, then she also has the right to kill it an hour before her delivery. You aren’t backing away from this one that easy.

V[/quote]

What is wrong with you? I’ve explained every aspect of my position. If by “backing away,” you mean “disagreeing with you,” then I’m backing away, baby!

150

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote: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?

I am not specifically arguing for late term abortions. If there is some alternative that preserves the woman’s rights, I am not opposed to mandating that they be tried. I’m not a fan of killing babies, but I also believe that no matter how much it may offend you, you cannot take away a woman’s right to choose. Limit it to a certain timeframe, fine. Attempt alternatives first, no problem. But at the end of the day, the woman’s wishes are to be respected.

Per your own logic, there can be no time limits on a womans right to choose what to do with her own body. And if she has the right to kill the fetus in the first trimester, then she also has the right to kill it an hour before her delivery. You aren’t backing away from this one that easy.

V[/quote]

THat is not entirely true.

HE thinks she has the right to no longer support the child if she does not want to and that you have no right to make her.

That might mean a dead embryo in the first trimester but not in the last.

Late term abortions are very hard, if not impossible, to defend.

151

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
tedro wrote: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?

Well, let’s think about it for a minute. Since I’ve already said, my whole argument is contingent upon the fact that the delivery of the fetus requires the use of the woman’s body. It’s just that easy. So taking this, we can conclude that once birth has taken place, and the baby is an independent person, that argument no longer applies. I certainly don’t support the right of the mother to eat her baby after delivery. So her choice is naturally limited in time anyway, to the duration of gestation.

Now, because I support abortion rights, does not mean I think abortion is attractive, or desirable in itself. In fact, I do support attempts to reduce the number of abortions which do not infringe upon the mother’s rights. It’s a small step then, to place a limit on the term during which the mother may seek an abortion, in the interest of compromise, if nothing else. I do not at all think it a contradiction to ask that the mother to consider the fetus’ rights, while not stripping her of her own.

The difference is, while I don’t like abortion, I do not consider it my right to deprive the mother of control of her body.

[/quote]

You have yet to explain why her rights trump the rights of the fetus. ESPECIALLY, since her rights are going to be infringed upon for 9 months, and the fetuses rights are going to be infringed upon for lets say an average of 80 years give or take. Even more than that, how many times will the fetus actually end up having it’s right infringed upon by the mother as her age and mental capacity declines. Does the fetus who grows into an adult now have the right to kill off the mother because she is dependant on them now and can no longer fend for herself? Isn’t this repayment enough for the inconvenience of carrying a baby for 9 months?

V

152

[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]

A person, specifically a woman, has the right to control her own body. She can eat, sleep, and fuck just to name a few whom ever or when ever sheâ??s wants. She cannot; however, force another person to do what she wants because it is against their rights.

So the dilemma is when a women choice, in most cases, decides to have sex and gets knocked up her decision to terminate now affects another beings right to life. The constitution clearly states life is a right.

My question is why do we as Americans think it is okay for a woman, who has had every chance to make decision and take precautions to avoid pregnancy, to now take away the rights of her child?

This isn’t a black and white issue at all, but I really just don’t understand how anyone justifies killing a baby that otherwise would be born a healthy person.

To the thread the man’s moral compass was off and he made a living off America’s lack of morality. He should not have been killed in cold blood rather his actions should have been illegal in the first place. He belonged in prison or executed by the state not by a vigilante.

153

[quote]orion wrote:
Late term abortions are very hard, if not impossible, to defend.
[/quote]

And the flipside of this is that it is very hard, if not impossible, to form a logical arguement for the moral permissibility for abortion without also accepting that by virtue of said arguement, late-term abortions must also be morally permissible.

154

[quote]tedro wrote:
orion wrote:
Late term abortions are very hard, if not impossible, to defend.

And the flipside of this is that it is very hard, if not impossible, to form a logical arguement for the moral permissibility for abortion without also accepting that by virtue of said arguement, late-term abortions must also be morally permissible.[/quote]

Agreed, A life is a life, the right to which does not change at a certain point in the gestation process. The survivability of said life on it’s own is also not a valid argument because if the baby is born and then neglected to death by the mother, she will be charged with a crime, and most likley it will be murder, if not manslaughter. Once the baby is out of the womb, it has no more ability to fend for itself than the fetus does at 8 weeks.

V

155

[quote]Vegita wrote:
tedro wrote:
orion wrote:
Late term abortions are very hard, if not impossible, to defend.

And the flipside of this is that it is very hard, if not impossible, to form a logical arguement for the moral permissibility for abortion without also accepting that by virtue of said arguement, late-term abortions must also be morally permissible.

Agreed, A life is a life, the right to which does not change at a certain point in the gestation process. The survivability of said life on it’s own is also not a valid argument because if the baby is born and then neglected to death by the mother, she will be charged with a crime, and most likley it will be murder, if not manslaughter. Once the baby is out of the womb, it has no more ability to fend for itself than the fetus does at 8 weeks.

V[/quote]

No, you´re both wrong.

Seriously.

158

[quote]orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:
tedro wrote:
orion wrote:
Late term abortions are very hard, if not impossible, to defend.

And the flipside of this is that it is very hard, if not impossible, to form a logical arguement for the moral permissibility for abortion without also accepting that by virtue of said arguement, late-term abortions must also be morally permissible.

Agreed, A life is a life, the right to which does not change at a certain point in the gestation process. The survivability of said life on it’s own is also not a valid argument because if the baby is born and then neglected to death by the mother, she will be charged with a crime, and most likley it will be murder, if not manslaughter. Once the baby is out of the womb, it has no more ability to fend for itself than the fetus does at 8 weeks.

V

No, you�´re both wrong.

Seriously.
[/quote]

Demonstrate.

159

Wrong, stop right there. I have explained it, multiple times. What you meant was, “you have yet to explain it in a way that I will agree to,” which is not the same thing, and hardly possible, since you start with a conclusion, and reason backwards in order to support that conclusion.

160

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
…you cannot take away a woman’s right to choose. Limit it to a certain timeframe, fine.

You just contradicted yourself. ^^
[/quote]

No I didn’t. You’d know that if you’d read entire posts, which you still refuse to do.