I’m going to answer you, although I don’t really know why, because you obviously don’t seek to actually understand, just to impose your will on others, since the answer to this question has already been posted multiple times.
It is because that fetus has no rights that can be realized without depriving the mother of hers.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
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. ^^
No I didn’t. You’d know that if you’d read entire posts, which you still refuse to do.
[/quote]
Well I read every fucking word and I was kind of hoping you might explain the difference.
Is it aesthetic, legal or moral?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
…
You just contradicted yourself. ^^
No I didn’t. …[/quote]
“I have come for a good argument.”
“I could be arguing in my spare time.”
[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]
If I’m understanding you, I completely agree. If abortion is allowed and legal, it pretty much has to be allowed throughout pregnancy. I’m pro-choice and I just can’t create a problem with late-term abortions if abortion is already legal.
This is my problem with pro-choicers who are supposedly against late-term abortions. It’s almost impossible to draw a line where abortion is no longer acceptable during pregnancy. If people are going to try to create these arbitrary lines, I’d rather side with the anti-abortionists. At least they’re consistent in their beliefs.
Along those same lines, I don’t see how a “pro-lifers” can accept Tiller’s murder any more than the murder of any other doctor that practices abortion, regardless of the fetus’s development.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
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. ^^
No I didn’t. You’d know that if you’d read entire posts, which you still refuse to do.
Real simple. If you limit abortion to a certain timeframe then you have taken away a woman’s right to choose when she is not in that timeframe.[/quote]
Where are those distinctions you were bragging about? You seem incapable of following the most basic argument. Do I need to pull out Windows Paint and draw a picture, or what?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
John S. wrote:Why is it if you kill a pregnant woman you get 2 charges of murder but that same women can go to the hospital and all of a sudden it’s just a “fetus”. You should work on your liberal hypocritical views before you even begin to debate this.
…sigh, because it’s the woman, and only the woman, that gets to decide, within already established legal bounderies, what happens to the fetus; not you, not the father, not some asshole who wants to kill pregnant women, but the pregnant woman, and her alone…
[/quote]
So you just admitted it was a human being. And no one has the right to take away an innocent life.
Lets face it abortion is just a form of eugenics and to you as long as an activity spits in the face of the church you don’t give a fuck what it is you will just approve. You can prove nothing on your side of your argument and should sit this debate out.
When you can prove that the womens right supersedes the life of her child then you can come back till then kindly shut the hell up.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
John S. wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The baby is making a huge imposition on the mother. It is up to the mother to decide whether she wants to comply. If she doesn’t, she calls up the doctor, and schedules an apppointment and has an abortion performed. The doctor doesn’t do it until he (or she) is requested to do so, by the right of the mother.
Why are you leaving out vital pieces of information?
Why are you leaving out that the baby is a human being given the right to life here in the USA.
Why is it if you kill a pregnant woman you get 2 charges of murder but that same women can go to the hospital and all of a sudden it’s just a “fetus”. You should work on your liberal hypocritical views before you even begin to debate this.
You cannot control another person’s body against their will. Get over it.[/quote]
Know one has the right to kill another innocent person in the country get over that.
[quote]John S. wrote:
ephrem wrote:
John S. wrote:Why is it if you kill a pregnant woman you get 2 charges of murder but that same women can go to the hospital and all of a sudden it’s just a “fetus”. You should work on your liberal hypocritical views before you even begin to debate this.
…sigh, because it’s the woman, and only the woman, that gets to decide, within already established legal bounderies, what happens to the fetus; not you, not the father, not some asshole who wants to kill pregnant women, but the pregnant woman, and her alone…
So you just admitted it was a human being. And no one has the right to take away an innocent life.
Lets face it abortion is just a form of eugenics and to you as long as an activity spits in the face of the church you don’t give a fuck what it is you will just approve. You can prove nothing on your side of your argument and should sit this debate out.
When you can prove that the womens right supersedes the life of her child then you can come back till then kindly shut the hell up.[/quote]
…ofcourse i can prove it! Abortion is legal, within certain constraints, in your country. So it has already been established that the woman’s rights supercedes the rights of a fetus. It does so because it’s impossible to endow rights to something that isn’t a person [yet]…
…i think it’s safe to assume we all like to see as few abortions as possible, but you won’t reach that goal just by outlawing it. In another thread some men lament the fact that women have the right to vote. In this thread men like to see women put under legal supervision in regards to procreation, and in yet another thread a couple of men defend young earth creationism against evolution. This all paints an ugly picture, John. It looks awfully like a patriarchal totalitarian theocracy to me…
So…a bunch of men arguing over what women (who represent a majority) can and can’t do?
How very medieval of you!
[quote]lixy wrote:
So…a bunch of men arguing over what women (who represent a majority) can and can’t do?
How very medieval of you![/quote]
Someone with some sense needs to do it.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
usmccds423 wrote: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?
I’m going to answer you, although I don’t really know why, because you obviously don’t seek to actually understand, just to impose your will on others, since the answer to this question has already been posted multiple times.
It is because that fetus has no rights that can be realized without depriving the mother of hers.
[/quote]
And why does a motherâ??s right to control her body trump that of her child’s right to life? Should a mother be forced to give birth if it will kill her? I say no, but should a mother have to live with the consequences of her actions I say yes she should. Its called responsibility.
It seems strange to me that we as a nation believe it is okay to take a not yet born baby’s right to life away, but not okay to take any of the mothers rights away. I mean in most cases women consents to sex and sometimes a life is created. Shouldnâ??t the mother and father be forced to face the consequences to their actions. Normally I would be against taking a persons rights away, but in most abortion cases I believe the baby’s right to life trumps a mothers right to control her body. Notice I said in most cases it is not that simple.
Oh and thanks for being so level headed and not explaining to me why I posted on this topic I appreciate it.
…official statistics on abortion in the USA: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…official statistics on abortion in the USA: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html [/quote]
This stat was funny.
The risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy, from one death for every one million abortions at or before eight weeks to one per 29,000 at 16â??20 weeksâ??and one per 11,000 at 21 or more weeks.
Isn’t the risk of death 100%? I mean it is the goal right? Oh thats right the deaths of the fetus don’t count because they aren’t a human yet. LOL
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Vegita wrote:You have yet to explain…
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.
[/quote]
No what I meant to say was you have yet to explain it without backpedaling, changing your mind, or contradicting yourself.
V
[quote]malonetd 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.
If I’m understanding you, I completely agree. If abortion is allowed and legal, it pretty much has to be allowed throughout pregnancy. I’m pro-choice and I just can’t create a problem with late-term abortions if abortion is already legal.
This is my problem with pro-choicers who are supposedly against late-term abortions. It’s almost impossible to draw a line where abortion is no longer acceptable during pregnancy. If people are going to try to create these arbitrary lines, I’d rather side with the anti-abortionists. At least they’re consistent in their beliefs.
Along those same lines, I don’t see how a “pro-lifers” can accept Tiller’s murder any more than the murder of any other doctor that practices abortion, regardless of the fetus’s development.[/quote]
This was a good post and I especially “get the message” that if a pro lifer thinks an abortion is an abortion, that this guy should be no more evil than a doctor who performs only first trimester abortions. I guess the visual of the whole process makes me think the guy is a creep.
V
[quote]ephrem wrote:
John S. wrote:
ephrem wrote:
John S. wrote:Why is it if you kill a pregnant woman you get 2 charges of murder but that same women can go to the hospital and all of a sudden it’s just a “fetus”. You should work on your liberal hypocritical views before you even begin to debate this.
…sigh, because it’s the woman, and only the woman, that gets to decide, within already established legal bounderies, what happens to the fetus; not you, not the father, not some asshole who wants to kill pregnant women, but the pregnant woman, and her alone…
So you just admitted it was a human being. And no one has the right to take away an innocent life.
Lets face it abortion is just a form of eugenics and to you as long as an activity spits in the face of the church you don’t give a fuck what it is you will just approve. You can prove nothing on your side of your argument and should sit this debate out.
When you can prove that the womens right supersedes the life of her child then you can come back till then kindly shut the hell up.
…ofcourse i can prove it! Abortion is legal, within certain constraints, in your country. So it has already been established that the woman’s rights supercedes the rights of a fetus. It does so because it’s impossible to endow rights to something that isn’t a person [yet]…
…i think it’s safe to assume we all like to see as few abortions as possible, but you won’t reach that goal just by outlawing it. In another thread some men lament the fact that women have the right to vote. In this thread men like to see women put under legal supervision in regards to procreation, and in yet another thread a couple of men defend young earth creationism against evolution. This all paints an ugly picture, John. It looks awfully like a patriarchal totalitarian theocracy to me…
[/quote]
The womens rights do not supersede the rights of the child, The law is wrong in this aspect and that is why we are fighting it. The law itself in any other instance will claim the “fetus” as a life all I am asking is for consistancy. I have no doubt that within the next 20 years this will be made illigal and we will look back at this point of time in shame of the millions of baby’s that where killed.
Again I ask prove that the womens rights supersedes that of a child.
Under what you just said then I also will assume that you believe that the germans had every right to exterminate the jews, because it was in there laws? Or that every member of Al-qaeda has the right to take the lives of all non-muslims and muslims that believe different from them because its in there laws?
Rework your argument and get back to me.
[quote]John S. wrote:
ephrem wrote:
John S. wrote:
ephrem wrote:
John S. wrote:Why is it if you kill a pregnant woman you get 2 charges of murder but that same women can go to the hospital and all of a sudden it’s just a “fetus”. You should work on your liberal hypocritical views before you even begin to debate this.
…sigh, because it’s the woman, and only the woman, that gets to decide, within already established legal bounderies, what happens to the fetus; not you, not the father, not some asshole who wants to kill pregnant women, but the pregnant woman, and her alone…
So you just admitted it was a human being. And no one has the right to take away an innocent life.
Lets face it abortion is just a form of eugenics and to you as long as an activity spits in the face of the church you don’t give a fuck what it is you will just approve. You can prove nothing on your side of your argument and should sit this debate out.
When you can prove that the womens right supersedes the life of her child then you can come back till then kindly shut the hell up.
…ofcourse i can prove it! Abortion is legal, within certain constraints, in your country. So it has already been established that the woman’s rights supercedes the rights of a fetus. It does so because it’s impossible to endow rights to something that isn’t a person [yet]…
…i think it’s safe to assume we all like to see as few abortions as possible, but you won’t reach that goal just by outlawing it. In another thread some men lament the fact that women have the right to vote. In this thread men like to see women put under legal supervision in regards to procreation, and in yet another thread a couple of men defend young earth creationism against evolution. This all paints an ugly picture, John. It looks awfully like a patriarchal totalitarian theocracy to me…
The womens rights do not supersede the rights of the child, The law is wrong in this aspect and that is why we are fighting it. The law itself in any other instance will claim the “fetus” as a life all I am asking is for consistancy. I have no doubt that within the next 20 years this will be made illigal and we will look back at this point of time in shame of the millions of baby’s that where killed.
Again I ask prove that the womens rights supersedes that of a child.
[/quote]
Prove that they don´t.
Prove that their is a child.
Just because you reframe every post according to your belief system does not make you right, it just demonstrates that you cannot look beyond it.