This is What's Wrong With Abortion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote: The only question that matters is whether or not the life your are killing is a human one. The emotive fallacies lend no strength to the argument that you are not killing a person.

…the emotion card is played by pro-lifers, not the other way 'round. But the question has been answered already; by the High Court in 1973…

Uh, other than the half dozen times you’ve done it in this thread?

…that’s news to me DoubleDuce (-:

Here are a couple of the times in this thread you have attempted to further your point by playing to emotion:

"Just think: if Roe vs Wade gets overturned, you can never say “Land of the Free!” anymore…

It would be sad to have them sail the atlantic ocean to help your women out, wouldn’t it?

…a dear friend of mine was in a bad relationship in her early 20s. She had an abortion because the thought of having a child with that man, and being tied to him for the rest of her life was too much to bear. It was her choice to make, and no-one else’s…

.your life might be neatly divided into black/white and good/bad, and if that works for you than that’s great for you. But life just doesn’t work that way for most people. You, undoubtedly, believe your principles are commendable, but to me your way of thinking is rigid and devoid of compassion. Oh, but who’s having compassion for those poor aborted babies, you say? We all have, sir. It’s just that if i have to choose between the life and rights of a living, breathing person with an established life and a first trimester fetus, the choice is easy…"

That doesn’t include the terms like fetus, pro-choice, est. that are used to gloss over the natural emotion when dealing with the subject to make it more sterile. You have taken this to the point of calling a 21 week old a “clump of cells”. I think you should reconsider the emotional side of your own argument.[/quote]

…i guess we have a different view on what constitutes ‘emotional’, Duce (-:

162

…can you post a link to the exact wording of the ruling?

163

[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote: The only question that matters is whether or not the life your are killing is a human one. The emotive fallacies lend no strength to the argument that you are not killing a person.

…the emotion card is played by pro-lifers, not the other way 'round. But the question has been answered already; by the High Court in 1973…

Uh, other than the half dozen times you’ve done it in this thread?

…that’s news to me DoubleDuce (-:

[/quote]

Slavery was once written into the constitution, was that a satisfactory answer or is slavery wrong despite what courts and constitutions may say about it?

164

…this is interesting: Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

“Some prominent legal scholars who strongly support Roe v. Wade, such as Prof. Walter Dellinger of Duke University Law School, Richard Parker of Harvard, and Sherry F. Colb of Rutgers Law School, have written that fetal homicide laws do not conflict with Roe v. Wade”

165

[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote: The only question that matters is whether or not the life your are killing is a human one. The emotive fallacies lend no strength to the argument that you are not killing a person.

…the emotion card is played by pro-lifers, not the other way 'round. But the question has been answered already; by the High Court in 1973…

Uh, other than the half dozen times you’ve done it in this thread?

…that’s news to me DoubleDuce (-:

Here are a couple of the times in this thread you have attempted to further your point by playing to emotion:

"Just think: if Roe vs Wade gets overturned, you can never say “Land of the Free!” anymore…

It would be sad to have them sail the atlantic ocean to help your women out, wouldn’t it?

…a dear friend of mine was in a bad relationship in her early 20s. She had an abortion because the thought of having a child with that man, and being tied to him for the rest of her life was too much to bear. It was her choice to make, and no-one else’s…

.your life might be neatly divided into black/white and good/bad, and if that works for you than that’s great for you. But life just doesn’t work that way for most people. You, undoubtedly, believe your principles are commendable, but to me your way of thinking is rigid and devoid of compassion. Oh, but who’s having compassion for those poor aborted babies, you say? We all have, sir. It’s just that if i have to choose between the life and rights of a living, breathing person with an established life and a first trimester fetus, the choice is easy…"

That doesn’t include the terms like fetus, pro-choice, est. that are used to gloss over the natural emotion when dealing with the subject to make it more sterile. You have taken this to the point of calling a 21 week old a “clump of cells”. I think you should reconsider the emotional side of your own argument.

…i guess we have a different view on what constitutes ‘emotional’, Duce (-:

[/quote]

I absolutely think we do, but you were being emotional.

But in this case we must not both be using the same definitions. Words/phrases like: sad, devoid of compassion, to much to bear, est. have emotional connotations in America. I guess the US is probably wrong again. Thanks for learning me new English.

166

[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:That doesn’t make the laws less contradictory. Nor does it stand a lipid test. People are going to jail for the murder of unborn children. If what you are saying is 100% accurate, that wouldn’t be possible.

…can you post a link to the exact wording of the ruling?
[/quote]

“On November 12 the reconstituted jury convicted Scott Peterson of first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci and second-degree murder for killing his unborn son.”

167

…apples and oranges Pat, slaves are/were living, breathing people…

168

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…this is interesting: Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

“Some prominent legal scholars who strongly support Roe v. Wade, such as Prof. Walter Dellinger of Duke University Law School, Richard Parker of Harvard, and Sherry F. Colb of Rutgers Law School, have written that fetal homicide laws do not conflict with Roe v. Wade”
[/quote]

First wiki is a completely worthless source on anything remotely political, it argues sides rather than reports them.

Also in the article: Senator John Kerry, his main opponent in the 2004 Presidential election, voted against the bill, saying, “I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy.”

169

[quote]ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:Slavery was once written into the constitution, was that a satisfactory answer or is slavery wrong despite what courts and constitutions may say about it?

…apples and oranges Pat, slaves are/were living, breathing people…

[/quote]

Alright! No penalty for stabbing someone on a respirator. Go for it!

170

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote: The only question that matters is whether or not the life your are killing is a human one. The emotive fallacies lend no strength to the argument that you are not killing a person.

…the emotion card is played by pro-lifers, not the other way 'round. But the question has been answered already; by the High Court in 1973…

Uh, other than the half dozen times you’ve done it in this thread?[/quote]

Couple of factoids you should no about that case. Norma McCorvey aka “Jane Roe” never had an abortion nor was ever planning to even at the time of the case. She was approached by a couple of lawyers who wanted to use her and pay her for her service to bring this case before the court. Now she is not only extremely anti-abortion, but has been trying, but failing to get the case reopened claiming the decision was made under false pretenses of her circumstance at the time.

This came from her own mouth to my face. She was doing a series of talks about abortion and I met her and even smoked a cigarette with her while we chatted about those things.

171

[quote]ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:Slavery was once written into the constitution, was that a satisfactory answer or is slavery wrong despite what courts and constitutions may say about it?

…apples and oranges Pat, slaves are/were living, breathing people…

[/quote]

So are unborn babies, one. Two, slavery was upheld by the constitution itself up until the 14th amendment. Where are abortion is not. So yes they were different but both are wrong and both upheld by the government. Except one goes so far as to uphold murder itself.

172

[quote]pat wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:That doesn’t make the laws less contradictory. Nor does it stand a lipid test. People are going to jail for the murder of unborn children. If what you are saying is 100% accurate, that wouldn’t be possible.

…can you post a link to the exact wording of the ruling?

“On November 12 the reconstituted jury convicted Scott Peterson of first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci and second-degree murder for killing his unborn son.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson[/quote]

…yes, i found that one too. That page includes the link i posted a few posts above. I’m sure that Laci did not want to be killed, but experts seem to think that the laws don’t conflict…

173

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…this is interesting: Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

“Some prominent legal scholars who strongly support Roe v. Wade, such as Prof. Walter Dellinger of Duke University Law School, Richard Parker of Harvard, and Sherry F. Colb of Rutgers Law School, have written that fetal homicide laws do not conflict with Roe v. Wade”

First wiki is a completely worthless source on anything remotely political, it argues sides rather than reports them.

Also in the article: Senator John Kerry, his main opponent in the 2004 Presidential election, voted against the bill, saying, “I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy.”[/quote]

…and yet Pat doesn’t seem to mind Wikipedia? That this law could be a backdoor to prohibiting abortion is a viable concern, that is true…

174

[quote]pat wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:Slavery was once written into the constitution, was that a satisfactory answer or is slavery wrong despite what courts and constitutions may say about it?

…apples and oranges Pat, slaves are/were living, breathing people…

So are unborn babies, one. Two, slavery was upheld by the constitution itself up until the 14th amendment. Where are abortion is not. So yes they were different but both are wrong and both upheld by the government. Except one goes so far as to uphold murder itself.[/quote]

…a fetus does not breath air Pat, you know that…

175

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:Slavery was once written into the constitution, was that a satisfactory answer or is slavery wrong despite what courts and constitutions may say about it?

…apples and oranges Pat, slaves are/were living, breathing people…

Alright! No penalty for stabbing someone on a respirator. Go for it![/quote]

…i think a body that has no chance of regaining consciousness should’nt be put on a respirator indefinitly…

176

[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:Slavery was once written into the constitution, was that a satisfactory answer or is slavery wrong despite what courts and constitutions may say about it?

…apples and oranges Pat, slaves are/were living, breathing people…

Alright! No penalty for stabbing someone on a respirator. Go for it!

…i think a body that has no chance of regaining consciousness should’nt be put on a respirator indefinitly…

[/quote]

You still always put them on one initially. Stabbing someone in a coma is murder.

177

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:Slavery was once written into the constitution, was that a satisfactory answer or is slavery wrong despite what courts and constitutions may say about it?

…apples and oranges Pat, slaves are/were living, breathing people…

Alright! No penalty for stabbing someone on a respirator. Go for it!

…i think a body that has no chance of regaining consciousness should’nt be put on a respirator indefinitly…

You still always put them on one initially. Stabbing someone in a coma is murder.[/quote]

…sure, the decision to end that person’s was made by someone else. A woman ending a pregnancy makes that decision about herself, not someone else. Why? Because a fetus is not yet someone else. I know we will never agree on this, so this debate could end here, if you want…

178

[quote]ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:Slavery was once written into the constitution, was that a satisfactory answer or is slavery wrong despite what courts and constitutions may say about it?

…apples and oranges Pat, slaves are/were living, breathing people…

So are unborn babies, one. Two, slavery was upheld by the constitution itself up until the 14th amendment. Where are abortion is not. So yes they were different but both are wrong and both upheld by the government. Except one goes so far as to uphold murder itself.

…a fetus does not breath air Pat, you know that…
[/quote]

What do you thing the unbilical cord is pumping in to the baby, gasoline? The baby in this story, did in fact breath before the clinic worker wrapped the kid in a paper bag to choke it’s air supply…So a 21 week baby can breath on it’s own, at least for a while…Is that not a human being doing that?

179

[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…this is interesting: Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

“Some prominent legal scholars who strongly support Roe v. Wade, such as Prof. Walter Dellinger of Duke University Law School, Richard Parker of Harvard, and Sherry F. Colb of Rutgers Law School, have written that fetal homicide laws do not conflict with Roe v. Wade”

First wiki is a completely worthless source on anything remotely political, it argues sides rather than reports them.

Also in the article: Senator John Kerry, his main opponent in the 2004 Presidential election, voted against the bill, saying, “I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy.”

…and yet Pat doesn’t seem to mind Wikipedia? That this law could be a backdoor to prohibiting abortion is a viable concern, that is true…
[/quote]

Yes it can…Apparently this guy is running his case up the court system, but I don’t know which part he is contesting. In any event, check any source you like, wiki is convenient, but if you dispute the facts they are well documented in many places…Cross referencing will not be hard.

180

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
That doesn’t make the laws less contradictory. Nor does it stand a lipid test. People are going to jail for the murder of unborn children. If what you are saying is 100% accurate, that wouldn’t be possible.[/quote]

It’s very true. Very few Supreme Court rulings come through with acceptable readings for cholesterol, HDL-C, LDL-C, triglycerides, direct LDL-C, and VLDL-C.

That does not make them any less valid.

I think, however, that perhaps you mean “litmus test.”