PDA

View Full Version : Miscarriage is not a crime!



KABOOKIE
11/8/2011, 06:53 PM
I love this argument and all it's flawed logic from the pro-choice crowed.

I supposed by their logic since a death by heart attack is not a crime I should be able to murder at will?

This isn't a political post either.

Serge Ibaka
11/8/2011, 07:05 PM
I'm pro-abortion: everybody should get one.

SicEmBaylor
11/8/2011, 07:18 PM
I'm pro-abortion: everybody should get one.
Some ^^^^ more than others...

Serge Ibaka
11/8/2011, 07:30 PM
Some ^^^^ more than others...

I should get an abortion? I don't have a uterus, silly!

AlboSooner
11/8/2011, 07:53 PM
The destruction of human life is so funny, hahahahahahahahahah, :eagerness:

Midtowner
11/8/2011, 08:10 PM
I love this argument and all it's flawed logic from the pro-choice crowed.

I supposed by their logic since a death by heart attack is not a crime I should be able to murder at will?

This isn't a political post either.

The argument fails as criminal law 101 requires there to be both an ill intent (called mens rea) and an actus reus, a willful contraction of the muscles. In the case of miscarriage, neither of those is present, thus, no crime.

Serge Ibaka
11/8/2011, 08:51 PM
Is abortion wrong? Probably--there's surely a debate to be had, at least.

Is it easy to judge abortion when you'll never be in a situation when an unwanted pregnancy will seriously (and negatively) affect your life? Absolutely. So shush.

/thread

BU BEAR
11/8/2011, 08:57 PM
Is abortion wrong? Probably--there's surely a debate to be had, at least.

Is it easy to judge abortion when you'll never be in a situation when an unwanted pregnancy will seriously (and negatively) affect your life? Absolutely. So shush.

/thread

There have been some times in my life that would have been easier if someone else had been killed. But, the law still recognized that there was a problem with me killing them.

Serge Ibaka
11/8/2011, 09:10 PM
There have been some times in my life that would have been easier if someone else had been killed. But, the law still recognized that there was a problem with me killing them.

Well apparently the law draws a distinction between parasitic fetuses and self-sustaining humans.

So, there you go...

Once more, it easy to judge abortion when you'll never be in a situation when an unwanted pregnancy will seriously (and negatively) affect your life. Check your (lack of) perspective at the door.

BU BEAR
11/8/2011, 09:34 PM
Once more, it easy to judge abortion when you'll never be in a situation when an unwanted pregnancy will seriously (and negatively) affect your life. Check your (lack of) perspective at the door.

Uhh huh! Says the man (Sergai Ibaka) with no uterus. I am sure you have had lots of unwanted pregnancies. Please share more, Captain Hypocrisy.

BU BEAR
11/8/2011, 09:36 PM
Well apparently the law draws a distinction between parasitic fetuses and self-sustaining humans.


Actually, all the law does is draw an arbitrary line at when an unborn child gets rights that are used to balance against the rights of its mother. If being "Parasitic," as you put it, were the measuring test of who is eligible to get killed, then capital punishment would be more widely employed.

SanJoaquinSooner
11/8/2011, 10:36 PM
Neither is abortion.

Serge Ibaka
11/8/2011, 11:05 PM
Actually, all the law does is draw an arbitrary line at when an unborn child gets rights that are used to balance against the rights of its mother. If being "Parasitic," as you put it, were the measuring test of who is eligible to get killed, then capital punishment would be more widely employed.

I don't understand? Capital punishment on who? Vampires?

They're parasites...I guess.

soonercruiser
11/8/2011, 11:21 PM
I'm pro-abortion: everybody should get one.

Too bad someone's mother didn't.
:uncomfortableness:

SicEmBaylor
11/8/2011, 11:25 PM
I find the concept of abortion to be morally repugnant; however, in the practical world, I'm not exactly up and arms about it. I'm pretty sold on Steve Levitt's theory that abortion leads to a smaller crime rate. So, I hate abortion but I hate having my **** stolen by a group of "homies" far more.

Serge Ibaka
11/8/2011, 11:53 PM
Too bad someone's mother didn't.
:uncomfortableness:

Hitler?

I agree.

BU BEAR
11/9/2011, 12:00 AM
I don't understand? Capital punishment on who? Vampires?

They're parasites...I guess.

There are tons of parasites in America. You could start with the OWS crowd.

You may be a parasite yourself. I have not reached a final decision on that question.

TitoMorelli
11/9/2011, 12:02 AM
Well apparently the law draws a distinction between parasitic fetuses and self-sustaining humans.

So, there you go...

So I guess Scott Peterson should never have been charged with more than one count of murder?

Serge Ibaka
11/9/2011, 12:07 AM
There are tons of parasites in America. You could start with the OWS crowd.

Well, the general sentiment is idiotic in itself: you don't think that anybody in OWS has a useful job or pays taxes? That's silly.

Beyond that, you obviously extended the term "parasite" beyond what was intended: an organism that literally cannot survive without the support of a host-body. This was a lame (red-herring) tactic.


Uhh huh! Says the man (Sergai Ibaka) with no uterus. I am sure you have had lots of unwanted pregnancies. Please share more, Captain Hypocrisy.

You'll find that women support legal abortion more than men. You'll also find that support for legal-abortion is higher among better-educated groups (but that's an irrelevant statistic here).


So I guess Scott Peterson should never have been charged with more than one count of murder?

I agree.

cleller
11/9/2011, 08:47 AM
Boy this subject never ceases to amaze me at how hot peoples emotions run. I'm conservative about just about everything, Christian, small government all the way. Yet I consider abortion to be strictly the decision of the woman affected, especially if she is unmarried.
Maybe I'm just apathetic, but I don't see why everyone has to stick their noses into someone's private affairs. I've seen the results of children born into situations where the mother had no business raising children, and those children became everyone's problem in the form of crime, and government support.
Girls these days just don't put the kids up for adoption, because our government will support them. This allowing them to raise more kids that will cause more trouble.

Now I have to decide whether to hit the "post" button or not.

C&CDean
11/9/2011, 08:52 AM
Well apparently the law draws a distinction between parasitic fetuses and self-sustaining humans.

So, there you go...

Once more, it easy to judge abortion when you'll never be in a situation when an unwanted pregnancy will seriously (and negatively) affect your life. Check your (lack of) perspective at the door.

Tell us oh wise one, how many abortions have you been part and/or parcel to? If the answer is zero, then you seriously need to STFU with your silly "perspective" horse****.

KantoSooner
11/9/2011, 09:21 AM
Today is a day to be very happy and reassured that some, at least, of our American core values are alive and understood by the public at large. (and in a state that is often characterized as 'backward' at that).
You don't have 'love' abortion to understand that this is a private decision and not one for the government (or lunatic churches usurping the power of the state) to decide.
Hat's off to the people of Mississippi for slapping down a law that would have been evil on almost too many levels to describe.

Mississippi Sooner
11/9/2011, 09:52 AM
Today is a day to be very happy and reassured that some, at least, of our American core values are alive and understood by the public at large. (and in a state that is often characterized as 'backward' at that).
You don't have 'love' abortion to understand that this is a private decision and not one for the government (or lunatic churches usurping the power of the state) to decide.
Hat's off to the people of Mississippi for slapping down a law that would have been evil on almost too many levels to describe.

There were some of us who were working our butts off to get people educated on just how dangerous this proposal was. Even at that, I think everyone was surprised at how lopsided the vote was. The amount of misinformation being pushed on the issue might have been funny had the subject not been so deadly serious.

In the end, I think enough people finally saw the issue for what it was. This wasn't going to end the "abortion problem" in Mississippi because no such problem really exists here. Heck, just check out our teen birthrate. This was just an attempt by a group from Colorado to push their national agenda at Mississippi's expense. That expense could have wound up being in the millions of dollars that we don't have to spend on some out of state group's pet cause.

KantoSooner
11/9/2011, 10:51 AM
Well, MS Sooner, your work is appreciated. If more good people stood up more often, the idiots would not get nearly as much influence.

virginiasooner
11/9/2011, 10:52 AM
There were some of us who were working our butts off to get people educated on just how dangerous this proposal was. Even at that, I think everyone was surprised at how lopsided the vote was. The amount of misinformation being pushed on the issue might have been funny had the subject not been so deadly serious.

In the end, I think enough people finally saw the issue for what it was. This wasn't going to end the "abortion problem" in Mississippi because no such problem really exists here. Heck, just check out our teen birthrate. This was just an attempt by a group from Colorado to push their national agenda at Mississippi's expense. That expense could have wound up being in the millions of dollars that we don't have to spend on some out of state group's pet cause.

Yes, it true that Mississippi has no abortion "problem." Glad to know that you're happy with your highest in the nation teen pregnancy rate. My guess is that Mississippi is doing NOTHING to stop that trend, because as we all know, teenagers learning about birth control causes them to have fewer children, and we can't have that!

KantoSooner
11/9/2011, 10:54 AM
I don't get the impression that MS Sooner would be terribly opposed to birth control being taught.

Mississippi Sooner
11/9/2011, 11:12 AM
I don't get the impression that MS Sooner would be terribly opposed to birth control being taught.

Not at all. In fact, the abstinence only approach here is a huge problem.

By saying that abortion isn't a problem that requires this poorly written proposal to fix, I'm just talking about the fact that there is only one doctor in the entire state that performs abortions on demand. He's an old man named Joe Booker, and his "clinic" looks like a dump. They don't exactly have women lined up at the door waiting to get in.

virginiasooner
11/9/2011, 11:26 AM
Not at all. In fact, the abstinence only approach here is a huge problem.

By saying that abortion isn't a problem that requires this poorly written proposal to fix, I'm just talking about the fact that there is only one doctor in the entire state that performs abortions on demand. He's an old man named Joe Booker, and his "clinic" looks like a dump. They don't exactly have women lined up at the door waiting to get in.

That's because Mississippi has burdensome "waiting periods" where a woman has to wait 24 hours after an initial consultation to get an abortion.

KABOOKIE
11/9/2011, 12:37 PM
Why stop there? If a child is a problem then kill it. Stay out of people's private affairs. Honor killings aren't your buisiness either.

KantoSooner
11/9/2011, 12:45 PM
Hey Kabookie,
If a cop shoots a robber who's waving a gun at a shop keeper, we allow that in our society.
If a soldier kills another soldier during war, we allow that in our society.
If a man is breaking into my house and I shoot him to protect my family, we allow that in our society.
If a doctor performs a risky surgery, with consent, and knows that the risk of killing the patient is high, and the patient dies, we allow that in our society.
If a man commits a heinous crime, the state can execute him, we allow that in our society.

There are many circumstances in which actions or inactions that result in the death of another are allowed under our laws and societal ethics. The special case of a mother having the right to terminate the 'life' (and I'll leave that question open as it doesn't matter for this point) of her fetus is another of those.

So, no, it's not the same as an honor killing at all.

soonercruiser
11/9/2011, 01:19 PM
Today is a day to be very happy and reassured that some, at least, of our American core values are alive and understood by the public at large. (and in a state that is often characterized as 'backward' at that).
You don't have 'love' abortion to understand that this is a private decision and not one for the government (or lunatic churches usurping the power of the state) to decide.
Hat's off to the people of Mississippi for slapping down a law that would have been evil on almost too many levels to describe.

"Core Values"???? Really???
How about this value...
You don't have to carry around a copy of the Constitution, 10 Commandments, or your state laws to know in your heart that murdering an innocent child is wrong! For any reason....let alone convenience.

It's not a "Choice"! It's a "Life"!

KantoSooner
11/9/2011, 02:08 PM
Wrong again. Apparently you didn't read the previous posting. Even if you label this a 'killing' (which is at least arguable), it can be, and has been ruled to be by the highest court in the land, permissible.
We do not now, nor have we, as a people, ever, made a blanket prohibition of killing. And that goes back as far in history as you might care to go.

On the other hand, the expansion of the individual's right to exercise the broadest control possible over their persons and lives is perhaps THE central value in the American Experiment. We decided, when we formed our nation, that neither the government nor the church was to be supreme. The individual would be. The folks in Mississippi quite apparently have not forgotten that.

JohnnyMack
11/9/2011, 03:08 PM
Why stop there? If a child is a problem then kill it. Stay out of people's private affairs. Honor killings aren't your buisiness either.

Why not go ahead and let the gays marry? I mean hell next they'll be marryin' sheep and dogs and such.

Trophy Husband
11/9/2011, 04:10 PM
I love this argument and all it's flawed logic from the pro-choice crowed.

I supposed by their logic since a death by heart attack is not a crime I should be able to murder at will?

This isn't a political post either.

Are you saying that an abortion, in which a doctor inserts a suction device into a woman, and literally pulls the baby into pieces, is the same as an naturally occurring miscarriage?
Therefor it's okay?

Well by that logic, if I push a 1 year old into a pool and it drowns, it should not be a crime because had that same child, on it's only wondered into the pool, it would have drowned as well.
If I understand what you're saying, anything that could occur on it's own, naturally, can not not be a crime if instead of it naturally occurring, the process is expedited via unnatural causes thanks to human intervention.

Death by heart attack is a natural occurrence, miscarriage is a natural occurrence; once there is human intervention, the act no longer becomes spontaneous and natural, therefor it can be considered a crime, depending upon what the act is.

By your logic we're all going to die someday, so murdering someone should not be a crime.

soonercruiser
11/9/2011, 04:14 PM
I find the concept of abortion to be morally repugnant; however, in the practical world, I'm not exactly up and arms about it. I'm pretty sold on Steve Levitt's theory that THE DEATH PENALTY leads to a smaller crime rate. So, I hate abortion but I hate having my **** stolen by a group of "homies" far more.

SicEm,
I fixed the post for ya!

Trophy Husband
11/9/2011, 04:16 PM
Wrong again. Apparently you didn't read the previous posting. Even if you label this a 'killing' (which is at least arguable), it can be, and has been ruled to be by the highest court in the land, permissible.
We do not now, nor have we, as a people, ever, made a blanket prohibition of killing. And that goes back as far in history as you might care to go.

On the other hand, the expansion of the individual's right to exercise the broadest control possible over their persons and lives is perhaps THE central value in the American Experiment. We decided, when we formed our nation, that neither the government nor the church was to be supreme. The individual would be. The folks in Mississippi quite apparently have not forgotten that.

You're argument is based off of this very flawed premise " THE central value in the American Experiment. We decided, when we formed our nation, that neither the government nor the church was to be supreme. The individual would be."


You forfeited the ultimate supreme authority to the government, when they were allowed to determine what is and is not human life via Roe vs Wade.

I find it very ironic, pro choicers and libs are more than willing to let uncle same rule on what should or should not be allowed regarding our personal choices, so long as they rule in their favor. IE gay rights, abortion etc.

It's kind of like when a minority screams racism when someone discriminates against them because of the color of their skin, yet has no issue with legislation being passed which benefits them because of the color of their skin.

Kind of like "don't notice the color of my skin if you're going to hold it against me, however if I can receive a benefit because of the color of my skin, by all means, notice it."

soonercruiser
11/9/2011, 04:16 PM
Wrong again. Apparently you didn't read the previous posting. Even if you label this a 'killing' (which is at least arguable), it can be, and has been ruled to be by the highest court in the land, permissible.
We do not now, nor have we, as a people, ever, made a blanket prohibition of killing. And that goes back as far in history as you might care to go.

On the other hand, the expansion of the individual's right to exercise the broadest control possible over their persons and lives is perhaps THE central value in the American Experiment. We decided, when we formed our nation, that neither the government nor the church was to be supreme. The individual would be. The folks in Mississippi quite apparently have not forgotten that.

That would be the ultimate argument for NOT being a liberal, progressive Democrat!

SoonerLaw09
11/9/2011, 04:35 PM
The only evil in this whole affair is that the person being killed is the only one involved who is not responsible for the alleged "problem". And any of you who want to continue to argue that an unborn child is not a live human being is either not a parent, or when you became one you didn't look at the ultrasound.

Is it alive or dead? Audible heartbeat, moving around, brain waves, consuming nutrition, sleeping, kicking, etc. Yes, it's alive. What is it? Genetically homo sapiens. Human DNA 100%. So, it's a live human. And the government saying that it's okay to murder it doesn't make it right. It might make it legal, but it doesn't make it right. Slavery was legal once. Killing Jews in Germany was legal once.

And for those of you who want to use the "parasite" argument (i.e., it's dependent on its mother for survival), just try leaving a newborn naked on the ground outside and see how long it lives. Your distinction is invalid. A child is dependent on its parents for a number of years, at least, so by your logic it would be okay to murder a 5 year old. The line you have drawn is logically incoherent.

And rape or incest does not matter either. You don't murder a child because of the criminal act of an adult.

Ton Loc
11/9/2011, 04:36 PM
I find the concept of abortion to be morally repugnant; however, in the practical world, I'm not exactly up and arms about it. I'm pretty sold on Steve Levitt's theory that abortion leads to a smaller crime rate. So, I hate abortion but I hate having my **** stolen by a group of "homies" far more.

+1

Abortion does have some positives.

I get that it is a womans body and all that but, I don't get why the man in the "relationship" gets pretty much zero say in the matter. Granted, in most cases he isn't around or doesn't care.

Trophy Husband
11/9/2011, 04:44 PM
+1

Abortion does have some positives.

I get that it is a womans body and all that but, I don't get why the man in the "relationship" gets pretty much zero say in the matter. Granted, in most cases he isn't around or doesn't care.

Watch out, I made the same argument once and was accused of being a woman hater. I find it so Ironic, the pro choice crowd has no problem killing an unborn, female (so long as it meets the governemnts criteria for doing so, again another flaw in their "the government has no place in a womans reproductive rights" argument, but I'll adress that later) yet they call pro life proponents, sexist and women haters. They say we want women to die in allies, yet their the ones defending a woman's right to kill her unborn daughter.

Trophy Husband
11/9/2011, 04:46 PM
The only evil in this whole affair is that the person being killed is the only one involved who is not responsible for the alleged "problem". And any of you who want to continue to argue that an unborn child is not a live human being is either not a parent, or when you became one you didn't look at the ultrasound.

Is it alive or dead? Audible heartbeat, moving around, brain waves, consuming nutrition, sleeping, kicking, etc. Yes, it's alive. What is it? Genetically homo sapiens. Human DNA 100%. So, it's a live human. And the government saying that it's okay to murder it doesn't make it right. It might make it legal, but it doesn't make it right. Slavery was legal once. Killing Jews in Germany was legal once.

And for those of you who want to use the "parasite" argument (i.e., it's dependent on its mother for survival), just try leaving a newborn naked on the ground outside and see how long it lives. Your distinction is invalid. A child is dependent on its parents for a number of years, at least, so by your logic it would be okay to murder a 5 year old. The line you have drawn is logically incoherent.

And rape or incest does not matter either. You don't murder a child because of the criminal act of an adult.

I've mad the same argument. If you found out tomorrow that your best friend was the product of rape, would that persons life somehow become less valuable? Or, does that logic only apply to babies?

SicEmBaylor
11/9/2011, 04:51 PM
Watch out, I made the same argument once and was accused of being a woman hater. I find it so Ironic, the pro choice crowd has no problem killing an unborn, female (so long as it meets the governemnts criteria for doing so, again another flaw in their "the government has no place in a womans reproductive rights" argument, but I'll adress that later) yet they call pro life proponents, sexist and women haters. They say we want women to die in allies, yet their the ones defending a woman's right to kill her unborn daughter.

...but sons are okay. We can get rid of those bastards!

Trophy Husband
11/9/2011, 04:55 PM
Hey Kabookie,
If a cop shoots a robber who's waving a gun at a shop keeper, we allow that in our society.
If a soldier kills another soldier during war, we allow that in our society.
If a man is breaking into my house and I shoot him to protect my family, we allow that in our society.
If a doctor performs a risky surgery, with consent, and knows that the risk of killing the patient is high, and the patient dies, we allow that in our society.
If a man commits a heinous crime, the state can execute him, we allow that in our society.

There are many circumstances in which actions or inactions that result in the death of another are allowed under our laws and societal ethics. The special case of a mother having the right to terminate the 'life' (and I'll leave that question open as it doesn't matter for this point) of her fetus is another of those.

So, no, it's not the same as an honor killing at all.

and in every example you gave the person that is at risk of dying knows there is an inherent risk associated with what they are doing. Explain to me how an unborn child understands the risk they face because they were conceived.

SoonerLaw09
11/9/2011, 05:12 PM
and in every example you gave the person that is at risk of dying knows there is an inherent risk associated with what they are doing. Explain to me how an unborn child understands the risk they face because they were conceived.

Precisely. Kanto makes the classical moves of the left when arguing: re-define your terms, and re-name that which you wish to single out as the problem. They arbitrarily re-define the term "life" to not include children of a certain level of development. They also re-name that child a "fetus" to make it seem less human. Same thing the Nazis did with the Jews, Stalin and PolPot did with their opposition. Define the name in a negative term and call that class of persons subhuman. Once you've done that, it starts to become morally acceptable to murder them, or experiment on them, or do any other evil. Margaret Sanger made the same type of argument, and so did Oliver Wendell Holmes. Interestingly, those arguments made by Americans were used by the Nazi lawyers at the Nuremberg trials as justification for the actions of their government.

KantoSooner
11/9/2011, 05:59 PM
[QUOTE=Trophy Husband;3394452]You're argument is based off of this very flawed premise " THE central value in the American Experiment. We decided, when we formed our nation, that neither the government nor the church was to be supreme. The individual would be."


You forfeited the ultimate supreme authority to the government, when they were allowed to determine what is and is not human life via Roe vs Wade.

I find it very ironic, pro choicers and libs are more than willing to let uncle same rule on what should or should not be allowed regarding our personal choices, so long as they rule in their favor. IE gay rights, abortion etc.
QUOTE]

I find it difficult to follow circular arguments. I ceded no such supreme authority to our central government (or our state governments. Looking at you Sic Em ;)) Neither through Roe v. Wade, nor through Marbury v. Madison nor through the Constitution. I would suggest a refresher course in the history our country. If you don't walk away with the conclusion that we're all about protection of the individual from the passions of the mob, then I am not sure we can have a real discussion. That whole deal about the Bill of Rights? The entire line of philosophical authority from the Magna Carta on? What did you think they were talking about? I admit the language is dated (though no less beautiful than that of the King James Bible) but it's really not that hard to understand.

Onwards with some other critiques:

1. I'm a liberal? Please send me whatever you're smoking. I am a true conservative, which means that I don't attempt to force my views on others. I try to live my life infringing on those of my fellows as little as possible.
You might want to consider what could possibly be more intrusive, coercive and ultimately state centrist (or read 'communist') than having the government telling you what to do with your uterus.

2. My point is that abortion can be considered killing....and still be permitted under the law. We permit loads of other types of killing with little controversy.
It is my personal opinion, drawn from real, though limited, experience with real women who have had real abortions (and some who made the opposite choice and bore their children) that it is NEVER a decision of 'convenience' but a wrenching decision that haunts a woman. I dont' think we need fear 'frivolous' abortion.

For those of you opposed to abortion, DON'T GET ONE. There, solved it for you. And leave the rest of us to be guided by our consciences, within the limits of the law.

Serge Ibaka
11/9/2011, 06:09 PM
Tell us oh wise one, how many abortions have you been part and/or parcel to? If the answer is zero, then you seriously need to STFU with your silly "perspective" horse****.

Well, seeing as how I'm not the one forcing my ethics upon another, my (lack-of) perspective is not damaging or meaningful.

And thank you for the compliment. You're wise too, maybe!

Caboose
11/9/2011, 08:42 PM
Well, seeing as how I'm not the one forcing my ethics upon another, my (lack-of) perspective is not damaging or meaningful.

And thank you for the compliment. You're wise too, maybe!

So a mother who is aborting a baby isn't forcing her ethics upon another? And are you not enabling her?

Serge Ibaka
11/9/2011, 08:54 PM
So a mother who is aborting a baby isn't forcing her ethics upon another? And are you not enabling her?

Exactly. A parasitic-fetus is a non-agent. It cannot exist without the nonstop-ravaging of its host-body (and that body's resources).

I am happy to enable women to do what they wish with their unwelcome parasites.

Caboose
11/9/2011, 08:56 PM
Exactly. A parasitic-fetus is a non-agent. It cannot exist without the nonstop-ravaging of its host-body (and that body's resources).

I am happy to enable women to do what they wish with their unwelcome parasites.

Are you not able answer without being a troll?
Do you even know why you hold the positions you hold? Have you ever actually thought about anything on your own? I have yet to see a thread on this board where your "take" wasn't just some regurgitated party line.

Serge Ibaka
11/9/2011, 08:58 PM
Are you not able answer without being a troll?
Do you even know why you hold the positions you hold? Have you ever actually thought about anything on your own? I have yet to see a thread on this board where your "take" wasn't just some regurgitated party line.

That's my real response. I'm sorry that I'm too real for you.

I suppose its easier to dismiss a post as "trolling" than actually consider or respond to its logic.


Do you even know why you hold the positions you hold? Have you ever actually thought about anything on your own? I have yet to see a thread on this board where your "take" wasn't just some regurgitated party line.

Do Democrats commonly regurgitate a "parasite" party line? I wasn't aware of that.

Yes. I'm very thoughtful about what I believe. Does my post betray some sort of mindless-regurgitation that is somehow different from all of the cliched "pro-life" critiques in this thread? Get real.

Caboose
11/9/2011, 11:23 PM
That's my real response.

No, it isn't. It is someone else's. You heard someone else say that so you are regurgitating it because it is easier than thinking for yourself. I have heard countless people use that shtick and every one of them thought they were just as clever and "hardcore in your face" as you do.


I'm sorry that I'm too real for you.

There is nothing real about it.


I suppose its easier to dismiss a post as "trolling" than actually consider or respond to its logic.

It is trolling because the so-called "logic" behind it has already been dismantled. You are clinging desperately to it because you don't have the mental capacity to think for yourself. You are simply not bright enough to formulate a coherent original thought to justify the positions that you hold. You just repeat you are told.


Do Democrats commonly regurgitate a "parasite" party line? I wasn't aware of that.

Yes. Every time I have ever witnessed this issue being discussed the Pro-choice zombie has trotted out that line of drivel. You aren't original, sheep.



Yes. I'm very thoughtful about what I believe. Does my post betray some sort of mindless-regurgitation that is somehow different from all of the cliched "pro-life" critiques in this thread? Get real.
See above, Troll.

Look, Dip****, the bottom line is you fell for "Hope and Change". You are THAT damn gullible. The very idea that you think for yourself is laughable. Honestly, an Obama zombie trying to convince anyone who will listen that he is very thoughtful about what he believes. Get out of here with that crap.

Serge Ibaka
11/9/2011, 11:36 PM
It is trolling because the so-called "logic" behind it has already been dismantled.

When and How? Explain. There hasn't been any sort of refutation or dismantling in this thread. Spell it out, and I'll concede. Just saying I win because you're an unoriginal troll!: that's a lame (wussy) tactic.


You heard someone else say that so you are regurgitating it because it is easier than thinking for yourself.

So, basically, anybody who has an idea that another person has had before: that constitutes sheepish regurgitation? Well, that would include any single post in the ObamaFest forum. Drop that nonsense, dummyhead.

SoonerLaw09
11/10/2011, 09:02 AM
Exactly. A parasitic-fetus is a non-agent. It cannot exist without the nonstop-ravaging of its host-body (and that body's resources).

I am happy to enable women to do what they wish with their unwelcome parasites.

Your argument has been logically dismantled, and yet you persist in repeating it with nothing new. This causes me to believe that you are not capable of civil discourse. Therefore, you are now on the ignore list.

C&CDean
11/10/2011, 09:03 AM
Parasitic non-agent huh? Takes one to know one Serge. You have drank the kool aid deep and hard.

When you kill your own unborn parasite, get back to me with your "parasitic" bull**** champ. I've said it before in the 10K abortion threads we've had around here, and I'll say it again. If you haven't been personally involved in an abortion (and I'm not talking you drove your friend over to the clinic to get the parasite scraped outta her gut) then you really have no business commenting on the subject.

SoonerLaw09
11/10/2011, 09:28 AM
You're argument is based off of this very flawed premise " THE central value in the American Experiment. We decided, when we formed our nation, that neither the government nor the church was to be supreme. The individual would be."


You forfeited the ultimate supreme authority to the government, when they were allowed to determine what is and is not human life via Roe vs Wade.

I find it very ironic, pro choicers and libs are more than willing to let uncle same rule on what should or should not be allowed regarding our personal choices, so long as they rule in their favor. IE gay rights, abortion etc.



I find it difficult to follow circular arguments. I ceded no such supreme authority to our central government (or our state governments. Looking at you Sic Em ;)) Neither through Roe v. Wade, nor through Marbury v. Madison nor through the Constitution. I would suggest a refresher course in the history our country. If you don't walk away with the conclusion that we're all about protection of the individual from the passions of the mob, then I am not sure we can have a real discussion. That whole deal about the Bill of Rights? The entire line of philosophical authority from the Magna Carta on? What did you think they were talking about? I admit the language is dated (though no less beautiful than that of the King James Bible) but it's really not that hard to understand.

The proper function of civil government is to restrain evil and condone good. The role of the government is therefore to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens. Anything else is tyranny. That, my friend, is the overriding principle of our Republic.


Onwards with some other critiques:

1. I'm a liberal? Please send me whatever you're smoking. I am a true conservative, which means that I don't attempt to force my views on others. I try to live my life infringing on those of my fellows as little as possible.
You might want to consider what could possibly be more intrusive, coercive and ultimately state centrist (or read 'communist') than having the government telling you what to do with your uterus.

For a "conservative", you sure throw out a lot of liberal arguments. Probably you're a libertarian. In any case, your argument is flawed. Every day, certain people's views are "forced on others". I'd like to drive 90 miles an hour, but the bad ol' government forces its views on me. I'd like to work 3 days a week, but my boss forces her views on me. You cannot live in a world where nobody forces their views on the other. Somebody always makes the rules. The question is, where do those rules come from? Does the individual make them up? Does the 51% majority make them up? Or are they derived from the law of nature and nature's God? With the first option, you have anarchy, i.e., whoever has the biggest stick makes the rules. With the second, you have morality by public opinion. Ask the Jews how well that worked out for them in Nazi Germany. Ask black people how well that worked out for them prior to the Civil War.

Our system of government is built on the third option (see Declaration of Independence). Without a moral compass that originates from outside ourselves, a Republic cannot function. I think it was Ben Franklin who said when asked what form of government the new country would have, replied "A republic, if you can keep it."


2. My point is that abortion can be considered killing....and still be permitted under the law. We permit loads of other types of killing with little controversy.
It is my personal opinion, drawn from real, though limited, experience with real women who have had real abortions (and some who made the opposite choice and bore their children) that it is NEVER a decision of 'convenience' but a wrenching decision that haunts a woman. I dont' think we need fear 'frivolous' abortion.

And do you ever wonder why that is? Could it be that the women in question know precisely that what they are doing is taking an innocent life? I stated before (and you have not addressed the argument) that just because a law is passed that legalizes a certain act, does not make that act moral or ethical. Laws don't define right and wrong, right and wrong define laws (or should define). Besides, it's not even a law that was passed, it was a Supreme Court decision, legislation from the bench. Nine old men decided to throw out 200 years of American history and many state laws around the country, by way of an immoral decision (actually it was 7 old men, there were 2 dissents).


For those of you opposed to abortion, DON'T GET ONE. There, solved it for you. And leave the rest of us to be guided by our consciences, within the limits of the law.

For those of you who don't like rape, DON'T RAPE ANYONE. And leave the rest of us to be guided by our consciences.

Do you see how flawed your thought process is? Under your logic, for rape to be moral, all that has to happen is for a law to be passed that legalizes it. And it's not a matter of "telling a woman what to do with her uterus". She decided that when she decided to have sex without using protection (for the moment I'm assuming it wasn't forced, which is the case in the vast majority of instances). And if you want to take a utilitarian angle (which is invalid, but I digress), even then its immoral. You balance the competing interests: the woman has physical discomfort for 9 months, balanced against the death of a human who has done nothing to deserve execution. Even under that analysis, abortion is immoral and wrong.

XingTheRubicon
11/10/2011, 10:24 AM
I love abortion threads.


I have 3 children, and I will do everything in my power to inform and influence each of them to my wife and my thoughts on how selfish and repugnant abortion is. Doesn't mean there's a 0% chance that anyone in my immediate family will ever be involved in an abortion...just that we did everything we could.

Having said that, I've never understood the need for pro life people like me, to force my beliefs and opinions on pro death people. If the majority of Americans want abortion legal, then so be it. It is what it is.

Caboose
11/10/2011, 10:36 AM
I love abortion threads.

I've never understood the need for pro life people like me, to force my beliefs and opinions on pro death people. If the majority of Americans want abortion legal, then so be it. It is what it is.

So as long as the majority want it, then it isn't forcing beliefs on others? If 51% of the population agrees that it is OK to bludgeon toddlers to death as long as they are no older than 2 years, would you just say "oh well, it is what it is"?

What about blacks? What if 60% of the population agreed that all the black folks should be rounded up and put to death? I can imagine your retort when those uppity blacks contest it. How dare they try to force their beliefs on others. The people have spoken. Right?

KantoSooner
11/10/2011, 11:05 AM
SoonerLaw09, I presume that you graduated our find institution then? Too bad you missed out on Roaring Joe and some of the old stalwarts who were still there in the 1980's.

I have no idea where you got your ideas, but here are some corrections for you:

1. Role Of Government.
You claim is to 'produce good' and then turn around and claim it is to protect liberty. If liberty is the ultimate good (which is my belief) then any definition must be subject to either the lowest common denominator for common agreement or must be limited in scope of application to accomodate the inescapable truth that we don't all agree. This country has balanced the two pretty well. Abortion is, however, right there in an exact spot where moral certainty on the part of some come up against very important rights of others. If you want to see what moral certainty can do when unfettered and when allowed free rein to 'create good' I'd suggest you check out the Committee to Support Virtue and Fight Sin or whatever the Iranian mullahs call it these days. Nice, monolithic moralty police org. You'd like the approach.

2. Conservative?
You clearly have no idea what the word means. I'd suggest rereading anything written by Barry Goldwater. Easy to read prose, you'll have no problems. To cut to a couple of conclusory notes: conservatism has zero, as in zip, to do with religion. It has nothing to do with moral standards for society. In fact, the furtherance of such standards are anathema to any true conservative. Conservatives want a small, non-intrusive government and are wiling to grant their neighbors freedom as a price to secure their own. Conservatives can be happy neither knowing nor caring what their neighbors do in their bed chambers or in their halls of worship.
3. Source of Rules
I'd suggest you reread the constitution. Apart from the obligatory throat clearing mentions of a supreme being, the document is void of any 'outside' source of moral guidance. Why? for precisely the reason we're here in this thread: agreement is difficult or impossible. Therefore, the document makes the logical step that a minimal rule set is preferable. Hells Bells, murder is not even mentioned in the Constitution. It's left to the states. What does end up being mentioned, quite a lot really, is all sorts of defenses against the overreaching of authority, under whatever motivation, into individual affairs.
The entire history of the enlightenment was one long campaign against exactly the sort of outside moral authority you propose and in favor of 'reason'. Reason finally won and the US is perhaps the purist expression of that. While the Soviets and others fought against religious obscurantism, they did so by substituting another religion in the church's place. Only in the US did we make the critical step of stripping religion from our government and our laws....and thus preserve the freedom of peoples of ALL faiths to live together in some form of harmony.
4. The Supreme Court
I am aghast that someone who might be legally educated is so woefully unaware of the role of the court. The court interprets the laws; it doesn't make them. In the present case, they interpretted the 'penumbra' of privacy to cover the choice to have an abortion. Since that interpretation, it is the law that women may choose to have an abortion.
My personal belief is that the legislative branch has abdicated its responsibility and should man up and make a damn law one way or the other and that the court stretched and hauled pretty hard in Roe v. Wade. Be that as it may, for the time being, that's the law. Period.

Vegans and PETA advocates have enormous revulsion that we as a nation have wholesale factory-style slaughter houses. They have to live with it. Hindu's are morally outraged that we bundle whole herds of cattle into abattoirs daily. Some people who I call morons are convinced that marriage between races will bring down the wrath of God upon our heads. Or that we ought not to countenance gays. Or that we do business on Sundays...or Saturdays....or Fridays. Or that we go with head's uncovered in public. All are things held as moral absolutes. And yet, we have to live as a country with some of the moral absolutes we might hold most dear being violated by others and trust to our legal system to keep the lid on.

If I were to take a man aged 90 and shave away the days in his life, going backward, until conception, is there a bright line anywhere where I could say 'Aha! there: he's alive and then he's not!'? Not really, except for conception. By that same token, it takes a lot of bending and stretching to call a blastocyst the 'same' as a twelve year-old kid.

Thankfully, we don't live in a theocracy, we live in a republic. And, in a republic, as the sainted Franklin (most probably a life-long closeted atheist - you didn't get far in life as a non-believer in the 18th century) knew, you make compromises. In this case, a hard decision has been made. It's not one that was made light-heartedly by anyone involved. It does, however, make an honest attempt to balance the equities.

And that's where we are today. A quite acceptable place to anyone who is not bound to assert his morals on others.

soonercruiser
11/10/2011, 11:47 AM
I love abortion threads.


I have 3 children, and I will do everything in my power to inform and influence each of them to my wife and my thoughts on how selfish and repugnant abortion is. Doesn't mean there's a 0% chance that anyone in my immediate family will ever be involved in an abortion...just that we did everything we could.

Having said that, I've never understood the need for pro life people like me, to force my beliefs and opinions on pro death people. If the majority of Americans want abortion legal, then so be it. It is what it is.

Rubicon,
It's never been on the national ballot!
I was decided by the SCOTUS, where lawyers presented a bogus case.
Mrs. Roe now even admits it publically.
All the legal roaches needed was a crack to get in under the legal door.

So, no explanation is needed for the evil throughout American society; if we can justify killing the most vulnerable for "convenience"; predominantly black babies BTW.
My guess is, it would be another moral issue to divide the East and Left coasts off from the "heartland" of America!

soonercruiser
11/10/2011, 11:49 AM
Exactly. A parasitic-fetus is a non-agent. It cannot exist without the nonstop-ravaging of its host-body (and that body's resources).

I am happy to enable women to do what they wish with their unwelcome parasites.

THis would have been the "ultimate" witness to have brought to the Roe V. Wade arguments, huh?

SoonerLaw09
11/10/2011, 12:18 PM
Kanto,

Nothing you said remotely addresses any of my arguments.

I will, however, correct a few of your factual errors.

1. "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." [Preamble to Declaration of Independence] -- my argument that the US government is founded upon the laws of nature and nature's God (i.e., the political philosophy of "natural law") is proven.

2. This country was founded on principles of Christianity as informed by the Bible. No intellectually honest person can deny that. We are not a theocracy, but we are likewise not a religionless government. We simply have no established state church. It is historical fallacy to claim that the intent of the founders of our country intended it to be completely secular, with no religious basis whatsoever. One need only read the Declaration to see this. "Endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" means these human rights come from God and the state cannot legitimately dispense with them. "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (another way of describing property rights)" means just what it says. "Freedom from discomfort" is not among those rights, however "life" is. Likewise, the 5th Amendment (and the 14th, ratified later) prohibit the government from depriving a person of life, liberty, and property without due process. Ergo, the child's rights trump those of the mother, Roe v. Wade was an incorrect and illegitimate court ruling, and should be overturned.

3. Goldwater was a libertarian, not a true conservative. He was the Ron Paul of his time. You, sir, obviously have a similar mindset. Ronald Reagan was a true conservative. Of the current candidates for President, the true conservatives are Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman. Herman Cain is close, but he's waffled on a few issues (like abortion), and so far he hasn't made a statement on marriage to my knowledge. Rick Perry would be except for his stance on immigration. In political theory, my approach to the law is similar to that of Gottfried Leibniz, Frederic Bastiat, and William Blackstone. A true conservative understands that social issues and their impact on the morality of the nation are just as important as sound fiscal and foreign policy. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams

Kanto, you have drunk the kool-aid of historical revisionism.

4. The legislative branch has abdicated its responsibility? Yes indeed, in spades. I agree. There is an immoral law (court decision) on the books and Congress should pass a law overriding it immediately. There is no "penumbra of privacy" in the Constitution. It very clearly says what it means. Roe v. Wade was an extremely poorly written and reasoned decision, this is even acknowledged by lawyers who otherwise would agree with the result.

5. You throw so many apples, oranges, and pears together in your last statements that it's hard to sort out. Animals don't have rights, people do. So that's a non sequitur. Marriage between races is not prohibited in the Bible (since Christ anyway), God doesn't deal in matters of salvation with nations as a whole anymore, he deals with people individually. However, homosexuality clearly *is* prohibited all throughout the New Testament as well as the old, which renders it a moral imperative to oppose it. The stuff about days of the week and head coverings are matters of ceremony or worship, which are things the government clearly should *not* be involved in, as that would be establishing religion (even though Sunday is still an official day off for the President and the rest of the government...).

This thing about "assert his morals on others". You really need to understand that such is logically incoherent. You, sir, are trying to force your morality on me by demanding that women be allowed to murder their children, when I believe that such activity is detrimental to society. What you want to do is pick and choose which moral activity you don't want "pushed on you", and which you'd like to push on others. Agreement is possible *if and only if* we agree that there are laws and a Law-giver outside of our own opinions.

BU BEAR
11/10/2011, 12:44 PM
Those who support abortion on demand, and that is largely what we have in this country, support the private killing of the unborn (and partially born) without cause or due process. The child's only crime is that its parents did not foresee that pregnancy is a proximate result of sexual intercourse.

Trophy Husband
11/10/2011, 12:48 PM
[QUOTE=Trophy Husband;3394452]You're argument is based off of this very flawed premise " THE central value in the American Experiment. We decided, when we formed our nation, that neither the government nor the church was to be supreme. The individual would be."


You forfeited the ultimate supreme authority to the government, when they were allowed to determine what is and is not human life via Roe vs Wade.

I find it very ironic, pro choicers and libs are more than willing to let uncle same rule on what should or should not be allowed regarding our personal choices, so long as they rule in their favor. IE gay rights, abortion etc.
QUOTE]

I find it difficult to follow circular arguments. I ceded no such supreme authority to our central government (or our state governments. Looking at you Sic Em ;)) Neither through Roe v. Wade, nor through Marbury v. Madison nor through the Constitution. I would suggest a refresher course in the history our country. If you don't walk away with the conclusion that we're all about protection of the individual from the passions of the mob, then I am not sure we can have a real discussion. That whole deal about the Bill of Rights? The entire line of philosophical authority from the Magna Carta on? What did you think they were talking about? I admit the language is dated (though no less beautiful than that of the King James Bible) but it's really not that hard to understand.

Onwards with some other critiques:

1. I'm a liberal? Please send me whatever you're smoking. I am a true conservative, which means that I don't attempt to force my views on others. I try to live my life infringing on those of my fellows as little as possible.
You might want to consider what could possibly be more intrusive, coercive and ultimately state centrist (or read 'communist') than having the government telling you what to do with your uterus.

2. My point is that abortion can be considered killing....and still be permitted under the law. We permit loads of other types of killing with little controversy.
It is my personal opinion, drawn from real, though limited, experience with real women who have had real abortions (and some who made the opposite choice and bore their children) that it is NEVER a decision of 'convenience' but a wrenching decision that haunts a woman. I dont' think we need fear 'frivolous' abortion.

For those of you opposed to abortion, DON'T GET ONE. There, solved it for you. And leave the rest of us to be guided by our consciences, within the limits of the law.

You find it hard to follow circular arguments? No what you find hard to do is present a non circular argument. If you truly believe what you profess to, then their should be no laws, no rules no guidelines, we should all be left to own device.

What about the rights of the unborn, where does that figure into your "we should ALL be protected from the mob" scenario? In order for you argument to hold any water, we must all first buy into the premise that an unborn child is not a real human life, then once we accept that it makes it easier to justify murdering it.

I don't accept that premise, and just because some folks in black robes say it's okay, doesn't mean I have to accept it. As far as a woman's right to chose, how "wrenching" was her choice to have unprotected sex? How "wrenching" was her decision to engage in an activity which could cause her to become pregnant, knowing full well beforehand she did not want to be pregnant.

If a woman does not want to get pregnant, don't have sex. You know birth control can fail, you know the risks. Don't engage in the activity knowing the risks, then after the fact ask for a do over.

"the government should not have a say so in a woman's reproductive choices". Let me ask you, can you provide one documented case where, a woman was abducted, impregnated, and forced to have the child, by the government?

KantoSooner
11/10/2011, 04:48 PM
My, my, my
I did stir up the natives!

Okay, Soonerlaw, I thank you for at least thinking through your response. Here are some thoughts in return:

First, the Declaration is not the founding document of our nation, anymore than the Mayflower Compact is. The Constitution is. And, the Constitution is not grounded on any particular religiousity. It is, if anything a perfect enlightenment document. Oh, yes, 'endowed by their creator' and all, but anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge understands that that section refers more to notions of 'natural law' (a concept founded by Frenchmen who'd soon be 'strangling priests with their own entrails' to use one flowery description).
The rights of men, therefore, are seen as inherent and not 'granted' to people by any authority, worldly or heavenly.
Once again, the point is protection against coercive authority.
Returning to the issue of faith in government again, it's painfully clear that the Founders knew that government could not be 'of' faith or it would fall apart. I don't think either prayer to open sessions or swearing on bibles were common practice.

Second, I see your references in terms of conservatism and raise you J.S. Mill and F. Hayek (the latter an advisor to Reagan and perhaps the most influential political economist of the past century - that he is so little known is evidence by itself of a pervasive bias toward the left in American academia). Both are bedrock conservatives and neither had the least use for authority drawn from 'above'.
Any true conservative would understand that a government definition of what is 'good' or 'moral' is a flashing danger sign. That you're so eager to do so would indicate that perhaps you swapped out the kool-aid for Mussolini's chianti. It's a short road to fascism when we start legislating on the basis of wisdom recieved from on high.

Finally, I never said animals had rights (though they do, try beating a dog to death in the street and find out how quickly you're arrested). What I was doing was pointing out that people can have moral views that they regard as absolute and that do not allow any compromise. And that those views can be in diametric opposition to those of other groups in the same society. We have two choices: we can either cede authority for deciding such matters to a single group/church/school of thought, whatever, or we can trust in some process that we all can agree upon. As a society, we have chosen the latter course. Wisely, in my view.

Since we seem to be spinning around to the basic argument once again, let me state my stance once again. We can agree or disagree that an abotion is a 'killing' (it is my view that I see little way it can not be considered such). We can agree that the life destroyed is innocent of all crime, actual or potential (the fetus is not waving a gun at anyone). And yet, we can still consistently allow abortion under our legal system. You may not like it, but we allow killings under any of a number of circumstances. In my view, this is one.

Trophy Husband
11/10/2011, 05:10 PM
My, my, my
I did stir up the natives!

Okay, Soonerlaw, I thank you for at least thinking through your response. Here are some thoughts in return:

First, the Declaration is not the founding document of our nation, anymore than the Mayflower Compact is. The Constitution is. And, the Constitution is not grounded on any particular religiousity. It is, if anything a perfect enlightenment document. Oh, yes, 'endowed by their creator' and all, but anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge understands that that section refers more to notions of 'natural law' (a concept founded by Frenchmen who'd soon be 'strangling priests with their own entrails' to use one flowery description).
The rights of men, therefore, are seen as inherent and not 'granted' to people by any authority, worldly or heavenly.
Once again, the point is protection against coercive authority.
Returning to the issue of faith in government again, it's painfully clear that the Founders knew that government could not be 'of' faith or it would fall apart. I don't think either prayer to open sessions or swearing on bibles were common practice.

Second, I see your references in terms of conservatism and raise you J.S. Mill and F. Hayek (the latter an advisor to Reagan and perhaps the most influential political economist of the past century - that he is so little known is evidence by itself of a pervasive bias toward the left in American academia). Both are bedrock conservatives and neither had the least use for authority drawn from 'above'.
Any true conservative would understand that a government definition of what is 'good' or 'moral' is a flashing danger sign. That you're so eager to do so would indicate that perhaps you swapped out the kool-aid for Mussolini's chianti. It's a short road to fascism when we start legislating on the basis of wisdom recieved from on high.

Finally, I never said animals had rights (though they do, try beating a dog to death in the street and find out how quickly you're arrested). What I was doing was pointing out that people can have moral views that they regard as absolute and that do not allow any compromise. And that those views can be in diametric opposition to those of other groups in the same society. We have two choices: we can either cede authority for deciding such matters to a single group/church/school of thought, whatever, or we can trust in some process that we all can agree upon. As a society, we have chosen the latter course. Wisely, in my view.

Since we seem to be spinning around to the basic argument once again, let me state my stance once again. We can agree or disagree that an abotion is a 'killing' (it is my view that I see little way it can not be considered such). We can agree that the life destroyed is innocent of all crime, actual or potential (the fetus is not waving a gun at anyone). And yet, we can still consistently allow abortion under our legal system. You may not like it, but we allow killings under any of a number of circumstances. In my view, this is one.

Can you provide one documented case where a "killing" was allowed under our current system, against an innocent person, for no other reason other than another person (the mother in this case) wanted to kill them.

Your whole "we allow killing in our society" argument is mute. We do not allow the killing of innocent children in our society except in the case of abortion. For you to equate killing someone in war, or during a botched medical procedure to killing an innocent unborn child, shows just how shallow your ability to logical present your argument is.

Serge Ibaka
11/10/2011, 05:22 PM
And for those of you who want to use the "parasite" argument (i.e., it's dependent on its mother for survival), just try leaving a newborn naked on the ground outside and see how long it lives. Your distinction is invalid. A child is dependent on its parents for a number of years, at least, so by your logic it would be okay to murder a 5 year old.

Oops. I just saw this.

Regardless, I don't think that this rebuttal is as sound as people are pretending; it does not refute the "parasite" argument.

For one: you can leave a naked newborn on the ground in a populated area, and it will live just fine into adulthood. In modern America, there are plenty of adoption options, and there are places where unwanted children are taken care of. You're right; young children are dependent upon caregiver, but they are not dependent upon their mother. From the moment of its birth (and for some time before that), a baby is a separate agent that can live independently of its mother. And if a parent will not (or cannot) care for their small child, then it is their moral obligation to pass the child to a place where it will receive better care.

A fetus, on the other hand, is a parasite who demands full use of its mother's body. It's different.

Trophy Husband
11/10/2011, 05:43 PM
Oops. I just saw this.

Regardless, I don't think that this rebuttal is as sound as people are pretending; it does not refute the "parasite" argument.

For one: you can leave a naked newborn on the ground in a populated area, and it will live just fine into adulthood. In modern America, there are plenty of adoption options, and there are places where unwanted children are taken care of. You're right; young children are dependent upon caregiver, but they are not dependent upon their mother. From the moment of its birth (and for some time before that), a baby is a separate agent that can live independently of its mother. And if a parent will not (or cannot) care for their small child, then it is their moral obligation to pass the child to a place where it will receive better care.

A fetus, on the other hand, is a parasite who demands full use of its mother's body. It's different.

Nice try, but unfortunately for you, your "baby left on the sidewalk in a populated area" scenario, is dependent upon someone else providing for the baby. A baby left to it's own device would not survive.

I hear the argument "it's not a viable human being, therefore it's not human being". So aborting the child is justified. What the pro-choice crowd conveniently leaves out of the equation is the fact that the reason the baby/fetus is not "viable" is because your standard for viability is on a sliding scale.

Example, if I take YOU out in to the middle of the Pacific Ocean and leave you there, by yourself, how viable are you? What are your odds of surviving without intervention from someone else?
Can I place you in an environment, I know you can not survive in, then justify your killing by saying "he's not viable"?
Now if I take an unborn child out of the womb into an environment I know it can't survive in on it's own and claim "it's not viable because it can't survive on it's own", I have to be willing to apply that sliding viability scale across the board, otherwise my argument means nothing.

SoonerLaw09
11/10/2011, 06:12 PM
Kanto. Please do some research before you begin to sound foolish instead of merely uninformed.


"In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. ”Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments be Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move, that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of the City be requested to officiate in that service." -- Benjamin Franklin, Continental Congress, 1787

And yes, Bibles have been used for swearing in public officials and administering oaths in Court since the founding of the Country. The US Congress begins each day with a prayer. The Supreme Court begins each session with "God save the United States and this Honorable Court". Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a day of fasting, prayer, and repentance during the Civil War (he wasn't the only President to do so).

You vacillate between positions (is it your definition of "natural law", or 51% of the electorate, that decides what is right and wrong?). You make assertions without arguments (human rights are "inherent", but they are not granted by anyone. From whence do they come?) You don't like what the Declaration says so you discard it. If you agree that natural law is the source, then you must prove your argument that natural law does not emanate from anywhere except inside man, and you must account for this in your worldview.

As for the government defining what's "good" and "moral", yes I agree with you. The government should not define such things, it should merely act on the already established definitions. If a government has the ability to determine right and wrong, very quickly what is "right" will become what benefits the government. Which is what has happened in our country. We are then back to where the proper definitions of "right" and "wrong" may be found. See above.

You still have not responded to my arguments about why public opinion is not determinative of whether a given act is moral. You also continue to state that "we can consistently allow abortion in our system." Consistent with what? As Trophy said, the only way you can get there is to define an unborn child as not a living human. Otherwise, there is no difference between the woman who has an abortion and the woman who gives birth and drops the baby in a dumpster, or drowns her kids because she doesn't want to take care of them anymore. And that is a completely arbitrary and self-serving move. Unless you can argue logically for that, your entire position collapses.

Caboose
11/10/2011, 06:24 PM
Oops. I just saw this.

Regardless, I don't think that this rebuttal is as sound as people are pretending; it does not refute the "parasite" argument.

For one: you can leave a naked newborn on the ground in a populated area, and it will live just fine into adulthood. In modern America, there are plenty of adoption options, and there are places where unwanted children are taken care of. You're right; young children are dependent upon caregiver, but they are not dependent upon their mother. From the moment of its birth (and for some time before that), a baby is a separate agent that can live independently of its mother. And if a parent will not (or cannot) care for their small child, then it is their moral obligation to pass the child to a place where it will receive better care.

A fetus, on the other hand, is a parasite who demands full use of its mother's body. It's different.

Wow. A newborn baby will live just fine all by itself as long as someone else comes along and provides for its every need. Yeah, you just said that. That is your argument.

East Coast Bias
11/10/2011, 07:17 PM
I feel like you guys need some real liberal perspective here rather than getting some kind of half-baked version from these semi-conservatives: First of all, while everyone is again berating the government, you do realize WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT? If you don't like any of this then garner some support and change things, Okay? Also if everyone here is so concerned about life, where is that concern for the victims of capital punishment? I know you will say the unborn is "innocent" and the death row inmate is not, however here comes the punch line: Either you value life or you don't, period. While I admit to being a full out liberal, I am balancing my beliefs by backing off from abortion in favor of life. Any other takers, here?

sappstuf
11/10/2011, 07:24 PM
http://gifsoup.com/view7/2944497/abe-simpson-o.gif

Serge Ibaka
11/10/2011, 08:00 PM
Wow. A newborn baby will live just fine all by itself as long as someone else comes along and provides for its every need. Yeah, you just said that. That is your argument.

Exactly. And a pregnant women does not owe a fetus the continuous provisions of her body for 9 straight months; the fetus is not an independent being--its growth completely depends upon its ravaging the body of a single specific person.

A small child, on the other hand: there are tons of people who would willingly care for that child. It can exist, independently, regardless of who is assisting its growth.

Is the distinction so hard? Holy cow.


http://gifsoup.com/view7/2944497/abe-simpson-o.gif
lol

SCOUT
11/10/2011, 08:55 PM
Exactly. And a pregnant women does not owe a fetus the continuous provisions of her body for 9 straight months; the fetus is not an independent being--its growth completely depends upon its ravaging the body of a single specific person.

A small child, on the other hand: there are tons of people who would willingly care for that child. It can exist, independently, regardless of who is assisting its growth.

Is the distinction so hard? Holy cow.
l
So you are opposed to abortion after 21 weeks, right?
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/02/20/svPREMATURE_wideweb__470x289,0.jpg

SoonerLaw09
11/10/2011, 09:01 PM
I feel like you guys need some real liberal perspective here rather than getting some kind of half-baked version from these semi-conservatives: First of all, while everyone is again berating the government, you do realize WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT? If you don't like any of this then garner some support and change things, Okay? Also if everyone here is so concerned about life, where is that concern for the victims of capital punishment? I know you will say the unborn is "innocent" and the death row inmate is not, however here comes the punch line: Either you value life or you don't, period. While I admit to being a full out liberal, I am balancing my beliefs by backing off from abortion in favor of life. Any other takers, here?

I value life so much that anyone who takes it with willful malice and no justification should forfeit theirs. "Either you value life or you don't", eh? Isn't this the kind of black/white thinking that you libs always accuse us of?

And your sig assumes facts not in evidence.

Trophy Husband
11/10/2011, 11:04 PM
Exactly. And a pregnant women does not owe a fetus the continuous provisions of her body for 9 straight months; the fetus is not an independent being--its growth completely depends upon its ravaging the body of a single specific person.

A small child, on the other hand: there are tons of people who would willingly care for that child. It can exist, independently, regardless of who is assisting its growth.

Is the distinction so hard? Holy cow.


lol




Your stupid animated GIF does not add any validity to your pointless point. So it's your position since a fetus "ravishes" (think you might want to look up the definition of that word, because in the context you're attempting to use it, you're making yourself look to be a fool), the body it occupies, the owner of the body has no obligation to allow the fetus/child to do so, correct? You may have an argument if that fetus/child arbitrarily appeared on it's own through no action of it's host. But since the presence of the fetus/child is a direct consequence of the hosts actions, that kind of throws your argument out the window.
Babies don't seek out and invade a woman's body uninvited, the woman created them through her actions. That would be like buying a dog, bringing it home, then killing it because it's ravishing your household. Now had dog on it's own strayed into your home and started to "ravish" it, you would be justified in taking the appropriate steps to rid yourself of it.

OhU1
11/10/2011, 11:11 PM
Evangelical Christians should have the option to adopt and raise these fetuses. They value life so much, but are pro death penalty (as am I).

Spay and neuter your pets. It's the responsible thing to do.

soonercruiser
11/10/2011, 11:13 PM
Exactly. And a pregnant women does not owe a fetus the continuous provisions of her body for 9 straight months; the fetus is not an independent being--its growth completely depends upon its ravaging the body of a single specific person.

A small child, on the other hand: there are tons of people who would willingly care for that child. It can exist, independently, regardless of who is assisting its growth.

Is the distinction so hard? Holy cow.
ol

Anybody else see this as a little insane?
:hopelessness:
Pretty sick!

A person can live quite well without their spleen.
Why don't all women have their spleen removed during puberty.
Then, (like the liberal programs did years back - forced sterilization) they can just take out the ovaries while they are there.

(Here it comes!)...

soonercruiser
11/10/2011, 11:18 PM
Your stupid animated GIF does not add any validity to your pointless point. So it's your position since a fetus "ravishes" (think you might want to look up the definition of that word, because in the context you're attempting to use it, you're making yourself look to be a fool), the body it occupies, the owner of the body has no obligation to allow the fetus/child to do so, correct? You may have an argument if that fetus/child arbitrarily appeared on it's own through no action of it's host. But since the presence of the fetus/child is a direct consequence of the hosts actions, that kind of throws your argument out the window.
Babies don't seek out and invade a woman's body uninvited, the woman created them through her actions. That would be like buying a dog, bringing it home, then killing it because it's ravishing your household. Now had dog on it's own strayed into your home and started to "ravish" it, you would be justified in taking the appropriate steps to rid yourself of it.

THIS ^^^^

We know all too well that it ravages the selfish person's "expectations" that they can continue their immoral and irresponsible life styles, get all their fancy cars, flat screen TVs, and die lonley and unwanted themselves!

Trophy Husband
11/11/2011, 08:35 AM
Evangelical Christians should have the option to adopt and raise these fetuses. They value life so much, but are pro death penalty (as am I).

Spay and neuter your pets. It's the responsible thing to do.

So killing Timothy McVeigh is the same as aborting and innocent child in the womb. Timothy McVeigh was given his shot at life and made his choices, as a result, he paid the consequences. An aborted child in the womb is 100% innocent, and was murdered because someone didn't "feel like" being a parent. Again, another ignorant pro choice argument.

KantoSooner
11/11/2011, 10:02 AM
I value life so much that anyone who takes it with willful malice and no justification should forfeit theirs. "Either you value life or you don't", eh? Isn't this the kind of black/white thinking that you libs always accuse us of?

And your sig assumes facts not in evidence.

This is wonderful! So now you are advocating murder for those who are following current US law? Fine officer of the court, eh? I suppose you place your moral compass above that of all others?

Which brings us to the rather inexplicable and tedious fixation you have with juxtaposing popular will and natural law and some religion as 'sources' for morality. All have been tried and all have failed. In our country, we use a method of muddling along, taking philosophy, religion, the best of current common sense and pumping it through a system of ordered debate and consideration to come up with rules. It doesn't satisfy the morally binary, but then, really nothing does except the tyranny of their opinions.

I'm laying down my pen now as it is apparent that no ounce of tolerance, or consideration of opinions other than your own can be expected. Know this, however: your support of a theocracy based on your religion, and yours alone, will not succeed. There are too many Americans, like the folks in Mississippi, who 'get it' and don't want to go back to a world run by church men.

Oh, and, when marching, keep your knees stiff and point your toes, it gives that little 'lift' at the end of each step. So fashionable!

Trophy Husband
11/11/2011, 10:30 AM
This is wonderful! So now you are advocating murder for those who are following current US law? Fine officer of the court, eh? I suppose you place your moral compass above that of all others?

Which brings us to the rather inexplicable and tedious fixation you have with juxtaposing popular will and natural law and some religion as 'sources' for morality. All have been tried and all have failed. In our country, we use a method of muddling along, taking philosophy, religion, the best of current common sense and pumping it through a system of ordered debate and consideration to come up with rules. It doesn't satisfy the morally binary, but then, really nothing does except the tyranny of their opinions.

I'm laying down my pen now as it is apparent that no ounce of tolerance, or consideration of opinions other than your own can be expected. Know this, however: your support of a theocracy based on your religion, and yours alone, will not succeed. There are too many Americans, like the folks in Mississippi, who 'get it' and don't want to go back to a world run by church men.

Oh, and, when marching, keep your knees stiff and point your toes, it gives that little 'lift' at the end of each step. So fashionable!

The vote in Mississippi, was not a pro abortion vote, regardless of how orgasmic the thought is to you. You have completely defeated your own argument so many times it's laughable. If we're are to be left to our own device and through the course of nature allow to happen what must happen, can you explain to me what part of inserting a metal vacuum tube into a woman's body and tearing her unborn child to pieces, is natural will? Please explain what part of the procedure is "natural".

Your whole premise is based off the assumption that an unborn child is not a viable human being. Your premise is false, and I've already proven that. Again, tell me how viable you would be if I took you out of an environment you were meant to be in and placed you in an environment you had no chance of surviving in? Tell me how I could justify killing you by placing you into an environment in which I knew you could not survive, then as my defense I say "he wasn't viable, therefore I'm justified in killing him.

East Coast Bias
11/11/2011, 11:04 AM
I value life so much that anyone who takes it with willful malice and no justification should forfeit theirs. "Either you value life or you don't", eh? Isn't this the kind of black/white thinking that you libs always accuse us of?

And your sig assumes facts not in evidence.

Seems like if one espouses to be "Pro Life" that should encompass all life? If you put all these qualifiers in play then someone has the duty to call you on it.If you are only pro-life in certain scenarios then please don't hide behind this kind of weak sauce argument. I would prefer you refer to your self as"semi-Pro life". I am sure your Christian moral code of an "eye for an Eye" is somehow behind this. If that is the gray area you wish to bring into the argument, then okay, but please don't call yourself "Pro-Life". From my perspective using murder to prevent murder is a failed strategy and at least my beliefs are consistent... Pro-Life here....

Trophy Husband
11/11/2011, 11:17 AM
Seems like if one espouses to be "Pro Life" that should encompass all life? If you put all these qualifiers in play then someone has the duty to call you on it.If you are only pro-life in certain scenarios then please don't hide behind this kind of weak sauce argument. I would prefer you refer to your self as"semi-Pro life". I am sure your Christian moral code of an "eye for an Eye" is somehow behind this. If that is the gray area you wish to bring into the argument, then okay, but please don't call yourself "Pro-Life". From my perspective using murder to prevent murder is a failed strategy and at least my beliefs are consistent... Pro-Life here....

The term pro life is used in context with the term Pro Choice, you know that, I know that and everyone else knows that, so knock it off.
If someone chooses to kill their unborn child, the term "pro life" is used in support of the right of that child to live. It's really a pretty simple concept, or at least should be. You know darn good and well what the term "pro life" means in the context of the abortion debate.

Trophy Husband
11/11/2011, 05:26 PM
What, nothing to say now?

soonercruiser
11/11/2011, 09:58 PM
Sorry, East Coast Bias. (accurate name, BTW)
Even the Pope has spoken on this for Catholics....saying that the "application of the death penalty should be rare, when all options are considered".
That said, then even the Pope admits that some people need passed on to GOD for judgement immediately!
Nice try!

(As, you probably one of those libs that thinks that life in solitary confinement is "cruel and unusual" puinishment.)

East Coast Bias
11/12/2011, 08:08 PM
What, nothing to say now?

I say your comments help make my argument, how's that? I certainly realize that people like yourself only want to be thought of as "pro life" in relation to the abortion issue. Heaven forbid anyone try and expand the context to include any of your other opinions or beliefs.The whole point I was trying to make was that neither the Pubs or Dems truly value life. Pubs are okay with murdering inmates, not so much the unborn. Dems are okay with murdering the unborn just not the inmates. And for SC and the catholic reference: Having the Pope come out(somewhat gingerly) for capital punishment does not settle it for me and a lot of others. I know SC thinks I am some high-brow East Coast lawyer, but I have spent more time with the red-necks than most of you guys..

soonercruiser
11/12/2011, 09:35 PM
Didn't know ECB was a lawyer.
Makes no difference. The Pope and Bishops conference have reasserted that abortion is the #1 issue in the heirarchy of values.

SicEmBaylor
11/12/2011, 10:10 PM
Didn't know ECB was a lawyer.
Makes no difference. The Pope and Bishops conference have reasserted that abortion is the #1 issue in the heirarchy of values.
Is this before they diddly daddle with the little boys?

soonercruiser
11/12/2011, 10:26 PM
Why bring Penn State or teachers into this?
:uncomfortableness:

SicEmBaylor
11/12/2011, 10:48 PM
Why bring Penn State or teachers into this?
:uncomfortableness:

There a hell of a lot more Catholics than there are Penn State *******s named Sandusky.

Trophy Husband
11/13/2011, 11:12 AM
I say your comments help make my argument, how's that? I certainly realize that people like yourself only want to be thought of as "pro life" in relation to the abortion issue. Heaven forbid anyone try and expand the context to include any of your other opinions or beliefs.The whole point I was trying to make was that neither the Pubs or Dems truly value life. Pubs are okay with murdering inmates, not so much the unborn. Dems are okay with murdering the unborn just not the inmates. And for SC and the catholic reference: Having the Pope come out(somewhat gingerly) for capital punishment does not settle it for me and a lot of others. I know SC thinks I am some high-brow East Coast lawyer, but I have spent more time with the red-necks than most of you guys..

In the context of this thread, you know damn good and well what the term "pro life" means. Stop being intellectually dishonest.

oudivesherpa
11/13/2011, 08:58 PM
If abortion is murder, masturbation is genocide. Johnny, you just wiped out Bosnia.
What we really need is a donor womb program, which takes all unwanted fetuses and implants them into right to lifers to raise and nurture until they are 25. Let’s face it, technology has far outpaced morality, in the near future we can take all unwanted fetuses and raise them in artificial wombs for the State to pay to cost of raising that Child. Do we really want to get the Government in the enforcement issues of reproduction?

soonercruiser
11/13/2011, 11:22 PM
If abortion is murder, masturbation is genocide. Johnny, you just wiped out Bosnia.
What we really need is a donor womb program, which takes all unwanted fetuses and implants them into right to lifers to raise and nurture until they are 25. Let’s face it, technology has far outpaced morality, in the near future we can take all unwanted fetuses and raise them in artificial wombs for the State to pay to cost of raising that Child. Do we really want to get the Government in the enforcement issues of reproduction?

Sounds like part of the manifesto from Occupy Rome!
:uncomfortableness:

oudivesherpa
11/14/2011, 08:38 AM
No from a strong anti-government libertian. I tned to vote for moderate Republicans--but there are so damn few moderates left in the GOP!

Trophy Husband
11/14/2011, 11:51 AM
What we really need is a donor womb program, which takes all unwanted fetuses and implants them into right to lifers to raise and nurture until they are 25.

Weak sauce argument. Again the premise is built upon the fictitious argument which assumes that every aborted child would have ended up a ward of the state. I find a great deal of irony, that the same group of knobs who propose this argument are all for allowing illegal immigrants to drain this country dry, in the name of compassion.

Sneak into the country illegally, have a baby and get all the tax payer sponsored benefits you can. However if your only crime is being conceived we have to abort you because we don't want you to further burden that same tax payer sponsored system.

Trophy Husband
11/14/2011, 11:53 AM
No from a strong anti-government libertian. I tned to vote for moderate Republicans--but there are so damn few moderates left in the GOP!

Moderate Rep AKA pro-choice, gay rights, tax and spend, entitlement program republican.
Is that the kind of "Moderate Rep" you'd support?

soonercruiser
11/14/2011, 01:52 PM
Moderate Rep AKA pro-choice, gay rights, tax and spend, entitlement program republican.
Is that the kind of "Moderate Rep" you'd support?

That is exactly what the LW posters and LW talking heads would love to see from the Repubicans in the coming gen elections.
That is why they try to undermine and destroy any solid conservatives.
(Yes, even conservative posters. That means you Stoop!)

Serge Ibaka
11/14/2011, 07:23 PM
Okay, I do actually understand the abortion debate.

But why does "gay rights" terrify you all so much? I literally do not understand.

oudivesherpa
11/14/2011, 08:21 PM
Moderate Rep AKA pro-choice, gay rights, tax and spend, entitlement program republican.
Is that the kind of "Moderate Rep" you'd support?

abortion is NOT my major issue, It appears that the GOP wants to get in my bedroom and the Dems want to get in my wallet. At my age I'm much more concerned about my wallet. But there is a significant minority of GOP voters who are pro choice and want the Government out of their bedrooms.

Serge Ibaka
11/14/2011, 09:50 PM
abortion is NOT my major issue, It appears that the GOP wants to get in my bedroom and the Dems want to get in my wallet. At my age I'm much more concerned about my wallet. But there is a significant minority of GOP voters who are pro choice and want the Government out of their bedrooms.

lol. Yeah right!

What will you say next--that there's gay people who believe in deregulation and the free market? As if! lololololololol. :applouse:

oudivesherpa
11/15/2011, 01:59 PM
lol. Yeah right!

What will you say next--that there's gay people who believe in deregulation and the free market? As if! lololololololol. :applouse:

The goal of both the Republican and Democratic party is to get their candidates elected. And yes (outside of Oklahoma and the Bible Belt) there are moderate pro-choice Republicans, who will usually vote for GOP candidates. Also in the Democratic party there are pro-life (primarily Catholic voters) who will vote for a pro-choice candidates because they align with their views on other issues--higher taxes and more entitlements.

Candidates get nominated by appealing to their base, they get elected by broading their base by moderating their positions.

Trophy Husband
11/15/2011, 05:06 PM
I tend to think candidates get elected by having a clear message and by not changing their beliefs based on polling date.

oudivesherpa
11/15/2011, 08:03 PM
I tend to think candidates get elected by having a clear message and by not changing their beliefs based on polling date.

Noble thought, but you obviously missed the Clinton Adminstration.