Shapiro Gets Into Tense Back-and-Forth With Pro-Choice Student

The UVVA has a clause excepting abortion, it does not apply to abortion...

 

Murder is a legal definition defined by law, change the law to make it murder and then it will be murder.

 

Maybe he needs to ask the proper question as opposed to a loaded one.

 

Answer the questions. They are very straightforward and require only yes or no answers...:

Quote Originally Posted by Gorn Captain View Post

1. Do you support the death penalty for those convicted of murder? Yes or No?

2. If abortion were made illegal, is a woman self-inducing an abortion, committing a murder? Yes or No?

 

Which is an excellent case of liberals "having their cake and eating it too."

Where is the logic in that exception?

 

Which degree of murder? 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree?

 

What do YOU think should happen to women how kill their babies? Two women are in the delivery room minutes away from giving birth, one woman at the last moment decides she doesn't want to have the baby and be responsible for it so she takes and instrument rams up her uterus and kills the baby, the other gives birth and upon seeing the baby doesn't like the way it looks or just decides like the other mother she really doesn't want the child and kills it.

Is the former not murder and the latter is murder? What is the distinction other than a minute before the former baby was in her womb?

- - - Updated - - -

So humans can be the property of someone else?

 

You brought up the law, why don't you read it.


It all has to do with consent...


The Supreme Court that decided RvW was mostly conservative.....where do you get this "liberal" crap ?

Where do you get the idea that only liberals have abortions ?

- - - Updated - - -

Well YOU want women to be property of the state.......

If the fetus doesn't belong to the woman it's in who DOES own it??? You? The government??

- - - Updated - - -

Good "weasel-out-of-answering-the -question..".

 

Life begins for everyone at the very same moment, at conception and the life process begins. At the very moment of conception a new unique individual is created, unless of course the anomaly of maternal twins, and that very same life process we all go through from conception to our death begins.

Laws defined for the convenience of some with out regard to that human life in the womb, very BAD laws.

- - - Updated - - -

If you walk out into your backyard an someone is sleeping there can you kill them?

 

No, you are asking a question that can't be answered without qualification. So which is it? 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder? Do you want an answer or don't you? I believe you want an answer that comes from your boxed situation. Well, do you want an answer or don't you?

 

Only a liberal could, on the one hand, recognize a child in utero as a legal victim and, on the other say, it's a lump of cells.

 

Size and cost of government have nothing to do with the protection of innocent life but since you love big government why not this claimed instance of big government?

 

There was NO life on the planet BEFORE conception!? Really!

Who did the conceiving if there was no life until conception ?


There was life before conception and NO one has ever denied there is life after conception.

There is life...so what.

- - - Updated - - -

I never said it was a lump of cells.

Only a regressive has no idea what "consent" means or is unable to read the laws they bring up....

 

ROFL where on earth did you ever learn THAT nonsense. Tell me what genus and species is the baby before it is born if not homo sapien, human?

- - - Updated - - -

Depends on how the law would define it, it could merely be defined as an illegal abortion and carry a lesser sentence.

 

I read the law. I know what consent means. Only a hypocrite fails to recognize his hypocrisy.

 

How can one person control what is going on in another persons body? The mother caused what is going on in her body and if she chooses to kill the baby in her body to end it she is in control of that. Nature is what is controlling what is going on in her body.

 

The last question is equally applicable to you. No one's rights are absolute. If I am dying of nephrosis, do I have the right to force you to give me a kidney? This is what you are doing to pregnant women - you are forcing them to undergo birth. You consider this just because you have decided the 'right' of an imaginary person (the fetus) to be absolute, while the right of a real person is contingent.

As to your hypotheticals, it's reasonable to give a fetus, at an hour befor it's birth, some degree of legal protection. This is simply a recogniton of its advanced state of development and its ability to survive as an independent entity. These are fair legal distinctions based on informed medical opinion - in no way should they be interpreted as a recognition of the fetus as a person.

 

You are being given answers, no one is taking your bait.

It would just be another degree of homicide and defined accordingly under the law, unless of course you insisted it be treated like 1st Degree Murder, is that what you are proposing. And of course it could have varying degrees of punishment depending on how late in the term and how many times the woman has killed babies. That would be debate in the legislature.

So how many babies should a mother be allowed to kill before ANY legal sanction should be applied 2 - 4 - 6- 10 - 20? Or never, kill as many babies as she can without any legal sanction?

- - - Updated - - -

What do you believe is the scientific purpose of the womb?

- - - Updated - - -

Well in all animal species except for the rare few the female the "baby maker" or do you believe otherwise?

 

So A guy is having consensual sex with a woman. Is his Penis, since it's inside of her, now belonging to her to where she can now take a knife and cut it off?

It's scary that a lot of Liberals would probably agree that the woman has the right to cut it off. All bow before the almighty woman's body and whatever might be unfortunate enough to be inside of it at the time she decides she doesn't like it.

 

Because the family court system cares more about saving taxpayer money on welfare than it does preserving mens' reproductive rights.

Men should have no right to force women to have an abortion, under any circumstances, but they should have the same right to deny paternity that a woman has to refuse maternity.

- - - Updated - - -

It doesn't matter, because it's not your womb. Why is this concept so difficult for you to grasp?

 

It doesn't have to be eight weeks but you are wasting your time here. I have posted link after link to these deniers from government websites, from medical websites, form OBGYN/Pediatrics clinics speaking of caring "for your baby in the womb", "caring for the unborn baby" along with the dictionary and they still deny that it is a baby in there. I even challenged them to a bet, that we meet up at some large mall and go up to every pregnant woman we see and ask them is that their baby in their or their fetus and for every one that says fetus I will give them a $100 bill and for every one that says baby they give me $100................no takers.

 

You are also a baby maker. Two to tango, so to speak. However you have other functions as well. Some would even say you have a right to self-determination as to these functions.

The obsession with fetuses is incomprehensible in any rational sense. We may be sorry when children die in a Predator strike, but we will still go after terrorists. We make the decision that it is okay to sacrifice an actual living child's life to protect our interests.

This whole 'problem' is an imaginary conundrum. Simply define life as starting at birth, and forget about it.

 

That folk use colloquialisms and slang - for example: "Bun in the oven" does not actually mean that the woman is going to give birth to a loaf of bread.

The idea that a single human cell is a human or a baby or a child is unsupported silliness.

 

Did you notice the "" marks as I was using THEIR words not mine?

And so do women whats your point.

Some I do some I don't, what's your point? Say I want to drive the wrong way down a one way street, do I have a right to self-determination to do so?

You now make a specious comparison to wars between nations? Yes it is very important in modern startegic warfare to kill the population in order to limit the enemies capacity to continue the warfare against you. ALL the population there is not specific effort to go after the babies. AND in fact we do what we can to avoid that in type of warfare in which we are currently engaged. But if you do want to go there to make comparisons, which side purposely kills babies, us or them?

It is for the pro-killing babies side that's for sure. That is why the nonsensical pronouncements about life begins at some other time than conception and it's not a human until born, it is not a baby until born and on and on and on in order to make their unpalatable position less horrific.

Has been for as long as I know and certainly was when I study embryology while majoring in biology, but not something to forget.