It's obvious Abortion is wrong

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by JoakimFlorence, Jul 7, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You fail again. Go read all my previous posts in this thread explaining my position.
     
  2. RandomObserver

    RandomObserver Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Here are a couple of quotes from the point in time when you tried to explain your position:

    When I pointed out your criteria are too inclusive (my tonsils also are alive and have human DNA) you added:

    That led to a reminder that you cannot define something based on what it may BECOME in the future (otherwise pro-choice advocates could say an abortion is OK because the fetus is dead anyway - because it will eventually BECOME dead no matter what we do). Saying it WILL BECOME a person is a confession to the fact that it is NOT currently a person.

    If your position is that "It is a human person when it acquires the genetic material of a homo sapien" then it is wrong because it includes organic material that is clearly not a person (like my tonsils) and it excludes others (e.g. genetic aberrations with active minds, homo habilis, aliens from another planet, etc). If there was a different post where you had a more complete explanation of your definition of person-hood I invite you to provide a link to it.
     
  3. Zeffy

    Zeffy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,654
    Likes Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No, they can't. They were ordered by the courts to remove the feeding tube.
     
  4. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, The staff could be charged by a grand-jury or be prosecuted by vigilantes. The staff could assert the order as defense for their negligence although the vigilantes are not likely to bother listening.

    This is why this life and death topic is so difficult to address using honorable applications of U.S. law. Matters exceeding $20 dollars in value are guaranteed to be settled by a jury in the U.S. per the Seventh Amendment. This Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has, in fact, been nullified or repealed by the rulings of U.S. Court.

    U.S. Courts and U.S. Laws are not honorable. This is why logic, facts, and fairness are inconsequential when discussing regulations of human gestation. The experiment of self-rule begun with thirteen United States was overthrown by corporate America as planned by the very same oligarchy in early 1900's to profit from the next World Wars.

    Very soon, one major party will attempt to make it illegal to possess any "assault" firearm outside the home.

    Very soon, armed black vigilantes will plan for and attack armed police officers wearing body armor. These vigilantes could employ media-created "sniper" tactics though not trained to be snipers when in the U.S. mercenary force. Hmm...

    Very soon, one major American party will be overrun by one very wealthy "white person". This imposter will be resisted by another major party willing to be as dishonorable as SCOTUS in order to become POTUS and wholly invalidate SCOTUS irreversibly.

    I will not vote for any official with jurisdiction outside my county.

    There is no logical way to decide if abortion of human gestation should be encouraged for blacks and other minorities or if this type continuing discriminatory regulation of gestation is wrong. More black babies are aborted than are born in one large American city today. If this is true in New York today;

    Is this clear proof Roe v Wade was a resounding success as implemented by the white American oligarchy regardless of how orange one oligarch may sometimes appear?

    Very soon, one major party will attempt to make it legal to abort human gestation instead of delivering the baby when labor begins in the interest of "consent", liberty, and racial population control.
     
  5. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is just nonsense. Law and society actually consider Trump supporters persons despite the fact that supporting Trump requires being brain dead.
     
  6. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Reject away - it does not make a difference

    Now tell me - what are your plans for stopping abortion?
     
  7. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113






    Your "vigilantes" you worship don't sound like THEY are very honorable and certainly have no respect for life......does one have to be a fetus for you to value their life???

    - - - Updated - - -




    What YOU don't get is that it just doesn't matter if a fetus is a "person" or not....it will be legal to kill it either way...
     
  8. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Stopping" abortion will probably never occur, just as no human activity can ever be completely stopped no matter how socially rejected and legally banned. The failure to stop all abortions is not a reason to make abortion legal, just as society's failure to stop all murder does not mean murder should be made legal.

    The performance of abortions cannot be dealt with adequately until the morality of abortion is resolved. If the baby is a person, or is not a person, then all the rest falls into place naturally. But until it is definitively determined to not be a person it must be assumed to be a person and abortion treated as the killing of a person - abortion permitted when the life of the mother is significantly at risk, no abortion for convenience.

    And no matter what the outcome of the question of the baby being a person or not, teens should not be allowed to have an abortion without their parents consent (which is required for all other medical procedures, even for basic dental treatment) and schools and the government should not be promoting sexual promiscuity.
     
  9. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you want a fetus to have more rights than anyone else and why can't you answer that question?



    Why do you say silly things like , """and schools and the government should not be promoting sexual promiscuity"".....when, like your other statements, you have no proof??


    I have never seen nor heard mainstream schools and/or the government promoting sexual promiscuity....




    You: """And no matter what the outcome of the question of the baby being a person or not,"""

    It has BEEN decided, it is NOT a person.....
    You claim you are "pro-life" but when abortion was illegal many women died trying to abort....so you are really only Pro-Fetus-Life.













    What YOU don't get is that it just doesn't matter if a fetus is a "person" or not....it will be legal to kill it either way...
     
  10. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    100% irrelevant, the status of the unborn whether persons or not has zero bearing on the legality of abortion.

    If the unborn are persons then "naturally" they have to abide by all the restrictions other persons abide by, and "naturally" if they are injuring another person without their consent that person can defend themselves up to and including deadly force if required, furthermore the state, under the equal protection clause has a duty to aid her .. shame you are ignorant of your own Constitution and laws.

    This should be on a case by case basis, the circumstances involved should be investigated and a decision made as to whether parents should be informed, no parent should be able to force their, mostly, religious ideology onto their children .. if the courts can decide that the child of a Jehovah Witness can be given blood etc over and above the wishes of the parents then they can decide to allow a girl an abortion.

    You ignorance of what constitutes comprehensive sex education is obvious in your telling assumption that schools and the government are promoting sexual promiscuity.
     
  11. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This issue HAS ALREADY BEEN definitively determined. That you do not agree with this decision (referred to as Roe vs. Wade) does not change this fact. You have avoided answering the questions posed and ignored the realities of accomplishing that which you wish to transpire....Time to fess up or shut up.
    Are you willing to remove a womans rights and freedom to take control of her body through legislation?
    Do you have a definition of the term "Person" we can use to think as you do?
    How would you suggest we recognize and enforce your new legislation?
     
  12. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes there is. You're living proof. You're for abortion.
    Women shouldn't have the right to murder.
     
  13. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I am not for abortion, I am for women having the right to their own body .

    You aren't. Therefore you are against the Constitution.

    Women don't have the right to murder.
     
  14. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The choice of murder.

    Yes you do.

    Look up "pro life" in the dictionary.
     
  15. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's as logical as saying if I'm against murder then I'm for illegal killing.

    So? Previous patterns show that can easily change.
     
  16. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's extended to CITIZENS born or naturalized. Therefore by your logic we can treat Mexicans as dirt.
     
  17. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No it doesn't.

    http://freedomoutpost.com/judicial-...rtion-sexual-orientation-homosexual-marriage/

    And not too long agao you would be in opposition of "separate but equal". Your point?
     
  18. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not her body she's aborting. Otherwise I wouldn't care. If she want to abort her body she can have at it.
    Giant leap in logic.

    Glad you agree with me.
     
  19. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You keep whining about "it's murder" but YOU have NEVER proven in any way whatsoever, legally, scientifically that it is murder.

    Repeating your bumper sticker philosophy is not proof that you are correct....


    Just like you have never shown that I advocate that women should get abortions but keep babbling, with NO PROOF, that I do......
     
  20. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  21. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you persist in that insanity.....you've had it explained to you numerous times.....to have rights one has to be BORN.....it has nothing to do with Mexicans....what is this weird crap you have with treating Mexicans like dirt....are you looking for an excuse....???
     
  22. sdelsolray

    sdelsolray Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2016
    Messages:
    1,322
    Likes Received:
    300
    Trophy Points:
    83
    My point was twofold. First, that the SCOTUS has ruled the 14th Amendment is applicable to the abortion issue. Second, that you should study before your write.

    Just not in any way you can demonstrate. You really just make stuff up, don't you?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Macabee fancies himself a legal scholar, particularly on Constitutional law.
     
  23. RandomObserver

    RandomObserver Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Reference: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-life
    Simple/Full definition of pro-life:
    opposed to abortion

    Reference: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-choice
    Simple definition of pro-choice:
    believing that pregnant women should have the right to choose to have an abortion
    Full definition of pro-choice:
    favoring the legalization of abortion

    Reference: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-abortion
    Full/simple definition of pro-abortion
    favoring the legalization of abortion

    Being "for abortion" implies that a person wants every pregnancy to end in abortion. If that is your intended meaning then you are using the wrong term. If you acknowledge that pro-choice and pro-abortion mean the same thing (favoring the legalization of abortion) one must wonder if you choose the more perjorative term because you are know the facts do not support your position and you need the subliminal emotional impact of a term that incorrectly implies "for abortion."

    Reference: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slavery
    Full definition of slavery:
    1 : drudgery, toil
    2 : submission to a dominating influence
    3 (a) : the state of a person who is a chattel of another
    (b) : the practice of slaveholding

    It could be argued that pro-lifers want pregnant women to "submit to a dominating influence" so pro-lifers should be called pro-slavery advocates.

    Either approach wastes time on subliminal emotional appeals and distracts from discussion of issues relevant to the issue. Does anybody really want a matter as serious as abortion to be decided by bumper-sticker slogans?
     
    Fugazi likes this.
  24. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :roflol: :roflol: He can "fancy" all he wants, as usual there is no proof ...
     
  25. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    From your own link;

    If you don't agree with having the right to privacy protected by the Law of the Land then are you willing to allow everyone to see your personal medical files on the internet?

    Because that is exactly what you are advocating by not having a right to privacy under the 14th Amendment.

    Your own state could pass a law making your medical records public and posting them on the internet.

    Should everyone have the right to know that the lady down the street has incontinence? Should personal bladder problems be the subject of discussion on Facebook?

    Without a right to privacy that is what will happen.

    The SCOTUS rightly decided that the RIGHT TO PRIVACY belonged individually to We the People and not the state.

    Under the right to privacy an abortion is between a woman and her doctor.

    If you want to outlaw the right to privacy you can follow the procedure for passing an amendment to the Constitution.

    Given that women are a majority I don't see that going very far but best of luck in trying to use that as the means to outlaw abortion.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page