Bush disagrees with South Dakota abortion ban [Archive]

Elgalad

03-01-2006, 03:12 AM

If abortion is legal in cases of rape or incest, shouldn't the guilty perp be subject to the death penalty?

Castration works too. I'm not referring to the chemical kind either, rather the good old fashioned, 'cut the nut'.

Sorry for that image, folks. :licky:

Back to the OP though ~

This is the point where I usually get into trouble when in friendly debates with liberals who I respect. Yes there are such things.. they are called brothers and sisters and work associates. But I digress.

The argument goes like this: I say, "I am opposed to Abortion because I believe it is tantamount to murder of an innocent unborn child."

The rebuttal is often phrased as, "But you (like the President, et al) Do make the exception in cases of rape and incest, do you not?"

To which I reply, "uh, no. Why should the child suffer the crimes of his/her parents?" (hat-tip to Homes, GMTA)

And the final outcome is, "Why you BEAST! How could you force the poor victim (sic ~ this is always the woman and Not the baby) to be forced to endure that oppressive pregnancy???"

And so, I _sigh_ in abject despair, having been easily painted into a corner by political correctness. 'Cause you see, reason and logic have nothing to do with this argument, it's all about Emotion. It also doesn't help that I have to moderate my own arguments while my opponents seem to have free rein with theirs. :licky: But that's what I get for trying to win the hearts and minds of those closest to me, and get them to come back to the light.

This has got to be one of the worst aspects of the whole abortion issue as it stands. Until opponents of Abortion can work out logically the 'exceptions' to it, we're not going to be able to effectively fight to get it outlawed once again! I don't know whether the President is truly opposed to abortion in cases of rape and incest or whether, like so many other politicians these days (but particularly Republicans), he has simply gone with the politically acceptable version of the pro-life argument.

In any case, I am with Homes 100% on this. I simply fail to see how it is Just to say that the child conceived from casual, promiscuous, consensual sex is any more deserving to live than the one conceived through a violent criminal act against his/her mother, and vice versa. Neither child knows anything about the conditions of their creation, and in fact, those conditions are totally irrelevant. Even if both children are born and destined for adoption, to never know their biological parents (this may actually be preferable in the latter case), where is the stigma attached to THEM? They may not have been wanted by their gene donors, but they ARE wanted by a couple somewhere who are their True parents and who will love them and raise them as their own.

God has a design for each and every one of us, and for anyone to decide arbitrarily that they know best, that the circumstances around another's life aren't acceptable enough to allow it, is the height of folly. God doesn't need us to micromanage His plan. And should we try, we Will regret it someday.

-Elgalad

Native American

03-01-2006, 05:24 AM

Ever since the last State of the Union speech the president has turned even more Liberal. The president appears to hate states rights.

What makes you say that? If anything, his quoted comment seems to indicate he supports states rights! As he said, it's a state law.

He merely added that his own personal preference is to allow the slaughter of live human babies in the case of rape and incest.

Liberals and the Democrat Party endorse the slaughter of live human beings for any desired reason or whim. President Bush is far removed from that opinion!

Native American

03-01-2006, 05:41 AM

Man, I am so glad you said that. I thought I would get banned here if I made a comment like that. I agree! I don't think he's so much become a Liberal as he is caving in to them. I think Bill Kristol needs to have a good talk with everyone on this administration. If that doesn't work a good "what's the matter with you?" head slapping would help.

I really don't think that's a fair assessment. Rather, I think President Bush is wisely pursuing a policy of "incrementalism". Consider, for example, what he has accomplished:

* defeated 2 liberal Democrats (both of whom are totally pro-abortion, abortion-on-demand, for whatever personal whim or fancy) in the last 2 presidential races

* passed tax cuts, over the objections of the Democrat Party

* attempted Social Security reform, over the objection of the Democrat Party

* nominated and placed two apparently solid conservative justices on the Supreme Court, over the objection of the Democrat Party

* successfully pursued the war on Muslim Terrorism, over the objection of the Democrat Party

Sure, has he accomplished every goal he set out to accomplish? No. Thanks in no small part to the ongoing and relentless attack on him by the Democrats and by the Antique Media and even by some Republicans. But it wasn't his fault Social Security reform wasn't passed.

And he may yet appoint even another conservative justice to the Supreme Court during his next 3 years in office! And unless and until the Supreme Court is straightened out, it will do no good for states to pass (as they ought!) laws outlawing abortion. President Bush has affirmed states rights to outlaw abortion, while at the same time reaching out to moderate Democrats who, like him, oppose abortion in 99% of the cases and only support it in the case of rape.

It's very hard to shove aside 50 years of Liberalism in just 8 years of a GOP presidency and control of the Congress. Plus the GOP margin of control in Congress is fairly thin, and there's way too many girlymen Republicans in the Congress who are only 1 step away from being Democrats.

So I really think President Bush is doing about the best he can, and has accomplished a huge amount for this nation and for the conservative cause, given the opposition he faces at every turn.

I blame the weak-kneed girlymen in Congress more than I blame President Bush, for having not yet totally implemented the Conservative Cause. And we've got the Congressional elections coming up in 8 months, and rather than fret about and blame (like the Democrats do) President Bush (who isn't running in any of those election!) we need to blame the congressional Democrats and the nervous Nellie Republicans, and focus our attention on removing as many Democrats as possible from the House and the Senate!

Native American

03-01-2006, 05:48 AM

I simply fail to see how it is Just to say that the child conceived from casual, promiscuous, consensual sex is any more deserving to live than the one conceived through a violent criminal act against his/her mother, and vice versa. Neither child knows anything about the conditions of their creation, and in fact, those conditions are totally irrelevant. Even if both children are born and destined for adoption, to never know their biological parents (this may actually be preferable in the latter case), where is the stigma attached to THEM? They may not have been wanted by their gene donors, but they ARE wanted by a couple somewhere who are their True parents and who will love them and raise them as their own.

-Elgalad

Well said, Sir! Well said indeed.

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-01-2006, 08:11 AM

In any case, I am with Homes 100% on this. I simply fail to see how it is Just to say that the child conceived from casual, promiscuous, consensual sex is any more deserving to live than the one conceived through a violent criminal act against his/her mother, and vice versa. Neither child knows anything about the conditions of their creation, and in fact, those conditions are totally irrelevant. Even if both children are born and destined for adoption, to never know their biological parents (this may actually be preferable in the latter case), where is the stigma attached to THEM? They may not have been wanted by their gene donors, but they ARE wanted by a couple somewhere who are their True parents and who will love them and raise them as their own.

God has a design for each and every one of us, and for anyone to decide arbitrarily that they know best, that the circumstances around another's life aren't acceptable enough to allow it, is the height of folly. God doesn't need us to micromanage His plan. And should we try, we Will regret it someday.
-Elgalad

Thank you El. :claps:

Just for the record, I AM that child. My biological mother TOLD me had abortion been legal in 1963 instead of 1973, I would not be here today. Do I NOT deserve my life, because of the consequence of my conception? Did my parents NOT deserve their child because in the beginning I was unwanted?

Also I KILLED that child. Given the difference between 1963 (illegal) and 1980 (legal), my child was denied her life. Was she any less worthy than I? As a 15 year old did I REALLY have the right to decide the fate of an innocent created by God? No, but the law allowed me to.

Every single day of my life, I life with these facts. Consequence of conception is irrelevant to worth and value ... why? Because in reality, neither the father nor the mother created that child, God did. Who are we to deny existence to His creation?

True Grace

03-01-2006, 08:26 AM

Because in reality, neither the father nor the mother created that child, God did. Who are we to deny existence to His creation?

Amen.

Beowulf

03-01-2006, 08:12 PM

Ever since the last State of the Union speech the president has turned even more Liberal. The president appears to hate states rights.
Agreed! He doesn't even listen to members of his own party anymore!

Republican_Legion

03-01-2006, 08:31 PM

Agreed! He doesn't even listen to members of his own party anymore!

I think the problem about the presidents spending is not completly the presidents fault anymore but he sure isnt helping by not vetoeing.
I think its the elitist GOP lobbyists who pay off both partys to support pork and illegal immigration.

CAGW(citizens against goverment waste) shows that both delay and frist are staunch pork supporters while a decent number of GOPers like John Kyl(R-AZ), John Ensign(R-NV), John Sununu(R-NH) and Rick Santorum(R-PA) are all giving good ratings from the Anti-Pork website. The GOP elitists seem to have convinced Santorum to not run in 08, the elitists wont let a true conservative run.

Even Zell Miller(D-GA) was listed as number 10 in CAGW's 2004 list of best ratings. http://www.cagw.org/site/VoteCenter?page=congScorecard&congress=108&location=S&lcmd=score-desc&lcmd_cf= (http://www.cagw.org/site/VoteCenter?page=congScorecard&congress=108&location=S&lcmd=score-desc&lcmd_cf)

Nutrider99

03-01-2006, 10:38 PM

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush signalled his opposition to a South Dakota abortion ban that forbids the procedure even in cases of rape or incest, saying he favors such exceptions.

His opinion is irrelevant. It's a state issue. Bush is from Texas, not South Dakota. When it is challeneged in the court, if the Supreme Court makes the right choice, vacates Roe V Wade and sends the issue back to the states, Bush's opinion will matter even less. This is a non-issue.

I could not condemn a woman for aborting the child of a rapist, though I would prefer she did not. It makes sense to terminate tubal pregnancies and other problems that threaten the life of the mother, though I would challenge anyone to come up with a scenario in which a partial birth abortion of an incubatable fetus could possibly have a bearing on the health of the mother. However, there will always be abortion on demand states so long as there are liberals. If North Dakota wishes to take the high ground, then more power to them; power that is granted by the Constitution.

Warlady

03-02-2006, 09:53 PM

DeclinetoState

03-02-2006, 11:19 PM

Anybody that would force his daughter to have sex with him so that she gets pregnant should be taken out and shot or hanged--or at least castrated.

:frown:

Republican_Legion

03-02-2006, 11:24 PM

If abortion were only illegal except for Incest the women wanting an abortion will claim their daddy/uncle/brother raped them.

Doctors are always making exceptions these days as its easy to be Prescribed alot of things that most people shouldnt need except certain reasons.

A woman could tell the Death Doctor 'My brother Raped me' and he'd believe it since his business relys on performing abortions for the 'incest' victims.

Republican_Legion

03-02-2006, 11:29 PM

The only Abortions I support is the rare situation when the mother & Child are both certain to die and the only way to save either one of them is to choose the lesser of 2 evils.

I also support the Abortion known as 'Proctection', make your partner use a condom with spermicide and you wont get pregnant ! I consider this a abortion because the person willingly having sex with 'protection' is preventing a Life that might have been born if they hadn't used proctection.

Warlady

03-02-2006, 11:37 PM

RL are you Catholic?

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-03-2006, 08:48 AM

I'm sorry but I have to agree with one of Bush's exceptions...incest. In-line breeding is a serious problem for the child and if it is caught early like the day after the rape then it is best for the child to be aborted. There are so many medical problems with incest the list is too long to name. I'm speaking from a strictly medical POV. I don't want to see any child aborted but there should be some exceptions..the life of the mother being another...although rare there are some instances where the mother's life is threatened.

I must respectfully differ a bit.

I personally am familiar with four persons who are products of incest -- two were people in my adoption group, who didn't KNOW they were until they located their biological mothers. Healthwise, neither have had any problems, and were certainly shocked to find out the circumstance of their birth. These are people I would never have become acquainted with except for the coming together of this group with a specific purpose.

The other two are members of my own family (adopted family), two siblings born products of their mother and her father. Both are in wheelchairs, both in debilitated states and neither can feed, dress, or care for themselves. They are supported by government funding (state, I believe). I see them every year at the family reunion. The father was never prosecuted, because it was kept within the family (don't ask me why, I have NO idea) but it is known for a fact within the family this is the case.

The problem I have with the exception of incest is that there is no determination factor that I am aware of that will predict which of these children will end up like my distant cousins and which like the ladies I met in that group. There is a great chance that perfectly healthy normal children are being killed simply because there is a chance of problems. Alas, again, this is still not the fault of the child, regardless of condition they find themselves in. I believe God grants life for a purpose, even when and if we don't understand what it might be.

HOWEVER, the stastical chance of pregnancy through incest is low, and given if abortion were illegal in all cases save this one, I think the abortion rates would still remain low. I don't think women would start claiming incest, because te doctors would be beholden to report this to the authorities, which false allegations would be a crime. This is easily proved with DNA screening, and so much harder for a false claim to gain a foothold.

This (incest) is the only exception which I can reasonably agree upon (sadly, and reluctantly), that and the extreme danger to the life of the mother (such as ectopic pregnancy) which would result in grave harm or death.

Montag

03-03-2006, 02:48 PM

If they made abortion Illegal except for rape then every woman wanting an abortion will claim her partner raped her.

You have got to be kidding me? There's already a social stigma about getting an abortion; being raped is even worse. Most women would be reasonable and use birth control instead of 'crying rape' if their priests would stop telling them condoms and birth control pills don't work.

S-T

03-03-2006, 03:35 PM

I believe abortion should be illegal, period. Reasonable people can differ on the life of the mother exception, but the rape/incest exception shouldn't even be argued among true pro-lifers. A big :claps: to the people who have pointed out that "rape" cases will skyrocket if that is the only exception to an abortion ban.

I don't think the President is practicing "incrementalism" by stating he opposes the lack of exceptions in the SD ban. He is stating his convictions. To some extent, I am sure those convictions are politically motivated, but the President probably has bought into the emotional argument for the rape/incest exception.

Babies should not be executed for the crimes of their fathers. Even though genetic problems exist with incest, I do not believe that justifies actively killing an innocent baby. (I'm not Catholic, either. I'm a reformed & evangelical Protestant.)

I picketed the local abortuary yesterday and watched 15 or so women or couples go in. (Thursday is the day they do the abortions.) One couple went in, only to come out a few minutes later. The woman got into her car and drove off, leaving her boyfriend to walk. Apparently, she really didn't want that abortion.

Republican_Legion

03-03-2006, 06:19 PM

RL are you Catholic?

Yes. Why ?

Republican_Legion

03-03-2006, 06:21 PM

Most women would be reasonable and use birth control instead of 'crying rape' if their priests would stop telling them condoms and birth control pills don't work.

So now your attacking the Catholic Church and your advocating 'Death pills'.

Troll Alert.

DoctorDoom

03-03-2006, 06:29 PM

There's already a social stigma about getting an abortion ...How much of a "social stigma" is felt by the sluts who bought this shirt from PPFA?

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/AbT-shirt0.jpg" />

BTW, libs surely do make public spectacles of themselves every time there's a pro-infanticide march. Are they also experiencing a "social stigma". Clue time: in our sick day, having an abortion is not only socially acceptable, but is a source of bragging rights in some circles.

True Grace

03-03-2006, 06:48 PM

How much of a "social stigma" is felt by the sluts who bought this shirt from PPFA?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/AbT-shirt0.jpg

BTW, libs surely do make public spectacles of themselves every time there's a pro-infanticide march. Are they also experiencing a "social stigma". Clue time: in our sick day, having an abortion is not only socially acceptable, but is a source of bragging rights in some circles.

That shirt is disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

And the pro-abortionists always try to claim abortion is such a "difficult and painful decision".

jAk

03-04-2006, 06:47 AM

So now your attacking the Catholic Church and your advocating 'Death pills'.

Troll Alert.

Dumbass alert. We are trying to prevent birth, and by preventing birth you prevent a financial circumstance that will plague you for eighteen years. Pills used to knock out the chance of pregnancy are hardly a bad thing. Now I am not a huge fan of abortion either but it is a scientifically known fact that before the baby hits the three month period, it is just a clump of cells no bigger than my pinky finger. There is a potential for life, but no life. It is just a parasite.

You guys are too extremist in your views. Most moderate people support 1st trimester abortion, this is a fact. We are not run by an extremist government with extremist policies. We shift from the left to the right through years but for the most part things are good enough as they are. You can't win every battle. If you did, our country would be ****ed up. And if the liberals won, it would be even more ****ed up.

Abortion will always exist, it always has, it can be performed illegally. And what then? We allow the mother to die because she couldn't do it legally, professionally, and safely?

Not everyone in this country believes in God. I don't believe in God. So I don't believe 'God put that baby there for a purpose.' Only you can put a baby there, you and your semen, or your egg. God has nothing to do with that process. He doesn't force you to **** your spouse.

SkiGuy

03-04-2006, 07:29 AM

You guys are too extremist in your views.

Abortion will always exist, it always has, it can be performed illegally. And what then? We allow the mother to die because she couldn't do it legally, professionally, and safely?

What about the mother (and father) accepting responsibility for their actions? Or is that too extreme a view for you too? I have no problem with birth control, so use that (which is readily available in every drug store and supermarket) instead of killing a baby.

S-T

03-04-2006, 08:28 AM

You guys are too extremist in your views. Most moderate people support 1st trimester abortion, this is a fact.
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-04-2006, 08:45 AM

Abortion will always exist, it always has, it can be performed illegally. And what then? We allow the mother to die because she couldn't do it legally, professionally, and safely?

Yep. So ye reap, so shall ye sow. :uhh: Of course not! NO ONE wants them to die, nor do we want their children to die.

YOU are making assumptions:

I) You are inferring that the conception would STILL have taken place in an "Illegal Abortion World", but the chances go WAY down for this,
. . A) because MOST people obey THE LAW,
. . . . 1 - so they will be less likely to engage in behavior that will create conception,
. . . . 2 - they will consistently, or more ardently, practice safer sex
. . B) and MOST people aren't so mentally unstable that they would actually RISK personal harm for extreme measures,
but let's say they do, then

II) You assume the woman is so desparate that she would seek out a back-alley abortion ...
. . A) from a doctor performing illegal abortions,
. . . . 1 - well even if she DID the medical profession has improved GREATLY and
. . . . 2 - the horrific conditions of back-alley abortions of yore no longer exist,
. . . . 3 - and the VERY REAL threat of lawsuit brings down the risk of the illegal procedure because the doctor can't afford the aftermath,
OR because limitation of cost, A VERY SMALL NUMBER WILL THEN
. . B) attempt extreme measures by their own hands, BUT faced with having to do this themselves MOST will
. . . . 1 - keep the baby themselves, or
. . . . 2 - give the baby up for adoption.

With abortion illegal, the numbers go down (DECREASE)exponentially, as you go down the above list (with the exception of adoption, which will INCREASE), as comparatively when abortion is legal the INCREASE of the numbers of children concieved then aborted (with the exception of adoption, which will DECREASE).

If we are all truthful in our assertions that abortion should be rare, forget the other two (legal & safe) because if the first is true the other two become negligible, then our TRUE goal should be FEWER conceptions in the FIRST place! Preventative measures are much more preferrable than corrective measures, and for the most part they are more legal and more safe, :smirky: .

Riverboat

03-04-2006, 10:52 AM

You have got to be kidding me? There's already a social stigma about getting an abortion; being raped is even worse. Most women would be reasonable and use birth control instead of 'crying rape' if their priests would stop telling them condoms and birth control pills don't work.Who's kidding whom? I don't know any priest that tells women that condoms don't work. They don't, by the way. But that's not why they're wrong. Birth control - that's one misnomer I'd love to see retired - is nothing but poison.

If there's a social stigma involved, it's because the woman who procured an abortion knows deep down that what she did is wrong.

There is NEVER a reason to abort a child. We don't kill innocent victims for the crime of another person. When people use the "life of the mother" exception, they often include "mental health," which leaves open a pretty wide door. Congressman Ron Paul (a practicing ob-gyn) has said that he has never seen a single instance of this necessity in the hundreds of deliveries he has performed. However, for the sake of argument, let us suppose such a case arose. Let us also suppose a man is strapped inside an automobile after a severe accident. He has life-threatening injuries that may become worse if he is moved, but the car has caught on fire. So, do you shoot him and then move him, or move him with the hope he may live? Remove the baby, with utmost regard to the care for the baby AND the mother, and hope that the baby will survive.

Biff

03-04-2006, 11:15 AM

There is NEVER a reason to abort a child. We don't kill innocent victims for the crime of another person.

I have to agree with Riverboat. Rape is indeed a very very sad, unfortunate thing to happen to a woman. However, the function of a woman is to bring to life into this world, and that life is God-breathed. There should absolutely be NO exception for rape. God can create good out of bad situations and people should trust Him in that.

Republican_Legion

03-04-2006, 05:47 PM

You guys are too extremist in your views. Most Idiots support 1st trimester abortion, this is a fact.

First you call us extremists and then you assume a unproven fact.
You are in fact a clueless Liberal.

jAk

03-04-2006, 10:15 PM

First you call us extremists and then you assume a unproven fact.
You are in fact a clueless Liberal.

I have liberal social values but I have conservative economic values. It is for this reason that I don't get along with conservatives or liberals, but only moderates.

However, I understand and even support your way of thinking. I just don't agree with it. That is the great thing about our country too, we all don't, and shouldn't agree on every issue.

If you guys have a problem with my views, feel free to let me know. I am not a troll however, and I respect your opinions. But I am not afraid to let you know that I disagree with them.

Now get down to the economic situation of your country, and then we could all talk business on an even foot.

Republican_Legion

03-04-2006, 10:31 PM

I have liberal social values but I have conservative economic values. It is for this reason that I don't get along with conservatives or liberals, but only moderates.

However, I understand and even support your way of thinking. I just don't agree with it. That is the great thing about our country too, we all don't, and shouldn't agree on every issue.

If you guys have a problem with my views, feel free to let me know. I am not a troll however, and I respect your opinions. But I am not afraid to let you know that I disagree with them.

Now get down to the economic situation of your country, and then we could all talk business on an even foot.

I dont buy it. You only post in threads dealing with social issues so you havent shown your conservative side if you even have one.

Yes lets talk about the economy if thats you area where you agree with us. Theres been threads about the bush economy, threads about unemployment, threads about taxes, threads about outsourcing and threads about gas prices and you havent posted in any of those.

So when someone comes in shoving Social Liberalism around and calling people 'dumbasses' 'extremists' and other 'vulgar' words I find it hard to believe your not a Liberal.

Theres been whole lot of threads dealing with the economy and you havent commented on them, so saying your a fiscal conservative social liberal is so far unproven around here.

Too be nice, I'll post you links to threads that center around economic issues.

Republican_Legion

03-04-2006, 10:43 PM

So the economy under Bush is dead, huh? (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=31487&highlight=economy)

Retail sales see best gains since late '99 (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=32321&highlight=economy)

Thomas Sowell: Myths of rich and poor (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=32080&highlight=economy)

How Would You Balance the Budget?? (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=31886&highlight=economy)

More than 7 million more Americans are employed today than when Bush took office (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=32020&highlight=economy)

Unemployment rate drops to 4.7 percent, the lowest since July 2001 (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=31940&highlight=economy)

Savings Rate Lowest Since Great Depression (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=31818&highlight=economy)

Sick of High Gas Prices? Thank a Liberal -- Rush Limbaugh (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=31290&highlight=economy)

Excuse me? Where the hell is the media on the stock market? (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=31059&highlight=economy)

Top Dem On Finance Comittee Calls Outsourcing-"Fact of Life" (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=31282&highlight=economy)

Look at household net worth, not debt (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=30889&highlight=economy)

Ok that should be enough :grin:

jAk

03-05-2006, 06:51 AM

I dont buy it. You only post in threads dealing with social issues so you havent shown your conservative side if you even have one.

Yes lets talk about the economy if thats you area where you agree with us. Theres been threads about the bush economy, threads about unemployment, threads about taxes, threads about outsourcing and threads about gas prices and you havent posted in any of those.

So when someone comes in shoving Social Liberalism around and calling people 'dumbasses' 'extremists' and other 'vulgar' words I find it hard to believe your not a Liberal.

Theres been whole lot of threads dealing with the economy and you havent commented on them, so saying your a fiscal conservative social liberal is so far unproven around here.

Too be nice, I'll post you links to threads that center around economic issues.

I rarely post, and when I do it is to things that I find appalling, like the fact that people don't support the abortion of rape victims or incest. I'd post more but I have a busy squedule outside these forums. Whether you buy my story or not, I honestly don't give a shit.

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-05-2006, 07:34 AM

I rarely post, and when I do it is to things that I find appalling, like the fact that people don't support the abortion of rape victims or incest.

Please explain why you find those of us who do not support the murder of an innocent child based upon the sins of their fathers (rape/incest), appalling. Please realize, if you address me, you will be speaking to the product of a rapist, an adoptee, and an aborter of a rapist's child, and the mother of an unplanned pregnancy, so I'm quite familiar with the different facets of this issue, which I feel makes me uniquely qualified for the discussion.

brilliantLiberal

03-05-2006, 07:47 AM

We are trying to prevent birth.... Pills used to knock out the chance of pregnancy are hardly a bad thing.
Agreed. An equivolent to RU486 or something SAFER should be part of any rape kit. Pregnancy DOES NOT occur when a sperm and an egg come into contact. Pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg is bonded to the uterine wall and accepted by the host. Whether that pregnancy is prevented by interfering with the bonding process, concealing the sperm in a condom, preventing the formation of egg or keeping the ejaculate extraneous of the vaginal canal has no bearing on whether a pregnancy has occured.

Now I am not a huge fan of abortion either but it is a scientifically known fact that before the baby hits the three month period, it is just a clump of cells no bigger than my pinky finger. There is a potential for life, but no life. It is just a parasite.
You are mixing science with nonsense. The size of the cell mass is irelevant, it IS life, not potential life. It IS parasitic, as is anything which is dependant its host for nurishment. It IS human life, because that is the only thing the fetus can become. What it is not is VIABLE. It cannot live outside of its mother. Since the mother has 100% authority on her body, she also must have 100% authority on any non-viable life within that body.

Regardless, whatever your opinion of abortion, 50% of all pregnancies are spontaneously aborted. Conditions have to be just right for childbirth to occur. Preventing the pregnancy form occurring by whatever barrior is preferable to terminating the life once it begins.

You guys are too extremist in your views.
On abortion, most are.

Most moderate people support 1st trimester abortion, this is a fact.
No, that's an opinion. Under certain conditions, ie rape, incest etc people support first trimester abortion. However, abortion on demand as retroactive birth control is opposed by any rational person.

Abortion will always exist, it always has, it can be performed illegally.
Abortion is a matter for the states to decide, not the federal government. NO tax dollars should go to support abortion. No government should be in the business of killing its citizens, however small. Let the clinics pay for it with the billions they save fighting this issue in courts.

Biff

03-05-2006, 07:56 AM

Agreed. An equivolent to RU486 or something SAFER should be part of any rape kit. Pregnancy DOES NOT occur when a sperm and an egg come into contact.

You are playing semantics games! Regardless of what the fertilized egg is attached to, it is fertilized and is a human life! Distinguishing between life and non-life by what the fertilized egg happens to be attached to is ridiculous.

Since the mother has 100% authority on her body, she also must have 100% authority on any non-viable life within that body.

God has 100% authority on her body, she does not.

Preventing the pregnancy form occurring by whatever barrior is preferable to terminating the life once it begins.

Life begins at conception.

jAk

03-05-2006, 08:06 AM

You are playing semantics games! Regardless of what the fertilized egg is attached to, it is fertilized and is a human life! Distinguishing between life and non-life by what the fertilized egg happens to be attached to is ridiculous.

[color=red]

God has 100% authority on her body, she does not.

Life begins at conception.

The law states that God has 0% authority on her own body. Stop mixing God into politics, it is illegal to do so in this country in any court.

SkiGuy

03-05-2006, 08:14 AM

The law states that God has 0% authority on her own body. Stop mixing God into politics, it is illegal to do so in this country in any court.
Typical Liberal response everytime someone brings up God. Perhaps you can show us how mixing God and politics is illegal? Perhaps someone can explain to me how the ACLU has succeeded in all their God-removal legislation with their warped and wrong interpretation of the First Amendment. Has Congress or SCOTUS been asleep at the wheel or something?

jAk

03-05-2006, 08:24 AM

Typical Liberal response everytime someone brings up God. Perhaps you can show us how mixing God and politics is illegal? Perhaps someone can explain to me how the ACLU has succeeded in all their God-removal legislation with their warped and wrong interpretation of the First Amendment. Has Congress or SCOTUS been asleep at the wheel or something?

I don't agree with removing God from public, at all. As a matter of fact, I am sickened by it, as I think God stands for morality.

However, mixing God into law is illegal. It is different with politics, many people let God guide their political beliefs. I am not against that. I am against a man going into court, stating 'God put that baby there, therefore it shouldn't be aborted.' And then the court takes that into consideration. It is against every principle our country has in law.

I can't tell you how the ACLU has continually succeeded in trying to kill the Christian God, while pathetically allowing Jews and Muslums to allow their God all over public. I am outraged by it, and 100% against it. The ACLU is against Christians, not religion.

Biff

03-05-2006, 08:48 AM

I don't agree with removing God from public, at all. As a matter of fact, I am sickened by it, as I think God stands for morality.

Hear hear!

However, mixing God into law is illegal. It is different with politics, many people let God guide their political beliefs. I am not against that. I am against a man going into court, stating 'God put that baby there, therefore it shouldn't be aborted.' And then the court takes that into consideration. It is against every principle our country has in law.

It still says "In God We Trust" on my money. There is no such barrier keeping us from recognizing God's law in our civil laws. Our laws are based (or should be based) on God's morality, so it makes sense that the Creator should be recognized in the upholding of our law. Our nation took a disasterously wrong turn when we let treasonous organizations such as the ACLU bully us into taking God out of His rightful place. I believe that God is admissible in a court of law. We should always recognize His ultimate authority.

I can't tell you how the ACLU has continually succeeded in trying to kill the Christian God, while pathetically allowing Jews and Muslums to allow their God all over public. I am outraged by it, and 100% against it. The ACLU is against Christians, not religion.

I agree with you there, about the ACLU and the jews and muslims.

brilliantLiberal

03-05-2006, 08:48 AM

Regardless of what the fertilized egg is attached to, it is fertilized and is a human life!
If it doesn't bond with the uterine wall, it is flushed out of the body like yesterday's meatloaf. That's like saying fuel and oxygen make fire whether or not there is heat. The fact is, all three elements are needed. In this case, fertilized egg, bonding to the uterine wall, and ACCEPTANCE by the host.

Distinguishing between life and non-life by what the fertilized egg happens to be attached to is ridiculous.
If you go back and re-read, I made the distinction between a PREGNANCY and a non pregnancy. Unless and until the fertilized egg is bonded to and accepted by the uterine wall, there is no pregnancy.

God has 100% authority on her body, she does not.
Religion is not a part of our legal system. Let religion govern your life. If it doesn't govern the lives of others, you can share your beliefs, but let God judge.

Life begins at conception.
VIABLE life begins when the fetus can survive outside the mother's womb.

Wyatt_Junker

03-05-2006, 10:01 AM

VIABLE life begins when the fetus can survive outside the mother's womb.

And yet we take preemies everyday and nurse them back to health in the NICU because life begins at conception, viable or not.

In terms of viability, the same could be said for perfectly healthy, normal newborns. They are not viable outside the womb unless there is a caregiver present to feed them and care for them.

The same could also be said for enfeebled geriatrics. Should we off them? They certainly are not viable creatures. They cannot live on their own and are completely dependent on a care host very much like the in vitro child.

Maybe the Alzheimer patient is merely 'meatloaf', a clump of cells. Especially advanced Alzheimers. Their brain waves are compromised. So are people with Down's Syndrome. And what about the Vet amputee. He can't even wipe without his day nurse. These are all dependent creatures. None of them viable in the truest sense of the word as it is defined.

So, how does 'viability' advance your argument again?

Wyatt_Junker

03-05-2006, 10:07 AM

Religion is not a part of our legal system. Let religion govern your life. If it doesn't govern the lives of others, you can share your beliefs, but let God judge.

Okay.

Religion says 'thou shall not murder'. Should I not allow this part of my religion to govern the lives of others? I mean, I certainly can 'share my beliefs' right? And then, just let the cards fall where they may and, you know, 'let God judge' and stuff.

I certainly shouldn't judge anyone. It ain't right. Pedophiles especially. They just like to get their kiddie porn on. And theft of private property and assault and false oaths(perjury) etc. etc. Just kind of let it all go, man. Don't preach relgious beliefs on others and don't judge. Just let people do what they want.

Wyatt_Junker

03-05-2006, 10:15 AM

Sorry, but religion is invasive and everywhere. Always has been. Law is not secular. Our laws are derived from hardpan tradition. And our traditions are derived from our collective culture. And culture is derived from our world outlook... our religious past.

Read even liberal history on the subject. Read Joseph Campbell's The Power of Myth for your sociological cause and effect. Read Viktor Frankel's Man's Search For Meaning. The Holocaust, Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia... these were all places of either god denial or 'secular' nonsense. Sorry to break it to you, lib but secularism does not exist. Its a fanciful notion and it would be nice if there was such a sociological existensial vaccuum to hang our hat on but man was not constructed on that idea. It is only a recent invention that pretends it is so.

brilliantLiberal

03-05-2006, 10:27 AM

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by brilliantLiberal

VIABLE life begins when the fetus can survive outside the mother's womb.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
And yet we take preemies everyday and nurse them back to health in the NICU because life begins at conception, viable or not.
Let's limit my opinions to what I actually say. That way, we can comment on them intelligently and not ramble off into some half baked commentary that has nothing to do with reality. We take preemies every day because they are VIABLE. They CAN and DO live outside the mother's womd in an incubator. We do not take non-viable preemies, or if we do, they die anyway. That's what non-viable means. We are talking about life that cannot survive without the mother. Specifically, I was talking about preventing the bonding of the egg to the uterine wall, which prevents a pregnancy from ever taking place.

In terms of viability, the same could be said for perfectly healthy, normal newborns.
No, it can't.

They are not viable outside the womb unless there is a caregiver present to feed them and care for them.
NOBODY can survive unless there is a caregiver when they cannot fend for themselves. However, perfectly healthy newborns can only be called non-viable if you don't have the slightest inkling of what the word means. Let me help you.

vi·a·ble http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Dviable) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (vhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/imacr.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-bhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifl)
adj.

Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.
Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.
Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable: <CITE>a viable plan; a viable national economy.</CITE> See Synonyms at possible (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=possible).Non-viable is the opposite. It CANNOT live outside the uterus.

The same could also be said for enfeebled geriatrics. Should we off them? They certainly are not viable creatures. They cannot live on their own and are completely dependent on a care host very much like the in vitro child...
The rant degenerates from here into ridiculous assertions that have absolutely nothing to do with either my post or the topic in general.

brilliantLiberal

03-05-2006, 10:34 AM

Okay.

Religion says 'thou shall not murder'. Should I not allow this part of my religion to govern the lives of others? I mean, I certainly can 'share my beliefs' right? And then, just let the cards fall where they may and, you know, 'let God judge' and stuff. ''
The quote was...
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">God has 100% authority on her body, she does not. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Religion is not a part of our legal system. Let religion govern your life. If it doesn't govern the lives of others, you can share your beliefs, but let God judge.

What does that have to do with ESTABLISHED LAWS like murder, theft, rape, arson etc? Again, you are ranting.

SkiGuy

03-05-2006, 11:44 AM

brilliantLiberal (now there's an oxymoron for ya), about your definition of viable? I don't see anything there that says a fetus is not a human being. So, therefore,abortion is murder (would you like me to supply the definition of murder?). Now go ahead, I'm sure you'll come back spewing more of your bullshit trying to refute that fact.

Biff

03-05-2006, 11:52 AM

Religion is not a part of our legal system. Let religion govern your life. If it doesn't govern the lives of others, you can share your beliefs, but let God judge.

What does that have to do with ESTABLISHED LAWS like murder, theft, rape, arson etc? Again, you are ranting.

But what Wyatt so eloquently said was that religion IS part of our legal system, because our laws are based on morality, and our morality ultimately comes from Christian principles and values. Laws are legislated morality... how could they be anything else? Murder, theft, rape, arson -- these are all wrong, and we know they are wrong because the Bible is very clear on them (arson or vandalism can be considered a form of theft). These are moral laws, and their origins are ultimately in God's moral laws found in the Bible. Religion is not only a part of our legal system, it is the very foundation for it.

DesertFox

03-05-2006, 12:00 PM

Wel, jAk, I assume then that you have no problem killing a third party "just because," since that's what you're doing to a child resulting from either rape or incest. That person is still a human being, still a child, still innocent of any wrong, but you're willing to kill him/her "just because."

I'll say this, that I'm deeply conflicted on this very issue, and the conflict arises from my belief that that person is no less a person than you or I.

S-T

03-05-2006, 01:13 PM

Let's limit my opinions to what I actually say. That way, we can comment on them intelligently and not ramble off into some half baked commentary that has nothing to do with reality. We take preemies every day because they are VIABLE. Viability has changed over time as medical technology has improved. Furthermore, a viable baby in the Mayo Clinic may not be viable in the African jungle. The point here, BL, is that viability is a poor standard to use.

Longhorn_Platinum

03-05-2006, 01:16 PM

jAk:
Stop mixing God into politics, it is illegal to do so in this country in any court.

:unsmile: That's a bold-faced lie, straight out of the Pit of Hell.

S-T

03-05-2006, 01:54 PM

Tell it like it is, Longhorn.

brilliantLiberal

03-05-2006, 02:31 PM

Viability has changed over time as medical technology has improved. Furthermore, a viable baby in the Mayo Clinic may not be viable in the African jungle. The point here, BL, is that viability is a poor standard to use.
If you intend on taking authority for the life of the fetus away from the mother, then you have to have a standard by which to do so. A viable fetus can be removed and will live extraneous of the mother. True, the age of viability continues to move forward with our advances in science. That has absolutely nothing to do with the standard.

S-T

03-05-2006, 02:36 PM

The standard is this: you don't kill people.

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-05-2006, 02:42 PM

The standard is this: you don't kill people.

I agree S-T, but I might extend it further to say:

The standard is this: you don't kill people based upon their stage of development.

brilliantLiberal

03-05-2006, 02:44 PM

But what Wyatt so eloquently said was that religion IS part of our legal system, because our laws are based on morality, and our morality ultimately comes from Christian principles and values. Laws are legislated morality... how could they be anything else? Murder, theft, rape, arson -- these are all wrong, and we know they are wrong because the Bible is very clear on them (arson or vandalism can be considered a form of theft). These are moral laws, and their origins are ultimately in God's moral laws found in the Bible. Religion is not only a part of our legal system, it is the very foundation for it.
Again, I didn't say our legal system was devoid of concepts found in religion. I said religion was not a part of our legal system. We do not make laws based on everything God said, but on those principles we believe are in the interests of the common good. There is no law that says you have to love your God and your neighbor. There is no law against having other gods. There is no law against coveting that which is your neighbors. It is not illegal to disrespect your parents.

Our Constitution prevents the establishment of religion. However, we can either criminalize or legalize any behavior we choose, so long as it is consistent with the Constitution.

brilliantLiberal

03-05-2006, 02:54 PM

...about your definition of viable? I don't see anything there that says a fetus is not a human being.
The fact is, that a non-viable fetus is the responsibility of the mother.

The fact is that abortion is a state issue, which has nothing to do with the federal government or the federal courts.

The fact is, if you appose abortions, you are free to lobby against them to your heart's content. However, without allowing exceptions for rape, incest or the mothers life, you have absolutely zero chance of ever eliminating abortions.

Wyatt_Junker

03-05-2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

vi·a·ble http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Dviable) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (vhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/imacr.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-bhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifl)
adj.

Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.
Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.
Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable: <CITE>a viable plan; a viable national economy.</CITE> See Synonyms at possible (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=possible).Non-viable is the opposite. It CANNOT live outside the uterus.

So then, the intent of your definition of viable was the application of the second interpretation? Why not the first when it takes precedence in the majority of cases? And why limit the word to its peripheral use?

In fact, 'viable' only got used in the #2 sense not by a true etymiological standard of root word discovery, but by modern day bastardization by pro-abortion apologists.

And likewise, by adhering to the exceptional use of the word 'viable', your silicon argument turns increasingly rigid, even ... stillborn.

But, I'll even grant you the oddest defintion of viable:

Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.

There is not much that actually nor realisitically is viable even in the animal kingdom post-utero without its mother. And for humans, its an absolute statement. No exceptions. What is 'viable' then? What is capable of 'living outside' the womb, apart from assistance? Every baby under 2 is non-viable.

Your definition is useless and was only developed in the wake of the abortion debate(the 60's on) as a way to mitigate the nation's conscience. Your disingenuousness is amusing. Its fun watching people backpedal into lamposts, but its a bit unsettling watching the awkwardness of a naked person trying to open a jar of pickles. The unseemly and desperate shaking causes the genitals to quiver. Being specious merely for the sake of keeping an argument alive is not attractive. And now you are merely a liberal and no longer 'brilliant'. Especially when the arguing becomes an end in itself, the need to win, which retards the argument severely.

Wyatt_Junker

03-05-2006, 05:28 PM

Again, I didn't say our legal system was devoid of concepts found in religion. I said religion was not a part of our legal system. We do not make laws based on everything God said, but on those principles we believe are in the interests of the common good. There is no law that says you have to love your God and your neighbor. There is no law against having other gods. There is no law against coveting that which is your neighbors. It is not illegal to disrespect your parents.

Our Constitution prevents the establishment of religion. However, we can either criminalize or legalize any behavior we choose, so long as it is consistent with the Constitution.

Who said 'everything'? Oh, that's right. You did.

kate

03-05-2006, 05:37 PM

To be honest, I think that abortion is a consequence of selfishness.
Everyone with a basic knowledge of biology knows that if you have sex, you can end up pregnant. In fact, that's the purpose of having sex in the first place. If you decide to have sex although you do not want children, it's your responsibility to live with it in case you do happen to get pregnant.

Abortion is not an option, it's murder. Killing the child because you feel it's unconvenient to haveone at the moment, is wrong. You do not have to believe in God to know that killing a baby is wrong. If it wasn't wrong, you wouldn't need to find justifications to do it. You wouldn't have to start denying that a fetus is alive.

If the pregnancy was caused by rape there is nobody but the rapist that should be punished. The child however still has a right to live. If you don't want it and start to aim your disgust and anger at the unborn child, put it up for adoption.
That way, the child will have a chance to find parents that will find him loveable no matter where he came from.

If people weren't so self-focused, the world would be a better place.

Wyatt_Junker

03-05-2006, 05:39 PM

The fact is, that a non-viable fetus is the responsibility of the mother.

And so is a viable one. Your point?

As far as mine goes. Its pretty open and I don't feel the need to hide or couch my point in obscure cant or rarely used diction.

The life of the baby is continuous in-vitro or out. Apparently looking for gradations in the slab of 'meatloaf' is a part of your repertoire, lib. That's alright. That's what libs do. They redefine traditionally used words in order to suit their behavior or outlook.

The fact is that abortion is a state issue, which has nothing to do with the federal government or the federal courts.

The fact is, murder is not. If I slaughter someone in Maine, the FACT IS, I will get arrested for it in California as well.

The fact is, if you appose abortions, you are free to lobby against them to your heart's content. However, without allowing exceptions for rape, incest or the mothers life, you have absolutely zero chance of ever eliminating abortions.

So your beliefs are tied to political achievment? Strange. Mine aren't so dependent.

Wyatt_Junker

03-05-2006, 05:52 PM

If the pregnancy was caused by rape there is nobody but the rapist that should be punished. The child however still has a right to live. If you don't want it and start to aim your disgust and anger at the unborn child, put it up for adoption. That way, the child will have a chance to find parents that will find him loveable no matter where he came from.

When my wife and I were looking to adopt, our friends in the program did just that. Its more common than people think.

The Christian faith is about redeeming what the world defines as useless. Lefties do not understand this for they do not understand mercy. And without mercy, there is no charity and without charity, there is no love and without love, there is only a synthetic mechanical sound as the machines in the Matrix take over(ie liberalism).

Here's the prayer of St. Patrick which I think sums up the faith in the face of life's relentless onslaught....

I arise today
through the strength of Christ
with His baptism
through the strength of His Crucifixion
with His burial
through the strength of His Resurrection
with His Ascension
through the strength of His descent
for the Judgment of Doom

Christ to protect me today
against poison, against burning
against drowning, against wounding
so that there may come abundance of reward

Christ with me, Christ before me,
Christ behind me, Christ in me,
Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ on my right, Christ on my left,
Christ where I lie, Christ where I sit,
Christ where I arise, Christ in the heart
of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth
of every man who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.

I arise today,
through a mighty strength,
the invocation of the Trinity,
through belief in the Threeness,
through confession of the Oneness,
towards the Creator
Salvation is of the Lord. Salvation is of Christ.
May Thy salvation, O Lord, be ever with us.

Wyatt_Junker

03-05-2006, 05:55 PM

BTW, God ended up healing my wife's barren womb. We were this (holding up thumb and forefinger) close to adopting.

Then, bang.

Different plans.

routerider

03-05-2006, 06:01 PM

Hear hear!

It still says "In God We Trust" on my money. There is no such barrier keeping us from recognizing God's law in our civil laws. Our laws are based (or should be based) on God's morality, so it makes sense that the Creator should be recognized in the upholding of our law. Our nation took a disasterously wrong turn when we let treasonous organizations such as the ACLU bully us into taking God out of His rightful place. I believe that God is admissible in a court of law. We should always recognize His ultimate authority.

I agree with you there, about the ACLU and the jews and muslims.

You approve of stoning people to death for working on the Sabbath? Or stoning women for not being virgins on their wedding night?

kate

03-05-2006, 06:17 PM

I like that prayer. I do have the feeling a lot of people forget that adoption exists at times. When I read and hear people's views on abortion I sometimes think that we are close to the day where only people who cannot have children and want them, are able to see how precious unborn life really is.

It's sad that women and men can deny the blood on their hands by justifying murder and call it something else. I refuse to accept that if somebody purposely causes the death of an unborn child, I have to call it abortion. To me, that is the pure definition of murder. If these murderers want to put their own comfort above their childrens lives they cannot expect good people to pretend they don't see what is going on.

However, i hope that one day these people will wake up and realise what they have done. A lot of women who had an abortion have woken up and maybe one day people will act on moral rather than emotion and their hands will be clean for a change.

Biff

03-05-2006, 06:33 PM

You approve of stoning people to death for working on the Sabbath? Or stoning women for not being virgins on their wedding night?

It's not up for me to approve anything, ignoramus. God approved it, so why do you even question it?

And do you disapprove of what God has approved?

I guess it's time for a Sunday school lesson for you.

This was the civil law that God gave through Moses to the Hebrews. When Jesus died on the cross and rose again, He fulfilled the Mosaic law so that we are no longer obligated to fill every letter of the law.

So, no, we don't HAVE to stone adulterers, rapists and homosexuals. However, if we did, we would be doing nothing but fufilling the holy law that God has given us. The option of capital punishment for these crimes are still open to us and I think that we should start getting tough. I've said previously that I'd be open to capital punishment for repeat homosexual offenders, but before you go off the deep end and call me an extremist, I think that a 2-strikes-you're-out policy would be good to implement. Jesus died for us to give us a second chance, and we are behooved to give our fellow man a second chance too.

routerider

03-05-2006, 06:54 PM

It's not up for me to approve anything, ignoramus. God approved it, so why do you even question it?

And do you disapprove of what God has approved?

I guess it's time for a Sunday school lesson for you.

This was the civil law that God gave through Moses to the Hebrews. When Jesus died on the cross and rose again, He fulfilled the Mosaic law so that we are no longer obligated to fill every letter of the law.

So, no, we don't HAVE to stone adulterers, rapists and homosexuals. However, if we did, we would be doing nothing but fufilling the holy law that God has given us. The option of capital punishment for these crimes are still open to us and I think that we should start getting tough. I've said previously that I'd be open to capital punishment for repeat homosexual offenders, but before you go off the deep end and call me an extremist, I think that a 2-strikes-you're-out policy would be good to implement. Jesus died for us to give us a second chance, and we are behooved to give our fellow man a second chance too.

The 10 commandments were also given to the Jews. It still stands that Christians want to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to implement and which parts they want to toss out.

Biff

03-05-2006, 07:12 PM

The 10 commandments were also given to the Jews. It still stands that Christians want to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to implement and which parts they want to toss out.

And the 10 commandments are still as valid and binding today as the day the were given. Jesus didn't do away with the old law at all. Every bit of the old law is still active and binding today. The wonderful gift that Jesus gave us is the fulfilling of all the myriad Mosaical laws that no human could ever be capable of. The old law showed us our sin; through Jesus we are forgiven of the sin we repent of. I don't know why you're attacking Christianity or my faith on a Christian message board, but I don't "pick & choose". If God's law was to put to death homosexuals or adulterers, then by definition that law is good, because God is good. It was good then, it remains good today. But through Jesus' blood our salvation is not bound to the fulfilling of all such laws. That's the important point to realize here. We are saved by faith, not by fulfilling the letter of the law.

brilliantLiberal

03-05-2006, 07:47 PM

So then, the intent of your definition of viable was the application of the second interpretation? Why not the first when it takes precedence in the majority of cases?
It doesn't matter how you define it, viable means capable of living. A first trimester fetus cannot possibly survive without the mother. That gives her 100% authority and responsibility of the life within her. Her, not the state, not the courts, not popular consensus.

There is not much that actually nor realisitically is viable even in the animal kingdom post-utero without its mother. And for humans, its an absolute statement. No exceptions.
Jouvenile statement. A third trimester baby can be incubated to term and can live just fine without its mother. It needs a care giver. Period.

brilliantLiberal

03-05-2006, 07:50 PM

If the pregnancy was caused by rape there is nobody but the rapist that should be punished.
Forcing an innocent woman to have her body violated every day by the spawn of an act of violence is not punishment? How much better to simply PREVENT the pregnancy???

brilliantLiberal

03-05-2006, 07:54 PM

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-05-2006, 07:55 PM

A baby is no more property of the mother than a slave is a master. When sperm and egg unite, a unique human LIFE is created. As it wasn't the (earthly) father or the mother who created that unique human life, that life is not owned by either and therefore cannot be denied by either. To do so is to play God, and there's only One, and neither that father nor that mother is Him.

Viability is irrelevent -- that in-utero baby's life isn't the property of the mother to do with as she pleases, as we are all granted by our Creator the certain unalienable right to life.

Biff

03-05-2006, 07:58 PM

Forcing an innocent woman to have her body violated every day by the spawn of an act of violence is not punishment? How much better to simply PREVENT the pregnancy???
I agree that it may not be the optimum situation for the woman, but the alternative of murdering another human life is not acceptable. And its only 9 months, after which she is free to give the baby up for adoption. It is not her choice to make. And her body is not "violated" every day. The violation would be the act of sex. The baby developing inside her is a gift, not a violation.

Longhorn_Platinum

03-05-2006, 07:59 PM

brilliantLiberal:
Forcing an innocent woman to have her body violated every day by the spawn of an act of violence is not punishment?

:unsmile: Killing the baby, because his father is a rapist, isn't punishment?

brilliantLiberal

03-05-2006, 08:24 PM

I do have the feeling a lot of people forget that adoption exists at times.
Wouldn't it be nice if both sides invested the billions of dollars they waste on trying to legislate their morality and invest the money into solving the problem? Planned Parenthood claims to be pro-choice, but they only offer information that supports abortion. If they were truly pro-choice, they would promote adoption as a "choice." They are not. They make their income from abortions, not adoptions. Pro-choice means promoting options, not agendas.

A lot of women who had an abortion have woken up and maybe one day people will act on moral rather than emotion and their hands will be clean for a change.
The guilt associated with abortion is rarely discussed when this issue is brought up. I support informed choice, not agenda politics. Everyone makes choices. Personally, I would not be a friend to a person who had multiple abortions. The idea of abortion as birth control is appalling. However, my ideas of morality are my own. They should not be made into laws that govern the behavior of others. Regardless, people in California should not have any say on the whether the people of North Dakota limitr abortions. It is and should remain a state isue.

brilliantLiberal

03-05-2006, 08:26 PM

I agree that it may not be the optimum situation for the woman, but the alternative of murdering another human life is not acceptable.
Preventing the pregnancy from happening isn't murder, is it? Isn't that preferable?

brilliantLiberal

03-05-2006, 08:28 PM

Viability is irrelevent -- that in-utero baby's life isn't the property of the mother to do with as she pleases, as we are all granted by our Creator the certain unalienable right to life.
Property, no. Responsibility, yes. Responsibility of the federal government? Certainly not.

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-05-2006, 08:41 PM

She has a responsibility to kill it? I would submit she has a responsibility TO the child.

If she asserts a choice on it's behalf, she is acting either under one of two motivations -- 1) the baby is property, therefore it's hers to do with as she pleases (kill, keep, or give away), which we've established is not the case, or 2) in the best interests of the child, certainly death is NOT in the best interest of the child. IF she acts on PERSONAL motivations (inconvenience, disugst over carrying a rapist's child or child of incest, etc.), she is asserting her rights OVER, or perhaps more correctly in place of, the child's, which that child, at the moment of conception becomes a unique life, and she cannot do so without negating that child's self-evident, unalienable right to life.

I never said anything about the federal government, I don't believe. Murder is a crime in all 50 states, as far as I know. Abortion is murder, as it is the denial by purposeful and forceful action of a human life (already created).

brilliantLiberal

03-05-2006, 09:16 PM

Back to the earlier poposition, do you support or oppose the use of drugs which disallow the bonding of embyos to the uterine wall?

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-05-2006, 09:19 PM

When sperm and egg unite, a unique human life is created. To do anything to purposefully deny that life existence, is murder, ergo I oppose those drugs.

brilliantLiberal

03-05-2006, 09:21 PM

When sperm and egg unite, a unique human life is created. To do anything to purposefully deny that life existence, is murder, ergo I oppose those drugs.
Your position has been so noted and, thankfully, will never become law.

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-05-2006, 09:37 PM

Your position has been so noted and, thankfully, will never become law.

Your position has been noted as well, and thankfully, you weren't my mother.

BTW, it's already law .... God's -- matter of fact, it's even one of the Top 10. I'd rather be on the side of God's law, than man's anyway. http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Riverboat

03-05-2006, 11:00 PM

I arise today
through the strength of Christ
with His baptism
through the strength of His Crucifixion
with His burial
through the strength of His Resurrection
with His Ascension
through the strength of His descent
for the Judgment of Doom. . . The man is prolife, and he quotes from the Breastplate of Saint Patrick. I don't know how else to put this, but. . . but. . . .

I LOVE you, man!

Wyatt_Junker

03-06-2006, 12:42 AM

It doesn't matter how you define it, viable means capable of living. A first trimester fetus cannot possibly survive without the mother.

Precisely, and neither can a 2 year old infant.

That gives her 100% authority and responsibility of the life within her. Her, not the state, not the courts, not popular consensus.

Show me the logical tie-in other than you declaring it to be so. The fact that a developing child happens to be growing in a woman's body and that child is likewise dependent upon the mother's body in no wise makes the woman the arbiter of that life. Where do you get this fictional '100% authority' flapdoodle other than out of your own id's attic? Did you just make it up? Was it talking points at the local Bay Area chapter of NOW? Let me guess. It was a product of the libertarian's brainchild Jesse the Body in one of his half a dozen or so sober moments.

Responsibility does not equal authority. Parents are responsible for their kids. Does that also mean that they have the ultimate authority to kill them? Grown children caring for their aging parent suffering with severe gout have a responsibility, and in some cases, a total responsibility to help them financially, emotionally, physically and spiritually. Does that mean they have total authority over their life? Victims of head trauma wheeled into the ER are at the mercy of physicians who in turn have a responsibility to try everything in their power to help them survive. Does that mean they have 100% total authority over their life, to say, on a whim, stop their efforts early because they don't want to work overtime and, hey, they are the authority anyway, right?

Jouvenile statement. A third trimester baby can be incubated to term and can live just fine without its mother. It needs a care giver. Period.

That's right. It needs care. Period. In the very same manner that a first trimester in-vitro child needs care. The introduction of food and shit removal on a continual basis. In fact, there is very little difference between a 1st trimester and 3rd trimester fetus in terms of those very same needs. Food and shit. And that's all an infant does(besides snooze); eat and poo. And it cannot do either very well unless it is assisted.

What is this magical notion about viability, especially if it can keep being artificially re-defined based upon improving technology? Pretty soon, we develop machines that can set new records about successful incubation of life outside the womb. We go sub-2nd trimester. Now, in desperation, you shift your argument even further to the left to meet your superstitious(at this point) definition of 'viability'.

What is the difference between the caregiver of a 2 year old infant and the pregnant mother with child? Who has the harder slog? I would argue that the burden is actually much more difficult at age 2 than it is when the in-vitro baby is peacefully rolling around inside the mother's belly. According to your argument, it would therefore be much more JUSTIFIABLE to kill the 2 year old than the halcyon 1st trimester period. In terms of parental responsibility, it takes infinitely more at age 2 rather than relying on biology alone to do all the cooking and cleaning for you. Talk about inconvenience. Childbearing is a charm compared to child rearing. Should parents of 3 year olds then, who have the ultimate responsibility **responsiblity that dwarfs that of childbearing mothers** be able to also have 100% total authority over them(and we all know what you mean by that phrase, killer)?

This is your argument, plain and clear. Time to eat your words or vomit them back up.

Wyatt_Junker

03-06-2006, 12:51 AM

The man is prolife, and he quotes from the Breastplate of Saint Patrick. I don't know how else to put this, but. . . but. . . .

I LOVE you, man!

I am St. Patrick. I was taken captive into slavery and raised by Irish wolves. Lived off tha land. Milked goats and was, in turn, milked by them.

It was a hard life. And all I have to show for it now are the Braveheart reruns.

And so it goes.

Wyatt_Junker

03-06-2006, 01:21 AM

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by brilliantLiberal
The fact is that abortion is a state issue, which has nothing to do with the federal government or the federal courts.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Sorry, you are wrong. If you kill in Maine, you will be EXTRADICTED to Maine, and you will be sentanced to a STATE penitentiary. Murder is a crime in all 50 states, but it remains a STATE issue.

What if I murder 4 people in 4 states at the same time, right at the very pin point tip of where all the 4 states of Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico collide where they share a common axis point, using a 4 way device shaped like a cross that simultaneously shoots high velocity hollow points, each hitting their victim at precisely the same moment, each at 90 degree angles? And what if the coroner logged each of their TOD's exactly the same? Which state would get dibs on me?

But, no, we don't need to go into that scenario at all. The point is entirely the opposite of what you mentioned(big surpirse). If abortion were a state by state issue, there would be a lot of border crossers. In the state they were fleeing they would be viewed as murderers. In the state they were getting their abortion, they would be looked at as asylum seekers and heros. Now, let's say in Maine that I decide to have an abortion because it is legal. I go back to California after the blood has dried on my apron and I washed the chunks of offal off from between my legs. In that case, I would not be arrested in California. I did the act in a perfectly legal setting, kind of like buying illegal fireworks in Nevada but not being able to set them off in Oregon. In California where abortion was outlawed, I'm the civic sunshine kid again, even if I still have the abortion biohazard dripping off my sneakers leaving red footprints to the front door of my house. A perfectly schizophrenic scenario.

I would have to seriously doubt that kind of a result however. Either murder is murder or it is not. And if there is disagreement here we are back to square one; the standard abortion debate(state-by-state or not). Apparently, you can see in that kind of bizarro world of freaks and leprechauns, where 'no' doesn't really mean 'no' because of 'maybe' and, anyways, she asked for it. I can't. To you, that's a world, an America, in which you want to live, as 'state's rights' are the doublespeak scapegoat for libertarian naivete. And although I agree with the overriding principle of state's rights, it stops dead in its tracks at murder.

But congratulations on the beautiful manner in which you can compartmentalize such things with perfect ease. It suits you. Your arguments are Vulcan, anal and mechanical, and your logic is likewise greasier than R2D2's lug nuts. Emotionless, empty and impotent.

brilliantLiberal

03-06-2006, 06:34 AM

Precisely, and neither can a 2 year old infant.
Jouvenile statement. Any adult can care for a two your old. It is not attached to it's mother, within its mother's body and 100% dependant on its mother.

Show me the logical tie-in other than you declaring it to be so.
I just did. The fact is that a non-viable fetus is part of the mother. She has authority over her body.

The fact that a developing child happens to be growing in a woman's body and that child is likewise dependent upon the mother's body in no wise makes the woman the arbiter of that life.
To whom else is that responsibility given? You? I don't think so.

Responsibility does not equal authority. Parents are responsible for their kids. Does that also mean that they have the ultimate authority to kill them?
Reduction to the ridiculous is not a valid debate tactic. Children are not part of their mothers and do not live in their body. The state can place them in alternative living environments. That cannot happen with a non-viable fetus.

Grown children caring for their aging parent suffering with severe gout have a responsibility, and in some cases, a total responsibility to help them financially, emotionally, physically and spiritually. Does that mean they have total authority over their life?
Jouvenile argument. Aged people are not non-viable fetal tissue residing in their mother's body.

What is this magical notion about viability, especially if it can keep being artificially re-defined based upon improving technology?
Simple. You don't have the authority over the life of a woman. If you could non-invasively take a fetus in the first trimester and raise it to term, then the state could declare that fetus a person and thus a ward of the state.

According to your argument, it would therefore be much more JUSTIFIABLE to kill the 2 year old than the halcyon 1st trimester period.
I could have followed this line of reasoning better had I done narcotics in college.

jAk

03-06-2006, 06:41 AM

Whether the foetus is life when it is conceived is still up for debate, which is why abortion is up for debate. The law says no. Therefore it is not immoral or illegal to dispose of a feotus at the three month marker. It is not a sentient being. It has the potential for life, not life itself. The cells on my hand, the bacteria, they are all life. Foetus is no different.

Biff, I'm just going to ignore you. You don't seem to get it, Gods word is not law. Gods word has been interpreted a thousand ways and warped to suit the needs of corrupt politicians for centuries. That is why I don't give a rats ass about God's word. People are not infallable. So if God is perfect, and he spreads his message to people who are not perfect, Gods word has the greatest potential to not be perfect. And since politicians for centuries have used God to get what they want, it can be assumed that God is largely a fallacy.

brilliantLiberal

03-06-2006, 06:51 AM

What if I murder 4 people in 4 states at the same time, right at the very pin point tip of where all the 4 states of Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico collide where they share a common axis point, using a 4 way device shaped like a cross that simultaneously shoots high velocity hollow points, each hitting their victim at precisely the same moment, each at 90 degree angles? And what if the coroner logged each of their TOD's exactly the same? Which state would get dibs on me?
You would be prosecuted in all four states. Additionally, if your calibration was off and you fired across state lines, you would then face federal charges as well.

The point is entirely the opposite of what you mentioned(big surpirse).
Your point is wrong. Murder is a state issue.

If abortion were a state by state issue, there would be a lot of border crossers.
Crossing state lines to avoid prosecution is a federal crime.

In the state they were fleeing they would be viewed as murderers. In the state they were getting their abortion, they would be looked at as asylum seekers and heros.
Abortion will never be criminalized, though it may be banned in a particular state. If you remove the federal funding, the rate of abortions will fall dramatically.

Now, let's say in Maine that I decide to have an abortion because it is legal. I go back to California after the blood has dried on my apron and I washed the chunks of offal off from between my legs. In that case, I would not be arrested in California. I did the act in a perfectly legal setting, kind of like buying illegal fireworks in Nevada but not being able to set them off in Oregon.
Correct. Neither would the taxpayers in the state that banned the practice be obliged to pay for a practice they abhor.

In California where abortion was outlawed, I'm the civic sunshine kid again, even if I still have the abortion biohazard dripping off my sneakers leaving red footprints to the front door of my house. A perfectly schizophrenic scenario.
You said it, I didn't.

Either murder is murder or it is not.
Killing is legally only murder if the state deems it thus.

To you, that's a world, an America, in which you want to live, as 'state's rights' are the doublespeak scapegoat for libertarian naivete.
Not at all. It's merely recognizing that the founders placed such authority at a more localized level so that people like you would not be drowned out by the millions in California.

And although I agree with the overriding principle of state's rights, it stops dead in its tracks at murder.
The Constitution disagrees with you, because murder is a state crime in all 50 states.

But congratulations on the beautiful manner in which you can compartmentalize such things with perfect ease. It suits you.
Thank you. My contention remains consistent. Roe V Wade is unconstitutional. This is a state issue. Period. I would not have an abortion. I would not want to marry one who did. I have the freedom of choice, also.

Your arguments are Vulcan, anal and mechanical, and your logic is likewise greasier than R2D2's lug nuts. Emotionless, empty and impotent.
Emotions make poor law.

Republican_Legion

03-06-2006, 09:48 AM

brilliantLiberal

03-06-2006, 10:28 AM

Whether the foetus is life when it is conceived is still up for debate, which is why abortion is up for debate.
No, it IS alive, it's just not viable as an independant organism, and as such does not enjoy citizenship rights any more than a living appendage does. It is a part of the mother until such time as it can live independantly, and as such is subject to the authority of the mother.

The law says no.
The laws says what lawmakers write.

Therefore it is not immoral or illegal to dispose of a feotus at the three month marker.
Immoral and illegal are not synomyms. I could contend that abortion is immoral without questioning its legality.

It is not a sentient being. It has the potential for life, not life itself.
It is not sentinent, but it IS living. A sperm cell is potential life. A fertilized embryo is life.

Gods word has been interpreted a thousand ways and warped to suit the needs of corrupt politicians for centuries.
That's why you read it for yorself and not rely on the interpretations of others.

That is why I don't give a rats ass about God's word.
A pity. I guess we won't be seeing you in Heaven. Tell Uday and Qsay we're glad they died when you see them.

...since politicians for centuries have used God to get what they want, it can be assumed that God is largely a fallacy.
Nope. It can be largely assumed that men lie, but God's word, like God Himself, is perfect.

Wyatt_Junker

03-06-2006, 10:33 AM

Jouvenile statement. Any adult can care for a two your old. It is not attached to it's mother, within its mother's body and 100% dependant on its mother.

Not true. Crackho's can't. That's why their babies are taken away from them. And neither can the pretentious Hollywood rich. That's why they employ a passel of nannies.

As to your weaker point, a 2 year old is indeed attached to its mother and 100% dependent upon its mother(adopted or biological). Take the mother away, watch the baby die. The 2 year old is that 100% absolutely dependent upon its care giver. Even moreso than relying on a simple umbilicus to do all the heavy lifting.

Your strictly biological act is wearing thin because its completely untrue. Its hanging by a single thread, an umbilicus. People in hospitals around the world are being nursed back to health in similar scenarios, but instead of an umbilicus, they are propped up by an IV. They are 100% dependent upon a caregiver. They cannot survive without it. Maybe they should be aborted due to the inconvenience imposed upon the hospital administration. Especially if they are backed up.

And as I've already stated, child bearing is a calk walk compared to child rearing. A point you've ignored. If anyone should want to kill a baby, its the mothers of 2 year olds. Not anything merely in-vitro. Are you really this naive of basic anthropology, sociology and the emotional needs of a human? Remain being specious if you wish. At this point, I understand this argument of yours is like huffing paint, your cowering flight into the unreal, but get some logical detox before its too late. All you have left in the tank is 'jouvenile statement'. You're dying before my very eyes.

I just did. The fact is that a non-viable fetus is part of the mother. She has authority over her body.

You showed me nothing. The fact is that a non-viable fetus is dependent upon its mother/host just as a 2 year old toddler is. The fetus is not a part of the mother. It has its own unique identity, its own unique DNA and therefore its own right to live. And as far as the mother or child bearer, she does not have complete authority over her body(a cheap NOW cliche) as suicide is still considered a crime. Nor does she have 100% authority over her body as most women struggle with their weight over which many of them have little or no control. The only way a woman could have 100% authority over her body is if she was supernaturally inclined and could impose order upon the rebellion of her own flesh. In fact, most woman only have a small portion of authority over their body in the end. They have no control over whether or not their hormones will revolt at age 45. They have no control over whether or not their 'ass looks fat'. They likewise have no control over a pregnancy once it occurs. Biology is in many ways independent of the mother, and for human beings for that matter.

Sorry to send you to school lib, but I'll take any one of your arguments and up-end them. Got anymore?

To whom else is that responsibility given? You? I don't think so.

Not unless I was the 'father'. If I were, then yes, I should be consulted and have some say. Apart from that, God. Its the very same reason why we can't arbitrarily take life outside the womb.

What you are saying is that there is nothing higher in authority than 'the self'. I disagree. There are also the needs of society beyond merely the self. No one is an island. The needs of the state also require an increase in repopulating America if we are to remain a superpower. China is quickly discovering a gender imbalance due to abortion by its sociological favoritism towards boys. The United States is outsourcing illegal immigration for yuppie yard maintenance, using Hb1 visas for telemarketers and watching blue collar trade become a by-word because an entire generation of aborted babies were murdered from our society. In order for us to stay competitive we need bodies in those service jobs. In World War 2, we relied on Rosie the Riveter to help build our war craft. No one is independent of the state in which they live, despite the fantasy that wants to deny it is so.

Reduction to the ridiculous is not a valid debate tactic. Children are not part of their mothers and do not live in their body. The state can place them in alternative living environments. That cannot happen with a non-viable fetus.

And this is a complete non-sequitur.

Jouvenile argument. Aged people are not non-viable fetal tissue residing in their mother's body.

Wrong. Some geriatrics are non-viable, merely tissue residing on machines. Take away the oxygen tank, watch them die. According to your argument we should empty out the nursing homes and turn them into hotels. Kill them. Gotta love the libertarian bottom line. In the end, solipsism will out, Hitler-style. That's what the Youth Movement was about. Getting rid of all the 'dependencies' of the state that were holding back the motherland; the aged, the enfeebled, the retarded. Anyone who was non-viable.

Simple. You don't have the authority over the life of a woman.

And neither does a woman when a baby is in play.

I could have followed this line of reasoning better had I done narcotics in college.

Jouvenile statement. :crazy:

Although, in your case, maybe the drugs would have helped.

Wyatt_Junker

03-06-2006, 10:50 AM

No, it IS alive, it's just not viable as an independant organism, and as such does not enjoy citizenship rights any more than a living appendage does. It is a part of the mother until such time as it can live independantly, and as such is subject to the authority of the mother.

Which would be age 18 or so, legally, when the person can vote. Let's talk about 'independence'. Why are parents beset upon by the state, responsible for the actions of their child when he or she goes astray? Why is the parent the legal guardian/custodian of the child until they reach age 18? It seems like you want it both ways; that somehow the child is independent of the mother when it can live outside the womb on machines but remain dependent upon the legal guardian for years and years later. Its convenient when both bases are covered.

Abortion is different and is not merely a state issue since the living being has Constitutional rights as well, even if it cannot voice those rights. Neither can retards. Neither can people suffering with dementia. Neither can kids who speak ebonics and listen to rap music. Sorry, but your argument is soggier'n a spooge mop at a porno theater. Time to change the water in the bucket.

Rhino

03-06-2006, 11:03 AM

Sorry, but your argument is soggier'n a spooge mop at a porno theater.You have such a way with words. LOL!

brilliantLiberal

03-06-2006, 12:03 PM

As to your weaker point, a 2 year old is indeed attached to its mother and 100% dependent upon its mother(adopted or biological). Take the mother away, watch the baby die.
Perhaps this isn't entirely your fault. Perhaps there is some shortage of oxygen leading to the logic center of your brain. Maybe you have a psychopathological impairment. For whatever reason, you cannot seem to distinguish between a living being capable of surviving outside the womb and undeveloped fetal tissue which cannot. A fertilized embryo which has not yet bonded to the uterus is NOT the same as an infant that can walk and say "Mama." Nor is the same as an elderly person who is in the declining years of life. If you cannot make such a differentiation, please just say so.

And as I've already stated, child bearing is a calk walk compared to child rearing. A point you've ignored.
Because it has absolutely no relevance. It is not worth considering. It is a waste of time!

If anyone should want to kill a baby, its the mothers of 2 year olds. Not anything merely in-vitro. Are you really this naive of basic anthropology, sociology and the emotional needs of a human?
Earth to Wyatt. Come in Wyatt. You're suffering from space dementia. You need to take the green pill, Wyatt. Take the green pill and put your space suit on. It will help!

You showed me nothing.
Correction. You've understood nothing.

And as far as the mother or child bearer, she does not have complete authority over her body(a cheap NOW cliche) as suicide is still considered a crime.
Suicide is never prosecuted. ATTEMPTED suicide is a crime.

Nor does she have 100% authority over her body as most women struggle with their weight over which many of them have little or no control.
As soon as I find the relevance of this I'll get back to you.

Sorry to send you to school lib, but I'll take any one of your arguments and up-end them. Got anymore?
Up end them? Sorry, but from up which end are your responses coming?

What you are saying is that there is nothing higher in authority than 'the self'. I disagree. There are also the needs of society beyond merely the self.
Which is why we have state laws.

No one is an island. The needs of the state also require an increase in repopulating America if we are to remain a superpower.
I don't think depopulation is an issue here.

China is quickly discovering a gender imbalance due to abortion by its sociological favoritism towards boys. The United States is outsourcing illegal immigration for yuppie yard maintenance, using Hb1 visas for telemarketers and watching blue collar trade become a by-word because an entire generation of aborted babies were murdered from our society. In order for us to stay competitive we need bodies in those service jobs.
Americans refuse to do those service jobs, which is why companies are turning to illegal aliens. This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

And this is a complete non-sequitur.
As is your entire post.

"Wrong. Some geriatrics are non-viable, merely tissue residing on machines. Take away the oxygen tank, watch them die."

Case in point.

According to your argument we should empty out the nursing homes and turn them into hotels. Kill them.
The green pill, Wyatt. Take it NOW!!!

Although, in your case, maybe the drugs would have helped.
Like they helped you? No thanks.

kate

03-06-2006, 12:04 PM

Forcing an innocent woman to have her body violated every day by the spawn of an act of violence is not punishment? How much better to simply PREVENT the pregnancy???

What the heck are you on about? Does it make you feel better to call the unborn child a "Spawn of an act of violence"? Is that the way you can justify murder? Preventing pregnancy and abortion are two totally different things. If you think your brilliant, you should know that. The whole idea behind RAPE is that you cannot control pregnancy, unless the rapist is nice enough to use contraceptives, which isnt the first thing that is on their mind generally.

DeclinetoState

03-06-2006, 12:07 PM

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-06-2006, 12:46 PM

If anybody should be put to death after a rape, it should be the rapist--the guilty party. But some of the people most virulently opposed to the death penalty for rapists (usually also for murderers) are the pro-abortionists.
:frown:

Quite ironic, huh?

I don't know if I would go so far as death penalty for the rapist, unless his act caused a spontaneous abortion of an existing pregnancy. Justice would dictate instead of death, the rapist should endure the same treatment as his victim ... I concur with that.

As for the argument of a woman suffering while carrying a rapist's "spawn," I believe the suffering that self-same woman will endure at the hands of today's so-called justice system is MORE horrendous than that of simply carrying the child to term. She is ALREADY going to go through a living h-ll with a trial reliving that crime over and over, on TOP of that she will most likely suffer post-abortion depression on and off for the remainder of her life (I can vouch for this one) -- there is NO good result, no benefit to aborting the child in the long run. A woman who CARRIES the child, gives it up for adoption, OR keeps it becaue she's grown to love the child for the gift of God it is (not the h-ll spawn of it's rapist father), is INFINITELY more emotionally balanced because a positive outcome resulted.

There's simply NO justification for denying existence to an ALREADY CREATED child, based on 1) convenience, 2) (criminal) actions of the father, 3) stage of human development -- ESPECIALLY since this country was founded on the UNDERSTOOD self-evident premise that ALL people are created equal by the Creator and endowed with the right to life.

Oh and to the argument, "Whether the foetus is life when it is conceived is still up for debate", well if it's debatable shouldn't the baby be given the benefit of the doubt based on the risk that it just MIGHT be a human life (it is, I'm just extending out your argument) and therefore being killed when an abortion takes place? It's VERY dangerous setting precedent when absolute knowledge is not the basis. Shouldn't "life" (human) ALWAYS be deferred to, and the path of LEAST harm always followed? I say yes.

Biff

03-06-2006, 04:21 PM

I'm suprised Biff isnt ignoring you after you called us 'extremists'.

You're right, RL, I shouldn't be wasting my time with atheist scum, especially atheist scum trolling on a Christian messageboard. Such fools can't even understand the difference between what is and what should be, or the difference between what is legal and what is right.

Biff

03-06-2006, 04:27 PM

What the heck are you on about? Does it make you feel better to call the unborn child a "Spawn of an act of violence"? Is that the way you can justify murder?

You'll find liberals using mere wordplay as their main form of argument most of the time. Often they have nothing else to work with. It amazes me that someone can so casually dehumanize an innocent baby by reducing it to nothing more significant than a biological consequence. It is more and more apparent to me that liberals don't think their way but merely talk their way through life. The superficiality must be comforting to them.

brilliantLiberal

03-06-2006, 08:47 PM

Preventing pregnancy and abortion are two totally different things.
So, would you support preventing pregnancy by not allowing any potential embryo to bond with the uterine wall? Apparently, either those here do want want to address the issue, or they are so extreme they believe that if semen is injected into a female regardless of the circumstance she must be forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy.

The whole idea behind RAPE is that you cannot control pregnancy, unless the rapist is nice enough to use contraceptives, which isnt the first thing that is on their mind generally.
You CAN control pregnancy. Pregnancy does not occur until the embryo is bonded to the uterine wall and accepted by the host

brilliantLiberal

03-06-2006, 08:49 PM

If anybody should be put to death after a rape, it should be the rapist--the guilty party. But some of the people most virulently opposed to the death penalty for rapists (usually also for murderers) are the pro-abortionists.
What about preventing the pregnancy through RU486 or equivolent?

By the way, I oppose any government engaging in the killing of its own citizens.

brilliantLiberal

03-06-2006, 09:05 PM

As for the argument of a woman suffering while carrying a rapist's "spawn," I believe the suffering that self-same woman will endure at the hands of today's so-called justice system is MORE horrendous than that of simply carrying the child to term.
That's your opinion. Others may have a different opinion. They have rights, too.

She is ALREADY going to go through a living h-ll with a trial reliving that crime over and over, on TOP of that she will most likely suffer post-abortion depression on and off for the remainder of her life (I can vouch for this one) -- there is NO good result, no benefit to aborting the child in the long run.
That's why it's best to prevent the pregnancy from happening.

A woman who CARRIES the child, gives it up for adoption, OR keeps it becaue she's grown to love the child for the gift of God it is (not the h-ll spawn of it's rapist father), is INFINITELY more emotionally balanced because a positive outcome resulted.
Conjecture. Heresay. Anecdotal testimony is not evidence. The fact is, rapists can, have, and will be given visitation rights by judges, which require the victim to remain in constant contact with the rapist. That's just silliness to believe that any woman should be forced to undergo that.