Reply to thread

I didn't see anything in the text book quotes you gave that indicate that killing a fetus is murder. I give more detail on this below.


Listen up. Chip refused to give a source. How could I possibly attack it? How many times do you have to read this to understand it?


My opinion is firmly grounded on the basis of the law and (your lack of) science. We have already discussed this, and I discuss both further below.


Thanks for the heads up. Now we are getting somewhere. Those are State rulings that the USSC has not heard in a trial. From what I read, some of those rulings also carried an opinion that they should not be interpreted to have any bearing on Roe vs. Wade which involves a woman's choice (and not a man's gun).  Until those rulings are considered, Roe vs. Wade still stands as the law.


Your citing of the cases above are factual, but your jump to anything concerning the USSC ruling at this point is only opinion - a judgement on your part. However, you are not a legal judge. Your bitterness is not going to change the law, and you are not going to drag me down to your mewling attitude toward the law as it now stands. You have not made your case. Your time might be better spent filing a court case that would satisfy you, rather than whining about the USSC ruling in this forum.



You are probably a lot younger than I, and see the holocaust as abstract history. But in my generation, the use of metaphors involving Adolph Hitler demeans the Jewish people. Your lack of emotion in that regard is telling. There is no question Hitler was morally depraved. What you are now implying is that the USCC has an equal depravity. I will not buy that as an argument. I trust the judgement of the USSC more than anyone of the likes of Hitler. If you don't, that is your problem.  Your inability to distinguish between the authority of Hitler and the USSC is rather telling on the nature of your thinking. Arguments like yours hit the bottom of the moral bucket.


I disagree. When you start equating genocide of mad man to the choice of women with their own bodies, you have lost sight of the human condition. Period.

 

What on earth are you talking about?? It is the USSC that made the decision! Not me!! I have not selectively decided what women should do with their lives. I think you probably mean my view of the USSC, but you sure have a screwy way of saying that.



A fetus has "desires"?? That's a new one.


Yes. In post #35 you cited three articles and highlighted your salient points in red:


"conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being"

"initiation of the life of a new individual"

"The zygote is a unicellular human being..."


The first excerpt was by John Fletcher who in another article, "argues cogently that if the Supreme Court has given women the right to choose whether or not a pregnancy is carried to term, sex selection is merely an extension of that right.... "

http://www.abortionrisks.org/index.php?title=Social_Effects_and_Implications_of_Abortion

It seems Fletcher is willing to go along with the USSC and allows that abortion falls within the woman's rights even if her reason is that the fetus is not the desired sex. He also says the same thing in

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3560493


Furthermore, Fletcher is a co-author of the following survey of 737 participants:

http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Health/Attitudes-on-the-ethics-of-abortion-sex-selection-and-selective-pregnancy-termination-among-health-c.html

"A survey was carried out of health care professionals, clergy, and ethicists concerning their views on selected ethical aspects of abortion. ...respondents showed that 74 percent disagreed strongly with the statements that abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy is morally unacceptable."


It looks like 3/4 strongly disagree with you. As I said before: You have not made your case.


The excerpted phrases that you provided describing the zygote are in fact remarkably similar the USSC definition of the first trimester -  "potentiality of human life". What you are doing my friend is giving evidence to support the USSC decision! If this is your best shot, you have no case despite your clamoring otherwise. So far, your scientific arguments support the opposite of what you obsessively are trying to "prove".



You can claim this all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Your concept of "law" is simply you making a judgement that is outside the current law. Your concept of scientific evidence is textbooks that use words that support the USSC concepts in their decision.


So, that's the best your "intellectual" mind can come up with? Well, my vitriolic friend you still have not made your case. It seems that you are reducing your arguments more and more to mere cheap mockery without merit.


Here is my bottom line. Your type of religious fundamentalism scares me. It reminds me of those who want to teach creationism in science classes or believe the earth is 10 thousand years old. You carry on in a bitter and mocking tone and show a deep-seated fundamentalist belief that reminds me of the fundamentalism of the Taliban and how they try to impose their moral ideals on women. However you are talking about my country and my people, and not Afghanistan. The humiliation belongs to you my embittered friend.


Back
Top