Abortion

[palerider]

Once fertilized, Pale believes its an abortion to kill the zygote by method of creating a "hostile environment" through the use of what you've referred to as "essential medical care" for the victim. You have argued that the zygote must attach itself to the uterine wall before this "hostile environment" can be considered an abortion.

Actually, he argued that it must attach itself (another misnomer) to the uterus before it even "becomes" a human being.

 

[top gun]

Anyone who dismisses emotions when dealing with humans is a fool. Name one war, one uprising, one psychopath, or one murderer who wasn't fueled by emotion. Wars are always about emotion, there is nothing rational about war. And abortion is the same, all the science, logic, and law in the world will not address the emotions that drive people to kill their own children.

Until we find a way to cope with the emotions around abortion we'll never stop them. Education is a good first step, but it's only a first step. As our overflowing prisons prove: law does not deter crime, recidivism is pandemic, nothing short of capital punishment in our system reduces the number of re-offenders. Do you think that Caucesceu's mandatory death sentence stopped abortions? No, it didn't, but it did orphan thousands of children. That's what happens when you use the Pale Punisher's approach: the babies die and then the mothers do, two wrongs making an even greater wrong.

I think you are way too smart a person to ignore the power of human emotion in this discussion, Gen.

I'd let 'em cannibalize each other and just think how bad that must taste

We all know the underlying thing is to try and control women. If they don't do what they are told with their own bodies and own internal bodily functions some what them punished.

Since we all know a woman can abort anytime she wants and has done it all throughout the ages this is nothing more than a power thing. To some it's a religious power thing and since men can't get pregnant to some it's a men over women power thing... but it's all a power thing in the end.

If people would spend all this wasted energy trying to work & fund ways to make abortion unnecessary in the first place or fund a wonderful huge new orphanage system that would make sense if one was actually trying to address the real problem.

 

[palerider]

We all know the underlying thing is to try and control women. If they don't do what they are told with their own bodies and own internal bodily functions some what them punished.

I would love to see you prove that. Such an argument is no more than an appeal to emotion. Of course every other part of your argument is fallacious as well, so no surprise at all.

Since we all know a woman can abort anytime she wants and has done it all throughout the ages this is nothing more than a power thing. To some it's a religious power thing and since men can't get pregnant to some it's a men over women power thing... but it's all a power thing in the end.

We all know that we can kill practically any other human being any time we want. That being the case, why not simply make it legal? I am sure that you have no problem telling everyone else that they may not simply kill because they wish.

 

[top gun]

I would love to see you prove that.

Precede to fight amongst yourselves. You can't change anything anyway... might as well keep yourselves busy.

Carry on...


Great explanation of Clinic Creepers here by the way...

 

[Bob the Builder]

That is an assumption. I provided credible proof that sperm can reach the egg in as little as 30 minutes. There is no way you could know whether the child already exists or not.

And I have clearly shown that it can take up to 3 days, with the average being measured in tens of hours! The fact that there is NO WAY TO KNOW for certain if it has or has not been fertilized, and the fact that in all probability it has not, your position is to condemn the victim to become impregnated by withholding essential medical treatment, and that is totally barbaric on a level that even Mengele would have balked at. Frankly, in my mind that makes you no better than the rapist himself!

Serttled? Settled?? Settled??? Are you kidding? You grab one medical dictionary, that isn't even among the most prominent that disagrees with the 6 prominent sources I provided and claim that the science is settled? I am laughing in your face again.

And once more, what is your position on embryonic stem cell research?

I don't rely on a medical dictionary for my information, I actually discuss it with MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS (that would be Doctors and Nurses). You know, the ones who actually work in the hospitals and in the research departments, who know one Hell of a lot more about the subject than you do, and there is no "concensus" among them, even where it regards the "settled" information you presented earlier!

Your claims of "prominence" is as disingenuous as the claims made by Al Gore and the rest of the AGW alarmists, and your making such a claim and even attempting to present it as fact only serves to prove that your are yet another in a long line of agenda driven "true believers".

As to your question, until such time as you extend me the courtesy of addressing my statements honestly and directly without engaging in the equivocation and obfuscation that you have to date, I feel no compunction to address yours.

 

[Bob the Builder]

Actually, he argued that it must attach itself (another misnomer) to the uterus before it even "becomes" a human being.

You negelect to point out that I only made that distinction only AFTER you refused to address my point directly, and went off on your tangent.

As to it's attachment being necessary for it to declared a person, that is exactly what I do believe, and regardless of your carefully cherry-picked "research" to the contrary, the fact remains that your "research" has not been PROVED, and therefore is mere THEORY, and we DO NOT gamble with peoples lives and health based on theory.

 

[GenSeneca]

Sorry but there is no difference at all between the pregnancies.

If the will of the woman is irrelevent, then there is no difference between rape and consensual sex, as the woman's permission is the only difference.

Claiming strawman, even when you provide the already well known description does not make it so.

Claiming my analogy has failed also does not make it so.

Nothing about pregnancy is analogous to either charity or welfare.

One is done by free will and the other by force.

As soon as you get into the legalisms to prove your argument, the foundation collapses as there is no real property involved.

Where is your legal foundation for the banning of abortion?

The child is not a disadvantaged individual.

Indeed the unborn child is disadvantaged in the sense that it cannot take care of itself and must be provided for.

the woman is only advantaged in the situation if you are also analogizing that might makes right.

The woman can provide herself the means to continue living, therefore she has an advantage over the child.

You are simply not going to be able to build a rational argument if the foundation involves comparing welfare to pregnancy.

Claiming an argument to be irrational does not make it so. I understand your interest in avoiding the analogy, it challenges basic principles that you flip-flop on once the child is free of the womb.

Superficially they may appear analogous, but in order to make the comparison you very quickly have to begin making great assumptions. "forced" "advantaged" "disadvantaged" and assuming property where none exists.

Forced is not an assumption, it is fact. You're forcing a mother to remain pregnant against her will.
Advantaged is not an assumption, it is fact. The mother can engage in activity that continues her life without the need of charity or welfare from others.
Disadvantaged is not an assumption, it is fact. The child cannot continue to live without the mother and is therefore at a disadvantage.

Sophistry, no matter how well constructed, is still sophistry.

Yet this is precisely what you're argument has eroded into being. You no longer cite any scientific or legal precedents to support your position, you simply decry my position to be superficial, irrational and existing only in sophistry.

Nothing about my argument construes that the right to live is an entitlement.

Yes, it does. As I have stated but you continue to ignore, the right to live is a right to not be killed, it is not a right to be given that which is necessary to live. Until you can come to terms with this, you will continue to misunderstand my analogy as being superficial.

Get yourself another analogy if you want to continue this line of thought because preganancy and welfare simply can not be honestly analogized.

You continue to be dishonest in recognizing the similarities in your rush to discount the comparison.

Further, since your argument depends upon our bodies being viewed as property, the onus is upon you to prove that our bodies are property.

When you purchase food, it is your property. Please explain to me the exact point when in the consumption of that food it ceases to be your property... Is it the magical journey down 7 inches of esophagus?

Welfare involves real property and pregnancy does not.

Welfare involves force, charity does not.

I don't say that I blame you because any argument that argues in favor of allowing one individual to kill another without judical review and without legal consequence for any or no reason must, by definition, be founded in dishonesty.

There you go again... Relying on your assumptions. You assume the unborn child has a right to life but have failed to prove this in any substantial way. But OK, under that assumption I am saying the unborn child would have a right to not be killed, however, it doesn't have a right to continue living off the mother against her will.

This is the conflict of rights that I had hoped you would be able to grasp, acknowledge and resolve but your only explanation was:

...when there is a clash of rights that exists between individuals, the right of the one must give way to the more fundamental right of the other.

And as I have stated, repeatedly but you continue to ignore, this same argument is applicable to supporting welfare. At what point does your above statement no longer apply to individuals? Once they have undergone the magical journey through 7 inches of birth canal?

So long as you persist in your attempt to analogize welfare and pregnancy, the argument can not proceed.

Then stop replying or begin to grasp the issue that I'm at odds with.

I understand where your mind is in constructing this argument, but you are making assumptions that you simply can not prove. I believe that if you could, you would have already done it.

The exact same sentiment is applicable to your argument.

You have several quotes from the founders expressing their opinions, which they compromized when they signed a legal document that said something else.

So according to you, none of what the founders wrote on anything else amounts to a hill of beans and only the Declaration and Constitution are to be looked at in discerning their intentions? This would explain why our Republic is being destroyed through erroneous interpretations of the constitution.

You are claiming that some "change" happens along that 7 inch journey in which a creature of one sort that has no rights becomes a creature of another sort who has inalienable rights.

I am claiming no such thing. A thing is itself. Its only after it comes into being as a separate living entity (out of the womb with umbilical cord cut) that its rights are recognized.

I am making no assumptions at all and calling them assumptions does not make it so.

I feel the same way about your claims of my assumptions.

The supreme court itself has stated that the constitution may be read in the spirit of the declaration.

I don't disagree with this and believe I said so.

Further, the declaration was, and is a legal document as it was never appealed, overturned, or terminated.

It does NOT have the force of law, which is why its never been appealed, overturned, terminated or even reviewed.

It establishes the legal mission of the entity known as the USA. I make no assumptions.

The Supreme Court has generally held that the Declaration does not have the force of law, and no words in the Declaration can give rise to legal rights independently.

So abortion would never have happened just like slavery never happened? Who is being intellectually dishonest?

Still you. My point was that if the Supreme Court had held that the Declaration had the force of law, and its words could give rise to legal rights independent of the Constitution, in which case Abortion would have had a very short existence and would have been long since settled.

 

[GenSeneca]

I'd let 'em cannibalize each other and just think how bad that must taste

If you were capable of fielding an argument in defense of your position it would not be necessary for me to step in and argue for a position I generally disagree with.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If people would spend all this wasted energy trying to work & fund ways to make abortion unnecessary in the first place or fund a wonderful huge new orphanage system that would make sense if one was actually trying to address the real problem.

But that would cost money so it's just not an option. Just another affirmation of the Ronald Reagan belief that "life begins at conception and ends at birth." The only responsibility we as a culture have is to make sure that women carry all the babies to term, after that it's not our concern anymore. Pale is so insistent about getting a law to "punish" women who abort babies because we don't have a law like that, but he doesn't care about babies after birth because we already have laws to "punish" those women who fail to care for their children. Pale the Punisher and his grandfather Vlad the Impaler--or maybe he's just a pale reincarnation of ol' Vlad.

 

[top gun]

But that would cost money so it's just not an option. Just another affirmation of the Ronald Reagan belief that "life begins at conception and ends at birth." The only responsibility we as a culture have is to make sure that women carry all the babies to term, after that it's not our concern anymore. Pale is so insistent about getting a law to "punish" women who abort babies because we don't have a law like that, but he doesn't care about babies after birth because we already have laws to "punish" those women who fail to care for their children. Pale the Punisher and his grandfather Vlad the Impaler--or maybe he's just a pale reincarnation of ol' Vlad.

I think George Carlin stated the Conservatives position best my friend...

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I think George Carlin stated the Conservatives position best my friend...

Carlin always managed to get right down to the quick of the issues, didn't he?

 

[Dr.Who]

I'm not disputing that if we operate from the premise that the unborn have rights equal to those born that there will be a conflict of rights, I acknowledge this fact.

If that is the premise, then forcing the mother to remain pregnant is a violation of her rights but if she is allowed to abort, then its a violation of the child's rights. Recognizing both parties as having equal rights creates both legal and ethical questions that cannot easily be resolved.

If we operate under the premise that the unborn have equal rights then there will indeed times when there will be conflicts. But it will be easy to solve since the right to life clearly stated in the constitution easily trumps the right to privacy implied in the constitution.

I would add that if we make our legal decisions based on the best of known science and throw out religion then it is all too clear that the unborn are persons deserving of equal rights.

If we include the Christian religion in the argument then the unborn are also deserving of rights very soon after conception at the least.

 

[palerider]

And I have clearly shown that it can take up to 3 days, with the average being measured in tens of hours! The fact that there is NO WAY TO KNOW for certain if it has or has not been fertilized, and the fact that in all probability it has not, your position is to condemn the victim to become impregnated by withholding essential medical treatment, and that is totally barbaric on a level that even Mengele would have balked at. Frankly, in my mind that makes you no better than the rapist himself!

So as I said, you are firing a weapon into a building hoping that no one is home.

I don't rely on a medical dictionary for my information, I actually discuss it with MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS (that would be Doctors and Nurses). You know, the ones who actually work in the hospitals and in the research departments, who know one Hell of a lot more about the subject than you do, and there is no "concensus" among them, even where it regards the "settled" information you presented earlier!

So do I. They very often refer me to reference material, published studies, etc. Pretnending to get your information from docs when you are so blatantly wrong hardly increases your reading on the respect o meter.

As to your question, until such time as you extend me the courtesy of addressing my statements honestly and directly without engaging in the equivocation and obfuscation that you have to date, I feel no compunction to address yours.

Of course you don't. You painted yourself into a corner that you can not extricate yourself from without looking like a fool. Of course you are opposed to embryonic stem cell research but because you stuck your big old foot in your mouth claiming that until it implants into the lining of the uterus it is not a human being, how stupid will you look if you admit that you oppose embryonic stem cell research because, after all, those embryos never even have a chance to implant, do they. And yet, you oppose the research because you know as well as I that they are killing human beings for the sake of medical research but now you can't admit it because of the corner you have painted yourself into.

 

[Bob the Builder]

So as I said, you are firing a weapon into a building hoping that no one is home.

Non-sequitur pale. On the other hand, you are attempting to demand that an unlawful intruder be permitted to take up residency in someone elses home just in case they forciably break in, against the will of the homeowner! Oh, and in case you missed it, in most States, the use of deadly force IS authorized to prevent just that.

So do I. They very often refer me to reference material, published studies, etc. Pretnending to get your information from docs when you are so blatantly wrong hardly increases your reading on the respect o meter.

So you claim that you're right because you claim that you get your information from doctors, yet you attempt to excoriate me for making the same statements? You've just shot yourself in the head.

Of course you don't. You painted yourself into a corner that you can not extricate yourself from without looking like a fool. Of course you are opposed to embryonic stem cell research but because you stuck your big old foot in your mouth claiming that until it implants into the lining of the uterus it is not a human being, how stupid will you look if you admit that you oppose embryonic stem cell research because, after all, those embryos never even have a chance to implant, do they. And yet, you oppose the research because you know as well as I that they are killing human beings for the sake of medical research but now you can't admit it because of the corner you have painted yourself into.

Wrong again pale. You're the only one looking like a fool for refusing to address my points directly, instead resorting to misdirection, obfuscation and equivocation. You know for a fact that your "evidence" is nothing more than unproved theory, yet you are attempting to present that theory as if it were fact.

For someone who is claiming that they've "won", you sure are acting desperite aren't you? You've even taken to attempting to attribute statements to me that I never made, which is the purview of liars and liberals. I have expressed no position on stem cell research, whether embryonic, adult, or any other form, which renders your entire statement nothing but a LIE. Are you sure you're not top gun, or maybe you just took lessons from him.

 

[GenSeneca]

If we operate under the premise that the unborn have equal rights then there will indeed times when there will be conflicts. But it will be easy to solve since the right to life clearly stated in the constitution easily trumps the right to privacy implied in the constitution.

Dr. Who,

Are you confusing the right to life stated in the Declaration with the one stated in the constitution?

The 5th amendment states the following:

...No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... (this is further clarified by the 14th amendment)

The 4th amendment is where our right to privacy has its legal foundations as a result of Katz v. United States.

If you establish the precedent that the right to life - of an individual who is completely dependent for survival (the unborn child) - "trumps" the "lesser" rights of those who are not dependent on others for survival (the mother), then you have won a constitutional argument in favor of welfare.

The 14th amendment clearly states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The equal protection clause that the Pro-Life movement makes reference to only applies to individuals who have made the magical journey through the 7 inches of birth canal and not the unborn.