PDA

View Full Version : Liberals going nuts on Steve Stockman's Facebook page




Pages : [1] 2

TaftFan
07-03-2013, 04:50 PM
Over this:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=381992635236130&set=a.322334961201898.58348.316293171806077&type=1

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/q71/s720x720/1044097_381992635236130_685671642_n.jpg

Feel free to chime in!

cajuncocoa
07-03-2013, 04:52 PM
Hurling insults across someone's Facebook page isn't going to change anyone's mind about abortion. Either someone believes that human life exists in a mother's womb or they do not.

Contumacious
07-03-2013, 05:00 PM
This is what a 24 year old woman looks like:

http://fabfunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/funny-celebrity-pictures-veronica-belmont.gif

She OWNS the uterus where the fetus resides and she is the boss and she decides. And I support her right to life and to decide.

.

Mr.NoSmile
07-03-2013, 05:00 PM
Well, shock value often prompts response.

angelatc
07-03-2013, 05:05 PM
This is what a 24 year old woman looks like:

http://fabfunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/funny-celebrity-pictures-veronica-belmont.gif

She OWNS the uterus where the fetus resides and she is the boss and she decides. And I support her right to life and to decide.

.

most women do not support late term abortions. it is murder.

TaftFan
07-03-2013, 05:06 PM
This is what a 24 year old woman looks like:

http://fabfunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/funny-celebrity-pictures-veronica-belmont.gif

She OWNS the uterus where the fetus resides and she is the boss and she decides. And I support her right to life and to decide.

.

And it is murder, at the very least manslaughter.

liberalnurse
07-03-2013, 05:25 PM
"most women do not support late term abortions. it is murder."

This.

muh_roads
07-03-2013, 05:32 PM
Most don't have late term abortions anyway unless the health of the woman is at risk. This is a non-issue to get people riled up over nothing.

Brian4Liberty
07-03-2013, 05:33 PM
Wasn't a Doctor recently found guilty of murder for late term abortion? Problem solved. The AMA should also make voluntary late term abortion a malpractice offense.

muh_roads
07-03-2013, 05:37 PM
Also that chick is incredibly cute.

TITS OR GTFO


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-wBo5_sV0I

ghengis86
07-03-2013, 05:39 PM
Most don't have late term abortions anyway unless the health of the woman is at risk. This is a non-issue to get people riled up over nothing.

I'm curious as to the stats on how many pregnancies actually put the woman's life on jeopardy? I'm sure it's not zero, but I can't believe it's terribly high. Didn't Ron Paul say that in his entire career as an OB/GYN he never had a case where an abortion was necessary to save the mother's life?

spladle
07-03-2013, 05:49 PM
This is what a 24 year old woman looks like:

http://fabfunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/funny-celebrity-pictures-veronica-belmont.gif

She OWNS the uterus where the fetus resides and she is the boss and she decides. And I support her right to life and to decide.

.

I own the house where I live. Do you think I should have the right to kill people who enter my house?

muh_roads
07-03-2013, 05:58 PM
I'm curious as to the stats on how many pregnancies actually put the woman's life on jeopardy? I'm sure it's not zero, but I can't believe it's terribly high. Didn't Ron Paul say that in his entire career as an OB/GYN he never had a case where an abortion was necessary to save the mother's life?

I know in my home state the stats only showed 3 partial birth abortions had been performed in the entire year of 2006 when I last looked.

muh_roads
07-03-2013, 05:59 PM
I own the house where I live. Do you think I should have the right to kill people who enter my house?

If your life is in danger, yes.

spladle
07-03-2013, 06:13 PM
If your life is in danger, yes.

That goes without saying. What if my life is not in danger?

cajuncocoa
07-03-2013, 06:19 PM
The disconnect seems to be along the lines between those who believe what is in the mother's womb is human life, and those who don't believe this. And there are varying degrees among those who do not believe that human life begins at conception as to when that life does begin. Both sides can shout at each other all day long but until there is an agreement on that basic and all-important point, we will be arguing about this forever.

spladle
07-03-2013, 06:36 PM
The disconnect seems to be along the lines between those who believe what is in the mother's womb is human life, and those who don't believe this. And there are varying degrees among those who do not believe that human life begins at conception as to when that life does begin. Both sides can shout at each other all day long but until there is an agreement on that basic and all-important point, we will be arguing about this forever.

Personally, I have trouble understanding how someone could deny that "human life begins at conception" with a straight face. The more important question seems to me to be when and whether one believes that it is worthwhile to force a woman to save said life. To frame it another way: When does one human's desire for life create an obligation for another to (not) act?

cajuncocoa
07-03-2013, 06:50 PM
Personally, I have trouble understanding how someone could deny that "human life begins at conception" with a straight face. The more important question seems to me to be when and whether one believes that it is worthwhile to force a woman to save said life. To frame it another way: When does one human's desire for life create an obligation for another to (not) act?
I have trouble understanding that as well, but that's how it is. You raise a good point, however.

ronpaulfollower999
07-03-2013, 06:52 PM
This is what a 24 year old woman looks like:

http://fabfunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/funny-celebrity-pictures-veronica-belmont.gif

She OWNS the uterus where the fetus resides and she is the boss and she decides. And I support her right to life and to decide.

.

And a fetus does not magically appear in her body. She was either raped, or willing consented.

Kodaddy
07-03-2013, 06:57 PM
What I don't understand is, why is it when a person kills a pregnant person, they are charged with two counts of murder?
Or why, as in a recent case, a man was charged with murder when he gave his pregnant girlfriend (with his baby) the abortion pill without her knowledge or consent? Does he not have a say?
Or how about when your wife or girlfriend wants to abort your baby without your consent?
But a woman can kill her unborn child without any repercussion ?
Where is the consistency in the law?

It's pretty easy not to get pregnant. The morning after pill will stop any unwanted pregnancy from occurring. I just don't see the need for abortion. (Caveat: I'm sure in some very, very rare circumstances an abortion may need to be considered.

tommyrp12
07-03-2013, 06:59 PM
murder is murder at least own up to it, hell why not just throw abortion parties and punch the hell out of your friends fetus , it's your body you don't need the states permission right? why must I have money extorted to murder your kid. I could care less how many offspring one wants but you should be the one paying for it,i didn't mess up you did.

another thing is conscience works in a way where in the mind there is no object without subject and subject without object,why refer to a person or fetus or anything as separate from yourself then say it is your body when clearly there is something else there being identified and "aborted" wich a lot nicer sounding than murder isn't it, sort of has a state approved feeling.

so using logic we can see it is not us being harmed,because you don't die.just the baby does, and you cant abort yourself in that process, then it is something else that suffers death,and if you are the aggressor then to me that is murder in any context.



I dont buy into the medical emergency excuse ,just go to a hospital that's what they are there for ,why have separate places on every block for one specific emergency.

I could care less about policing people's dumb decisions ,i'm just not going to pay for it just like obamacare so good luck with that. we forget politicians campaign on complete BS and logical fallacy's this is no different.

Philhelm
07-03-2013, 07:15 PM
While I don't think that abortion should be illegal, if for no other reason than it would likely cause more problems than it would solve, I do wish people would at least admit to what the act is. I'm tired of the "woman's choice" argument, which is total bullshit. The real argument is at what point is a fetus considered a living human being which deserves protection under the law. The fact that babies come from a woman's body is simply a red herring.

Contumacious
07-03-2013, 07:27 PM
And it is murder, at the very least manslaughter.

It is tyranny, at the very least slavery.

RM918
07-03-2013, 07:40 PM
It all depends on where you think 'life' starts, all of this claptrap about God or choice is irrelevant. If you believe abortion allows women to kill off a life she was responsible for bringing in to the world anyway, you're against it. If you believe it's not a life and you're just taking care of a medical problem, then you're not against it.

At this point I just think it's better left as a state matter - you have two groups of people who have radically different views on whether a crime should even be a crime, and forcing a ban will just cause them to do it anyway. You're going to have to build a society where women who have later abortions are prosecuted consistently and a lot of people don't want to live in that society, and so long as you have those two opposing viewpoints you're never going to have it one way another.

Either way, I think this issue is a distraction. It's something a lot of people care very much about even though I think there are far larger issues that need to be addressed - corporate-government collusion and corruption, the wars, our prisons, our schools, the economy, but people will gleefully ignore all of them to focus on abortion.

QuickZ06
07-03-2013, 07:40 PM
Why can't we just do the most logical approach and just use protection and not have to worry about who is pro choice or not. Smart sex is the answer but there lies the problem, smarts.

cajuncocoa
07-03-2013, 07:41 PM
Why can't we just do the most logical approach and just use protection and not have to worry about who is pro choice or not. Smart sex is the answer but there lies the problem, smarts.

yep

QuickZ06
07-03-2013, 07:45 PM
yep

I think some people are 1,000 and 1,000 of years ahead of everyone else. I wonder if there is a place where all the great intellectual minds throughout history get to meet in the afterlife, if there is one. Maybe one day I can be worthy enough to grab a seat and at least listen in.

matt0611
07-03-2013, 07:45 PM
I don't see abortion as any different than killing an 8 month old baby in my house.

I can easily just say "its my house, my choice" which is complete BS because its another human INSIDE of you, you can't agress against it and kill it unless your life is in danger.

I also love the hypocrisy of the left that suddenly its ALL about self-ownership now. Which they apply to almost nothing.

My business, my choice -> so I can discriminate against certain races in my business now, right?
My business, my choice -> throw min wage out the window, right?
My body, my choice -> prostitution legalized right?
My body, my choice -> every drug legalized right?

QuickZ06
07-03-2013, 07:52 PM
Or maybe we all gain ultimate knowledge when we die thus making us all spectacular in the afterlife.

Who knows, maybe with all the other galaxies out there that could have the possibility of life on their planets. Maybe we get to meet other advanced (or whatever they call themselves) species from other parts of the universe in the afterlife.

Sola_Fide
07-03-2013, 07:54 PM
She OWNS the uterus where the fetus resides and she is the boss and she decides. And I support her right to life and to decide.

.

I OWN the home where my children live. I do not have the right to cut their heads off with scissors. Completely failed argument.

juleswin
07-03-2013, 08:02 PM
I own the house where I live. Do you think I should have the right to kill people who enter my house?

Quit comparing apples to oranges. A house guest can walk out and leave when you ask him/her to while a fetus cannot. Also the woman is in the process of creating this person and while it is being created, she is solely responsible for this being. So up until the point it is able to live independent of the woman, the woman calls all the shots.

On the other hand, I think it would be justified to use deadly force on a house guest who refuses to leave your house after more than 1 week.

juleswin
07-03-2013, 08:07 PM
I OWN the home where my children live. I do not have the right to cut their heads off with scissors. Completely failed argument.

You can kick your children out without having to kill em. Doesn't work the same way for a 6 month old fetus and the fact that they are killed after eviction is to prevent anymore suffering before death. So please stop comparing evicting a fetus from the uterus with evicting your child, husband, house guest from your house. It ain't the same thing

Sola_Fide
07-03-2013, 08:08 PM
Quit comparing apples to oranges. A house guest can walk out and leave when you ask him/her to while a fetus cannot. Also the woman is in the process of creating this person and while it is being created, she is solely responsible for this being. So up until the point it is able to live independent of the woman, the woman calls all the shots.

On the other hand, I think it would be justified to use deadly force on a house guest who refuses to leave your house after more than 1 week.

But the you invited the guest to be in your home for 9 months when you had sex.

Sola_Fide
07-03-2013, 08:11 PM
You can kick your children out without having to kill em. Doesn't work the same way for a 6 month old fetus and the fact that they are killed after eviction is to prevent anymore suffering before death. So please stop comparing evicting a fetus from the uterus with evicting your child, husband, house guest from your house. It ain't the same thing

I cannot leave my newborn baby in the back yard and let it starve. If I do, I am guilty of murder. It is the same with abortion.

Carlybee
07-03-2013, 08:13 PM
What I don't understand is, why is it when a person kills a pregnant person, they are charged with two counts of murder?
Or why, as in a recent case, a man was charged with murder when he gave his pregnant girlfriend (with his baby) the abortion pill without her knowledge or consent? Does he not have a say?
Or how about when your wife or girlfriend wants to abort your baby without your consent?
But a woman can kill her unborn child without any repercussion ?
Where is the consistency in the law?

It's pretty easy not to get pregnant. The morning after pill will stop any unwanted pregnancy from occurring. I just don't see the need for abortion. (Caveat: I'm sure in some very, very rare circumstances an abortion may need to be considered.

I don't think there will ever be a consensus until the law does state what exactly constitutes murder with regard to fetuses. Recently a woman was arrested here for wrapping her newborn up in a blanket and throwing it in a garbage dumpster. Another woman was arrested because her 3 yr old daughter died (allegedly from a seizure) and she buried her without calling authorities. Witnesses believe the child was abused. One has to wonder if those children would have been better off had they never been born. Unfortunately there are many people who have the children and abuse, murder or just throw them away. I think it's a reasonable question to ask if those typed of incidents will increase if abortions are banned. Not saying I agree with aborting a 20 month old fetus..just playing devil's advocate.

I do think the crux of the issue from the pro choice standpoint is not so much that women want to be able to abort a 20 month fetus, but that their choice is being taken away by government. (yes they should have thought about that before they got pregnant).

Sola_Fide
07-03-2013, 08:24 PM
I just react to the utter coldness with which some people speak about this. This is A BABY we are talking about here. I like how Ron compares the dehumanization of unborn babies with the dehumanization of brown people in the middle east. The same kind of twisted thinking goes in to both.

juleswin
07-03-2013, 08:29 PM
I cannot leave my newborn baby in the back yard and let it starve. If I do, I am guilty of murder. It is the same with abortion.

This is why it is essential for the father to be in the child's life, it reduces the chance of a mother abandoning their newborn. Then again, that is the down side of living in a truly free society. If the family decides to abandon a helpless and needy child, he/she will die if nobody gets to them before they starve and it wouldn't be a crime.

What if the woman is too damn poor to feed the child and there's nobody around to help her out? will it still be considered murder if the newborn died under her care?

matt0611
07-03-2013, 08:29 PM
But the you invited the guest to be in your home for 9 months when you had sex.

Yep.

Though I would still say it is morally wrong to abort a baby even if it wasn't consensual.

Contumacious
07-03-2013, 08:38 PM
I own the house where I live. Do you think I should have the right to kill people who enter my house?

You have no evidence that these women INTENDED to get pregnant, to wit, intended to invite a guest.

Assuming, for argument's sake, that she intended to invite a guest then that guest will remain in her body as long as she finds the relationship MUTUALLY beneficial.

Just as you would. The fact that you invite to your house does not mean that I have the right to remain there even when you don't want me there.

How can you OWN your house If , I a guest, can impinge upon your right to exercise sovereignty?

.

.

Sola_Fide
07-03-2013, 08:39 PM
This is why it is essential for the father to be in the child's life, it reduces the chance of a mother abandoning their newborn. Then again, that is the down side of living in a truly free society. If the family decides to abandon a helpless and needy child, he/she will die if nobody gets to them before they starve and it wouldn't be a crime.

What if the woman is too damn poor to feed the child and there's nobody around to help her out? will it still be considered murder if the newborn died under her care?

It would be considered murder if there was the intent to kill. When a person goes to an abortion clinic, there is the intent to kill. Whether the child is beheaded by scissors, or "evicted" from the womb and left to die in a trash can...the intent to kill is there.

Contumacious
07-03-2013, 08:59 PM
If your life is in danger, yes.

What the religious nuts are doing is personifying a fetus.

.

Brett85
07-03-2013, 09:13 PM
The disconnect seems to be along the lines between those who believe what is in the mother's womb is human life,.

So there are some who believe that it's a puppy in the mother's womb?

matt0611
07-03-2013, 09:13 PM
You have no evidence that these women INTENDED to get pregnant, to wit, intended to invite a guest.

Assuming, for argument's sake, that she intended to invite a guest then that guest will remain in her body as long as she finds the relationship MUTUALLY beneficial.

Just as you would. The fact that you invite to your house does not mean that I have the right to remain there even when you don't want me there.

How can you OWN your house If , I a guest, can impinge upon your right to exercise sovereignty?

.

.

You "invited" the baby into you when you had sex, weather you wanted to get pregnant or not, that is the chance you take by having sex.

Once that happens I consider there to be a implicit contract of sorts to not harm the baby, in the same way I could not kill it if it were in my house just because I found it inconvenient.

In the same way its wrong to kill an infant child in your house, its wrong to kill a baby in the womb without cause.

Carlybee
07-03-2013, 09:17 PM
This is why it is essential for the father to be in the child's life, it reduces the chance of a mother abandoning their newborn. Then again, that is the down side of living in a truly free society. If the family decides to abandon a helpless and needy child, he/she will die if nobody gets to them before they starve and it wouldn't be a crime.

What if the woman is too damn poor to feed the child and there's nobody around to help her out? will it still be considered murder if the newborn died under her care?

What if the father is a meth head? Or a crack head? Or a syrup head? That's a broad statement. It totally depends on if the father is a decent responsible person.

Contumacious
07-03-2013, 09:18 PM
The disconnect seems to be along the lines between those who believe what is in the mother's womb is human life, and those who don't believe this. And there are varying degrees among those who do not believe that human life begins at conception as to when that life does begin. Both sides can shout at each other all day long but until there is an agreement on that basic and all-important point, we will be arguing about this forever.

Correctomundo.

juleswin
07-03-2013, 09:21 PM
It would be considered murder if there was the intent to kill. When a person goes to an abortion clinic, there is the intent to kill. Whether the child is beheaded by scissors, or "evicted" from the womb and left to die in a trash can...the intent to kill is there.

For the record, I am personally against abortions, I wouldn't suggest it for my girlfriend, daughter, sister, cousin, friends etc but just like other immoral behaviours I personally disagree with, I refuse to consider it a crime.

Brett85
07-03-2013, 09:23 PM
The comments on his Facebook page are just sad. Such a complete disregard for human life.

Liberals: "It should be completely legal to kill a baby in the womb when the woman is six months pregnant. You don't have the right to force your religious beliefs on me. Oh, by the way, the government should take away your guns since guns are immoral."

Brett85
07-03-2013, 09:23 PM
For the record, I am personally against abortions, I wouldn't suggest it for my girlfriend, daughter, sister, cousin, friends etc but just like other immoral behaviours I personally disagree with, I refuse to consider it a crime.

What would you consider a crime if murder isn't a crime?

angelatc
07-03-2013, 09:26 PM
You can kick your children out without having to kill em. Doesn't work the same way for a 6 month old fetus and the fact that they are killed after eviction is to prevent anymore suffering before death. So please stop comparing evicting a fetus from the uterus with evicting your child, husband, house guest from your house. It ain't the same thing

holy crap - you're advocating for the right to an abortion in the six month? That's the insanity that legalized abortion has implanted, i think.

angelatc
07-03-2013, 09:28 PM
What the religious nuts are doing is personifying a fetus.

.

Statements like that indicate that it isn't the religious who are nuts. The inverse is actually more true - abortion dehumanizes the fetus.

juleswin
07-03-2013, 09:28 PM
What if the father is a meth head? Or a crack head? Or a syrup head? That's a broad statement. It totally depends on if the father is a decent responsible person.

True, but the more people involved(woman's parents, other close close family members etc) the less likely the child will be abandoned. So I was just trying to create a scenario where somebody other than the mother is looking out for the child.

Also fatherhood has a positive transformative effect even on the most screwed up of men. You will be surprised what a drug head will do to care for his child.

Sola_Fide
07-03-2013, 09:31 PM
What the religious nuts are doing is personifying a fetus.

.

That is...literally...the most insane statement I've read on RPF's.

Contumacious
07-03-2013, 09:32 PM
Personally, I have trouble understanding how someone could deny that "human life begins at conception" with a straight face. The more important question seems to me to be when and whether one believes that it is worthwhile to force a woman to save said life. To frame it another way: When does one human's desire for life create an obligation for another to (not) act?

Exactly,

And typically those who are against abortion, will claim that a fetus and a child are the same thing but but will argue that an "illegal" Mexican alien and a legal Mexican American are NOT the same thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

Brett85
07-03-2013, 09:34 PM
Exactly,

And typically those who are against abortion, will claim that a fetus and a child are the same thing but but will argue that an "illegal" Mexican alien and a legal Mexican American are NOT the same thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

You kind of sound like Nancy Pelosi. It's somewhat surprising to me if she's actually posting here herself.

juleswin
07-03-2013, 09:34 PM
What would you consider a crime if murder isn't a crime?

I am going to use the house guest analogy once again cos I don't anymore cold hearted like am sounding right now. I don't believe evicting an invited house guest who refuses to leave your house after you tell em to leave is murder. Now think of it in terms of abortion and you'll have my answer.

matt0611
07-03-2013, 09:36 PM
I am going to use the house guest analogy once again cos I don't anymore cold hearted like am sounding right now. I don't believe evicting an invited house guest who refuses to leave your house after you tell em to leave is murder. Now think of it in terms of abortion and you'll have my answer.

You created a new person and they CANNOT live unless they stay in the womb for a certain amount of time.

It is NOT the same thing!

Brett85
07-03-2013, 09:37 PM
I am going to use the house guest analogy once again cos I don't anymore cold hearted like am sounding right now. I don't believe evicting an invited house guest who refuses to leave your house after you tell em to leave is murder. Now think of it in terms of abortion and you'll have my answer.

There are a subset of libertarians who support a policy of "evictionism" in regards to abortion, but those people don't actually think it should be legal to use tools to kill babies in the womb.

juleswin
07-03-2013, 09:40 PM
holy crap - you're advocating for the right to an abortion in the six month? That's the insanity that legalized abortion has implanted, i think.

Do you advocate for drug use when you call for the decriminalization of drugs? Your no answer is same as mine. I was born a 7 month perme and I don't not want anybody aborting 6 or 7 month old fetus but at the same time, I don't want the state to punish those women who decide to abort at 6 month

Brett85
07-03-2013, 09:41 PM
Do you advocate for drug use when you call for the decriminalization of drugs? Your no answer is same as mine. I was born a 7 month perme and I don't not want anybody aborting 6 or 7 month old fetus but at the same time, I don't want the state to punish those women who decide to abort at 6 month

There isn't any relation at all between those two issues. Drug use is a victimless crime that only hurts the people using drugs. Abortion is a crime that involves a victim that kills an innocent human being.

Or I should say that abortion should be a crime.

Contumacious
07-03-2013, 09:41 PM
And a fetus does not magically appear in her body. She was either raped, or willing consented.

OK sit down, and listen closely,

Someday you will find out that FUCKING feels great and that people love to fuck because it feels great and not because they were planning on having a baby.

.

juleswin
07-03-2013, 09:42 PM
You created a new person and they CANNOT live unless they stay in the womb for a certain amount of time.

It is NOT the same thing!

So can we now agree abortion is different from inviting a house guest to your house?

matt0611
07-03-2013, 09:45 PM
So can we now agree abortion is different from inviting a house guest to your house?

Only the invitation part is similar.

Brett85
07-03-2013, 09:47 PM
As far as the drug analogy is concerned, to me it seems pretty unbelievable that we live in a country where people get thrown in prison for smoking a joint of marijuana, but yet it's perfectly legal to murder a baby for reasons of convenience, pretty much throughout the entire pregnancy.

Cowlesy
07-03-2013, 09:48 PM
Stockman is a very effective troll, and he could quadruple his score if he posted in those comments very nonchalantly "Well all of you who are fine with killing this baby are of course entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to my opinion that you are all lower than whale-shit at 40,000 fathoms." and then leave the thread. They'd erupt. The right would love it, the left would hyperventilate, and he'd raise his profile for counterpunching the left-tards.

cajuncocoa
07-03-2013, 09:49 PM
So there are some who believe that it's a puppy in the mother's womb?
No, of course not. What I meant is, they don't think life exists at all yet.

(I should add that if they believed it to be a puppy, they might be more inclined to protect it).

Contumacious
07-03-2013, 09:49 PM
What I don't understand is, why is it when a person kills a pregnant person, they are charged with two counts of murder?
Or why, as in a recent case, a man was charged with murder when he gave his pregnant girlfriend (with his baby) the abortion pill without her knowledge or consent? Does he not have a say?
Or how about when your wife or girlfriend wants to abort your baby without your consent?
But a woman can kill her unborn child without any repercussion ?
Where is the consistency in the law?

It's pretty easy not to get pregnant. The morning after pill will stop any unwanted pregnancy from occurring. I just don't see the need for abortion. (Caveat: I'm sure in some very, very rare circumstances an abortion may need to be considered.

Well, we shall see once the morning after pill become readily available.

.

Carlybee
07-03-2013, 09:50 PM
True, but the more people involved(woman's parents, other close close family members etc) the less likely the child will be abandoned. So I was just trying to create a scenario where somebody other than the mother is looking out for the child.

Also fatherhood has a positive transformative effect even on the most screwed up of men. You will be surprised what a drug head will do to care for his child.

Unfortunately I live in the reality of the 4th largest city in the US and the news is filled weekly if not daily with children who have been abused and murdered by drughead low life parents so my viewpoint may be a bit different.

TaftFan
07-03-2013, 09:50 PM
Stockman is a very effective troll, and he could quadruple his score if he posted in those comments very nonchalantly "Well all of you who are fine with killing this baby are of course entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to my opinion that you are all lower than whale-shit at 40,000 fathoms." and then leave the thread. They'd erupt. The right would love it, the left would hyperventilate, and he'd raise his profile for counterpunching the left-tards.

This got them really mad:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1315059!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/stockman13n-1-web.jpg

I have to believe his press guy, Donny Ferguson, who is a Paul supporter is behind most of this stuff.

spladle
07-03-2013, 09:50 PM
Quit comparing apples to oranges.

No. Contra the idiom, apples can be compared to oranges. Likewise, if the right of a woman to abort her fetus is predicated upon ownership of her body, then it is reasonable to ask whether ownership of one's home grants the right to kill intruders. If we think it is not, that does not necessarily demonstrate that we must agree that abortion is wrong; but in order to deny this, we must be able to distinguish between the two situations in a philosophically significant way.


A house guest can walk out and leave when you ask him/her to while a fetus cannot.

But I wasn't talking about a house guest. Suppose this person in your house is a baby incapable of walking. Someone left it on your doorstep. You're not sure who.


Also the woman is in the process of creating this person and while it is being created, she is solely responsible for this being. So up until the point it is able to live independent of the woman, the woman calls all the shots.

Do you think these statements apply to children that have been born, also? Suppose we're talking about a two-year-old baby. The woman is in the process of creating this person and while it is being created, she is solely responsible for this being. So up until the point it is able to live independent of the woman, the woman calls all the shots.

Does that mean she can kill the baby if she wants to?


On the other hand, I think it would be justified to use deadly force on a house guest who refuses to leave your house after more than 1 week.

Every single civilized nation on the planet disagrees with you. The right to self-defense must be exercised proportionally; the defense of property almost never warrants the taking of a life.

juleswin
07-03-2013, 09:51 PM
There isn't any relation at all between those two issues. Drug use is a victimless crime that only hurts the people using drugs. Abortion is a crime that involves a victim that kills an innocent human being.


I see what you're saying, but I am not ready to call a fetus who is solely depended on the woman and the woman alone a person. So if you see it from my perspective, there is no victim here.

This is why I think politicians should try as much as possible to avoid this issue, cos you cannot change my mind on this and I cannot change yours. We just have to agree to disagree.

cajuncocoa
07-03-2013, 09:52 PM
Do you advocate for drug use when you call for the decriminalization of drugs? Your no answer is same as mine. I was born a 7 month perme and I don't not want anybody aborting 6 or 7 month old fetus but at the same time, I don't want the state to punish those women who decide to abort at 6 month
How difficult could it be, after enduring the pregnancy for 6 months, to hold on for 3 more and put the baby up for adoption?

Carlybee
07-03-2013, 09:53 PM
The bottom line is that unless you have a fetus declared legally a human being at some point in its development and have laws that declare aborting it as murder this is a neverending battle. Banning is not the same as declaring abortion as murder.

matt0611
07-03-2013, 09:54 PM
I see what you're saying, but I am not ready to call a fetus who is solely depended on the woman and the woman alone a person. So if you see it from my perspective, there is no victim here.

This is why I think politicians should try as much as possible to avoid this issue, cos you cannot change my mind on this and I cannot change yours. We just have to agree to disagree.

Why does it matter if they are "solely" dependent on the woman?

A newborn baby is dependent upon the mother (or someone else) to take of it, still not right to kill it.

Not that it will change my mind about anything, but if it was possible to transfer a baby in a womb to another woman (by some method, just pretend it was possible), then you would be for making abortion illegal? Because that baby wouldn't be "solely" dependent upon that woman in that case. I don't see how this changes anything though.

spladle
07-03-2013, 09:55 PM
You can kick your children out without having to kill em. Doesn't work the same way for a 6 month old fetus and the fact that they are killed after eviction is to prevent anymore suffering before death. So please stop comparing evicting a fetus from the uterus with evicting your child, husband, house guest from your house. It ain't the same thing

Suppose your child/husband/house guest was feverish to the point of delirium, and your house was a cabin in the middle of the woods. In this situation, evicting them would be tantamount to a death sentence. Ought the law require that people provide care for their child/husband/house guest until he or she has recovered from the illness and is no longer in danger of dying?

cajuncocoa
07-03-2013, 09:55 PM
The bottom line is that unless you have a fetus declared legally a human being at some point in its development and have laws that declare aborting it as murder this is a neverending battle. Banning is not the same as declaring abortion as murder.
I completely agree with this.

Brett85
07-03-2013, 09:55 PM
I see what you're saying, but I am not ready to call a fetus who is solely depended on the woman and the woman alone a person. So if you see it from my perspective, there is no victim here.

This is why I think politicians should try as much as possible to avoid this issue, cos you cannot change my mind on this and I cannot change yours. We just have to agree to disagree.

Is it your view that there should be no restrictions on abortion at all? Should abortion be legal when the woman is eight or nine months pregnant since the baby is still dependent on the woman?

spladle
07-03-2013, 09:56 PM
But the you invited the guest to be in your home for 9 months when you had sex.

I think this is a poor analogy. Suppose she used birth control? Does abortion become acceptable then?

spladle
07-03-2013, 09:58 PM
I just react to the utter coldness with which some people speak about this. This is A BABY we are talking about here. I like how Ron compares the dehumanization of unborn babies with the dehumanization of brown people in the middle east. The same kind of twisted thinking goes in to both.

Not everyone agrees that a 3-month-old fetus is the same thing as a baby, nor is it obvious that they should.

matt0611
07-03-2013, 10:00 PM
I think this is a poor analogy. Suppose she used birth control? Is abortion become acceptable then?

No, because birth control greatly lowers the risk, its not a guarantee.

cajuncocoa
07-03-2013, 10:00 PM
Is it your view that there should be no restrictions on abortion at all? Should abortion be legal when the woman is eight or nine months pregnant since the baby is still dependent on the woman?

http://naturalsociety.com/medical-journalists-call-for-after-birth-abortions/

spladle
07-03-2013, 10:00 PM
If the family decides to abandon a helpless and needy child, he/she will die if nobody gets to them before they starve and it wouldn't be a crime.

Actually, this would be a crime. You may not think it ought to be, but it definitely is.


What if the woman is too damn poor to feed the child and there's nobody around to help her out? will it still be considered murder if the newborn died under her care?

Probably not murder, though it depends on the prosecutor and the jury. But she would definitely be considered guilty of neglect and criminally liable for the child's death, yes. Whether you think it should or not, the law imposes obligations on people in certain situations to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.

Feeding the Abscess
07-03-2013, 10:01 PM
I'm curious as to the stats on how many pregnancies actually put the woman's life on jeopardy? I'm sure it's not zero, but I can't believe it's terribly high. Didn't Ron Paul say that in his entire career as an OB/GYN he never had a case where an abortion was necessary to save the mother's life?

Ron has said that he had patients who had ectopic pregnancies that he 'dealt with'. aka aborted. Ectopic pregnancies are usually not viable and also put the mother's health at great risk, however, so you won't find very many people who would disagree with aborting an ectopic pregnancy.

Qdog
07-03-2013, 10:12 PM
I think Murder is ok, as long as you have a good reason. Like does anyone here think it would be morally wrong to put a bullet between Adolf Hitlers eyes? What about a burglar? Somebody raping your mother? Somebody who spilled your beer? Maybe just for a bit of sport? We all have our different thresholds for when we would find it acceptable to kill someone. Maybe some people here are true Pacifists, and would never take someone else's life.

When is it ok to kill a cow? When you are hungry? Cause it wont stop mooing?

Feeding the Abscess
07-03-2013, 10:13 PM
I cannot leave my newborn baby in the back yard and let it starve. If I do, I am guilty of murder. It is the same with abortion.

Is declining to care for a bed ridden elderly person murder? What about a non-functioning retarded adult?

Declining to care for people cannot be considered murder, otherwise you are committing to the belief that people have the right of others to care for them, and thus giving justification for the welfare state. This says nothing of the morality of declining to act in any of these situations, however. Nor does it give sanction to actively ending the life of a fetus, whether in the womb or outside of it.

spladle
07-03-2013, 10:15 PM
You have no evidence that these women INTENDED to get pregnant, to wit, intended to invite a guest.

You have no evidence that I intended to invite a guest into my house. Suppose the person in my house is a mentally ill stranger, or a mischievous child who picked the lock to my back door. Is it alright to kill them then?


Assuming, for argument's sake, that she intended to invite a guest then that guest will remain in her body as long as she finds the relationship MUTUALLY beneficial.

Just as you would. The fact that you invite to your house does not mean that I have the right to remain there even when you don't want me there.

In some situations, it most certainly does. If a property owner invites a guest to stay with him or her for a certain period of time, the law often imposes a duty on the property owner to provide some set amount of notice before eviction can occur. This is true even if no contract was ever signed and no rent was ever paid.


How can you OWN your house If , I a guest, can impinge upon your right to exercise sovereignty?

Ownership is not an all-or-nothing thing. Property rights are divisible and can be thought of as a bundle of sticks, with shards of sovereignty distributable to various parties and in different amounts. Therefore, what it means to "exercise sovereignty" depends heavily on the context of the situation in question. When you invite a guest into your home, you sacrifice some of the rights that you once had - to immediately use physical force in removing them from your property if you would like not to have them around anymore, for example. Absent the invitation, you would generally be allowed to immediately remove an unwanted person using appropriate force. Once an invitation has been extended, you no longer have that right, but must instead allow the former guest a reasonable amount of time to remove themselves. What constitutes a reasonable amount of time will vary from one situation to another.

angelatc
07-03-2013, 10:17 PM
Do you advocate for drug use when you call for the decriminalization of drugs? Your no answer is same as mine. I was born a 7 month perme and I don't not want anybody aborting 6 or 7 month old fetus but at the same time, I don't want the state to punish those women who decide to abort at 6 month

they don't need to punish them - they need to get them mental help, because that's some crazy talk.

angelatc
07-03-2013, 10:18 PM
Ron has said that he had patients who had ectopic pregnancies that he 'dealt with'. aka aborted. Ectopic pregnancies are usually not viable and also put the mother's health at great risk, however, so you won't find very many people who would disagree with aborting an ectopic pregnancy.


that's a red herring. ectopic pregnancy isn't ever viable.

spladle
07-03-2013, 10:19 PM
You "invited" the baby into you when you had sex, weather you wanted to get pregnant or not, that is the chance you take by having sex.

Once that happens I consider there to be a implicit contract of sorts to not harm the baby, in the same way I could not kill it if it were in my house just because I found it inconvenient.

In the same way its wrong to kill an infant child in your house, its wrong to kill a baby in the womb without cause.

Would you say that I "invited" a burglar into my house when I built it, whether I wanted to be robbed or not, and that is the chance I take by building a house?

angelatc
07-03-2013, 10:20 PM
people proudly supporting the 'right' to abortion. this is not progress....

kcchiefs6465
07-03-2013, 10:21 PM
I just react to the utter coldness with which some people speak about this. This is A BABY we are talking about here. I like how Ron compares the dehumanization of unborn babies with the dehumanization of brown people in the middle east. The same kind of twisted thinking goes in to both.
Which is what makes this a particularly redundant debate.

There will always be abortions. The morality of the people is what needs to change. If there were no legal clinics there would be ones on the black market. Similarly some women would punch themselves in the stomach or intentionally harm the baby to try and cause a miscarriage. Not going to change with any amount of laws.

Clearly snipping the spinal cord of a fetus or similar method of homicide is a crime and should not be tolerated. That people are even to partake in that is frankly sickening and troublesome.

I've come to the conclusion that we are a wicked world.

Carlybee
07-03-2013, 10:22 PM
I personally have a hard time thinking of a fetus being aborted after 12 weeks. Actually 8 would be more like it but I realize some people don't know they are pregnant right away. At any time that it could live viably out of the womb, it is certainly hard to justify. I also think its ridiculous how many use it as birth control. By the same token, I have a hard time dealing with people who will fight to the death for a fetus yet not blink an eye at the military dronebombing villages full of babies and children. It is the height of hypocrisy yet many so called conservatives are guilty of it.

spladle
07-03-2013, 10:25 PM
You created a new person and they CANNOT live unless they stay in the womb for a certain amount of time.

It is NOT the same thing!

What if the woman was raped?

Carlybee
07-03-2013, 10:25 PM
Which is what makes this a particularly redundant debate.

There will always be abortions. The morality of the people is what needs to change.


It's actually kind of ironic that the nanny state people support abortion...honestly you would think it would be the other way around.

Sola_Fide
07-03-2013, 10:26 PM
I think Murder is ok, as long as you have a good reason. Like does anyone here think it would be morally wrong to put a bullet between Adolf Hitlers eyes? What about a burglar? Somebody raping your mother? Somebody who spilled your beer? Maybe just for a bit of sport? We all have our different thresholds for when we would find it acceptable to kill someone. Maybe some people here are true Pacifists, and would never take someone else's life.

When is it ok to kill a cow? When you are hungry? Cause it wont stop mooing?

Possibly, but since babies are innocent, no baby could fit into the category you are proposing.

spladle
07-03-2013, 10:26 PM
So can we now agree abortion is different from inviting a house guest to your house?

I don't think anyone would deny that there are differences, but the similarities are what make it a useful analytical tool.

spladle
07-03-2013, 10:28 PM
No, of course not. What I meant is, they don't think life exists at all yet.

(I should add that if they believed it to be a puppy, they might be more inclined to protect it).

As someone who is pro-choice prior to the point of fetal viability, I feel compelled to point out that I don't agree with this. Human life begins at conception.

Also, people > puppies.

Sola_Fide
07-03-2013, 10:30 PM
Is declining to care for a bed ridden elderly person murder? What about a non-functioning retarded adult?

Declining to care for people cannot be considered murder, otherwise you are committing to the belief that people have the right of others to care for them, and thus giving justification for the welfare state. This says nothing of the morality of declining to act in any of these situations, however. Nor does it give sanction to actively ending the life of a fetus, whether in the womb or outside of it.

Not analogous because the person who you are caring for is your own baby which you created with your sexual act.

matt0611
07-03-2013, 10:31 PM
What if the woman was raped?

In that case (and the case of when her life was in danger) I would support her legal right to abort the baby, but morally I would still be opposed to it.

Antischism
07-03-2013, 10:33 PM
They should probably troll him back with some George Carlin or something.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kCyqBKewr4

spladle
07-03-2013, 10:38 PM
Is it your view that there should be no restrictions on abortion at all? Should abortion be legal when the woman is eight or nine months pregnant since the baby is still dependent on the woman?

A fetus at eight or nine months is no longer dependent on its mother's womb to survive.

spladle
07-03-2013, 10:39 PM
No, because birth control greatly lowers the risk, its not a guarantee.

Locking the doors of your house greatly lowers the risk that a burglar will enter, but it's not a guarantee. Should I not be allowed to expel a burglar from my home because I did not guarantee that he could not get in?

Brett85
07-03-2013, 10:43 PM
I think Murder is ok, as long as you have a good reason. Like does anyone here think it would be morally wrong to put a bullet between Adolf Hitlers eyes? What about a burglar? Somebody raping your mother?

There's a difference between murder and killing. What you're describing is not murder, but killing.

spladle
07-03-2013, 10:44 PM
It's actually kind of ironic that the nanny state people support abortion...honestly you would think it would be the other way around.

Not sure I follow. Why would you think that?

spladle
07-03-2013, 10:46 PM
In that case (and the case of when her life was in danger) I would support her legal right to abort the baby, but morally I would still be opposed to it.

But why should the circumstances surrounding the creation of the child's life make it legal to kill him in one instance and illegal to kill him in another?

juleswin
07-03-2013, 10:51 PM
How difficult could it be, after enduring the pregnancy for 6 months, to hold on for 3 more and put the baby up for adoption?

Maybe the last 3 months are the hardest? Also she may have other reasons other than pregnancy hardship to want to abort. Its not for me to say what reason is good enough to make it ok to abort a fetus.

Feeding the Abscess
07-03-2013, 10:51 PM
Not analogous because the person who you are caring for is your own baby which you created with your sexual act.

Rights are universal, and aren't conditional on stage of life or identity. If a baby possesses the right to be taken care of, it still possesses that right when it is older. As does everyone else; if neither of these is true, then rights wouldn't belong to individuals. Clearly, adults don't have the right to have someone else take care of them, and as such, fetuses, children and born babies being human beings, don't possess that right either.

juleswin
07-03-2013, 10:53 PM
Unfortunately I live in the reality of the 4th largest city in the US and the news is filled weekly if not daily with children who have been abused and murdered by drughead low life parents so my viewpoint may be a bit different.

It makes sense you'll only hear about parents that failed. As they saying goes, In journalism, if it bleeds, it leads

juleswin
07-03-2013, 11:21 PM
No. Contra the idiom, apples can be compared to oranges. Likewise, if the right of a woman to abort her fetus is predicated upon ownership of her body, then it is reasonable to ask whether ownership of one's home grants the right to kill intruders. If we think it is not, that does not necessarily demonstrate that we must agree that abortion is wrong; but in order to deny this, we must be able to distinguish between the two situations in a philosophically significant way.

You know what I meant when I said you cannot compare apples to oranges i.e comparing things of different kinds while pretending they are of the same kind. Also you do know that killing a trespasser is legal in this country? so yes to your answer about the homeowners right to kill an intruder/trespasser




But I wasn't talking about a house guest. Suppose this person in your house is a baby incapable of walking. Someone left it on your doorstep. You're not sure who.

Then you walk/drag him/her to the door and if he/she resists, then they turn from guests to intruder. This is the way I rationalize legal abortions, please know that I wont kill anybody not even an intruder. I don't own a gun or even a combat knife so take my posts as a mental exercise.




Do you think these statements apply to children that have been born, also? Suppose we're talking about a two-year-old baby. The woman is in the process of creating this person and while it is being created, she is solely responsible for this being. So up until the point it is able to live independent of the woman, the woman calls all the shots.

No, because at the time the baby is born the baby is no longer a person in creation. It is a person and the infant is not solely dependent on the mother and mother alone. Anybody can come in and take care of the infant. You cannot do this when a fetus is still in the womb



Every single civilized nation on the planet disagrees with you. The right to self-defense must be exercised proportionally; the defense of property almost never warrants the taking of a life.

Wrong, you have the right to kill a thief in your house. Your life doesn't have to be in danger, defending your property is all the excuse you need

juleswin
07-03-2013, 11:27 PM
Why does it matter if they are "solely" dependent on the woman?

A newborn baby is dependent upon the mother (or someone else) to take of it, still not right to kill it.

Not that it will change my mind about anything, but if it was possible to transfer a baby in a womb to another woman (by some method, just pretend it was possible), then you would be for making abortion illegal? Because that baby wouldn't be "solely" dependent upon that woman in that case. I don't see how this changes anything though.

I will give a reluctant yes to your science fiction scenario because there is still a question of ownership. I wonder what you will do to a person who mistakenly got pregnant while of birth control and who for some reason doesn't want her genetic line to live on?

juleswin
07-03-2013, 11:35 PM
Is it your view that there should be no restrictions on abortion at all? Should abortion be legal when the woman is eight or nine months pregnant since the baby is still dependent on the woman?

In my perfect world, the father of the baby would sign a contract with the mother on conditions for abortion before any hanky panky goes on and only the father would be able to sue for any damages resulting in an abortion. Again like Kchciefs said, the morality of the people is what needs to be changed not the laws. You know murder is a crime not just because it is the law books but because the vast majority of the people are morally against it.

You need to win over more percentage of the people to get your way

juleswin
07-03-2013, 11:36 PM
Actually, this would be a crime. You may not think it ought to be, but it definitely is.



Probably not murder, though it depends on the prosecutor and the jury. But she would definitely be considered guilty of neglect and criminally liable for the child's death, yes. Whether you think it should or not, the law imposes obligations on people in certain situations to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.

I disagree with you on both counts.

Sola_Fide
07-03-2013, 11:39 PM
Rights are universal, and aren't conditional on stage of life or identity. If a baby possesses the right to be taken care of, it still possesses that right when it is older. As does everyone else; if neither of these is true, then rights wouldn't belong to individuals. Clearly, adults don't have the right to have someone else take care of them, and as such, fetuses, children and born babies being human beings, don't possess that right either.

If rights werent conditioned on the stage of life then you would agree with me that from conception forward there is a right to life.

This truly is where the folly of basing your entire ethics on one principle fails to provide a philosophy that can sustain freedom. This is where Christianity answers the question of how you have a family structure while simultaneously having individual rights.

Christianity answers the one and the many. It doesnt fall into the insanity of all-encompassing oneness OR atomistic particularity. You can have oneness that is collectivist in nature, which cant sustain a philosophy of freedom...and you can have total atomistic particularity, which cant sustain a free system either. Christianity answers the one and the many by bringing the universals and particulars in harmony.

juleswin
07-03-2013, 11:40 PM
they don't need to punish them - they need to get them mental help, because that's some crazy talk.

So are you suggesting they get mental treatment or are you demanding they get mental treatment. Cos the former is imprisonment(a form of punishment) and the latter is proving help. Now if it the latter, what happens if the offender ignores your advise and continue to perform abortions every time she gets pregnant?

spladle
07-03-2013, 11:56 PM
You know what I meant when I said you cannot compare apples to oranges i.e comparing things of different kinds while pretending they are of the same kind.

Yes, I know what you meant. What you meant was wrong. You can compare different things of different kinds that share some characteristics in common.


Also you do know that killing a trespasser is legal in this country? so yes to your answer about the homeowners right to kill an intruder/trespasser

You are simply mistaken about this. Private citizens are only authorized to use lethal force under strictly limited circumstances. Killing a mere trespasser will almost always result in significant jail time unless you reasonably believe that you or your family are in danger of being badly hurt or killed.


Then you walk/drag him/her to the door and if he/she resists, then they turn from guests to intruder. This is the way I rationalize legal abortions, please know that I wont kill anybody not even an intruder. I don't own a gun or even a combat knife so take my posts as a mental exercise.

To reiterate, no US jurisdiction allows you to kill intruders unless you reasonably fear that they are going to badly hurt or kill you or your family, or in a very small number of states, commit some other felony such as arson or burglary. Mere trespassing will not suffice. If you think that it should be legal to kill people under other circumstances, I'd be curious to know why.


No, because at the time the baby is born the baby is no longer a person in creation.

This is an assertion without an argument. Why is birth the precise moment at which a person becomes actualized? What is it about passing through the birth canal that so completely changes the nature of a human being?


It is a person and the infant is not solely dependent on the mother and mother alone. Anybody can come in and take care of the infant. You cannot do this when a fetus is still in the womb

Sure you can. Haven't you ever heard of a C-section?


Wrong, you have the right to kill a thief in your house. Your life doesn't have to be in danger, defending your property is all the excuse you need

This is true in some states but not in most. Regardless, I'm more interested in knowing why you believe the law should be one way or another than in what the law actually is. Do you think it should be legally A-OK to just straight up slaughter a six-year-old kid that someone left on your doorstep because he's being a whiny brat and won't leave? What if you knew the victim's parents and had agreed to baby-sit, but then changed your mind? Should you be allowed to take an axe to the kid's head if the little fucker won't gtfo at 9:00 PM so you can watch a movie in peace?

Feeding the Abscess
07-03-2013, 11:56 PM
If rights werent conditioned on the stage of life then you would agree with me that from conception forward there is a right to life.

This truly is where the folly of basing your entire ethics on one principle fails to provide a philosophy that can sustain freedom. This is where Christianity answers the question of how you have a family structure while simultaneously having individual rights.

Christianity answers the one and the many. It doesnt fall into the insanity of all-encompassing oneness OR atomistic particularity. You can have oneness that is collectivist in nature, which cant sustain a philosophy of freedom...and you can have total atomistic particularity, which cant sustain a free system either. Christianity answers the one and the many by bringing the universals and particulars in harmony.

I do agree. But that right to life does not confer the right to have someone else sustain that life.

spladle
07-03-2013, 11:57 PM
I disagree with you on both counts.

Then you are just factually mistaken, and bizarrely so, since looking up laws is not that hard to do.

spladle
07-03-2013, 11:58 PM
If rights werent conditioned on the stage of life then you would agree with me that from conception forward there is a right to life.

Does one person's right to life create an obligation on the part of others to sustain that life?

Sola_Fide
07-04-2013, 12:06 AM
Does one person's right to life create an obligation on the part of others to sustain that life?

If the alternative is killing your own baby, yes.

spladle
07-04-2013, 12:10 AM
If the alternative is killing your own baby, yes.

What if the alternative is allowing the baby to die? Is that the same thing, in your opinion?

Carlybee
07-04-2013, 12:10 AM
Not sure I follow. Why would you think that?

Think about it...these are the people who want to ban soda and junkfood because it causes obesity and diabetes. They want every consumer safeguard known to man. They want to regulate everything (except abortion). Historically and pre-Obama they were anti-war. Against all these things that can cause harm in one way or another.

Sola_Fide
07-04-2013, 12:13 AM
What if the alternative is allowing the baby to die? Is that the same thing, in your opinion?

If you allowed your newborn to starve for example, you would be killing it.

Generalissimo
07-04-2013, 12:40 AM
In that case (and the case of when her life was in danger) I would support her legal right to abort the baby, but morally I would still be opposed to it.

Would you support the "right" of a woman to murder a 2 month old infant if that child had been conceived out of rape? If so,mat what point does the child gain the right to life if not at conception?

Ender
07-04-2013, 01:01 AM
Amazing thread.

Abortion is murder. Period.

Anyone who thinks that a 6 month old fetus is not a living human being has obviously never been a mother or a father. Most unborns are moving around at 3 months. Some fetuses are attracted to music and different sounds. A baby is born with a personality and its own habits. It didn't hop out of the womb and instantly develop these traits- they are things that each baby comes with from conception.

I do not like the state involved in personal matters but I also do not accept most selfish reasons that accompany abortions. Don't want the baby? Adopt it out. Most newborns can be taken home right at birth by the adoptive parents- and there are 1000's that want newborns.

spladle
07-04-2013, 01:02 AM
If you allowed your newborn to starve for example, you would be killing it.

What if you allowed someone else's newborn to starve?

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-04-2013, 01:02 AM
If you allowed your newborn to starve for example, you would be killing it.

No you wouldn't - nature would be. I would say you would be a very callous individual to let that happen, but it is not you killing the newborn in any way shape or form. Individuals do not have a right to presume the labor and property of another, no matter if they're homeless, very young, or very old. That isn't to say that I condone such behavior, or think it prudent, just as when I defend the First Amendment I don't defend every incarnation of behavior that comes from it.

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-04-2013, 01:05 AM
Amazing thread.

Abortion is murder. Period.

Anyone who thinks that a 6 month old fetus is not a living human being has obviously never been a mother or a father. Most unborns are moving around at 3 months. Some fetuses are attracted to music and different sounds. A baby is born with a personality and its own habits. It didn't hop out of the womb and instantly develop these traits- they are things that each baby comes with from conception.

I do not like the state involved in personal matters but I also do not accept most selfish reasons that accompany abortions. Don't want the baby? Adopt it out. Most newborns can be taken home right at birth by the adoptive parents- and there are 1000's that want newborns.

Adoption laws need to be liberalized big-time. It is very difficult in this country to adopt and with the lack of material and education on the matter only makes it worse. Never mind the fact that if you open any developmental health book it doesn't skip pregnancy - the fact is the HUMAN developmental lifespan encompasses from fertilization to death, period, and anyone who argues otherwise are simply put dumber than cavemen.

Ender
07-04-2013, 01:07 AM
Adoption laws need to be liberalized big-time. It is very difficult in this country to adopt and with the lack of material and education on the matter only makes it worse. Never mind the fact that if you open any developmental health book it doesn't skip pregnancy - the fact is the HUMAN developmental lifespan encompasses from fertilization to death, period, and anyone who argues otherwise are simply put dumber than cavemen.

Agreed.

My brother has adopted two children and he and his wife were present at both births.

Carlybee
07-04-2013, 01:07 AM
Amazing thread.

Abortion is murder. Period.

Anyone who thinks that a 6 month old fetus is not a living human being has obviously never been a mother or a father. Most unborns are moving around at 3 months. Some fetuses are attracted to music and different sounds. A baby is born with a personality and its own habits. It didn't hop out of the womb and instantly develop these traits- they are things that each baby comes with from conception.

I do not like the state involved in personal matters but I also do not accept most selfish reasons that accompany abortions. Don't want the baby? Adopt it out. Most newborns can be taken home right at birth by the adoptive parents- and there are 1000's that want newborns.

I agree here although most people don't want to adopt little black crack babies..not being racist, it's just a fact of life.

Ender
07-04-2013, 01:09 AM
I agree here although most people don't want to adopt little black crack babies..not being racist, it's just a fact of life.

I would. Love black kids.

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-04-2013, 01:10 AM
I do agree. But that right to life does not confer the right to have someone else sustain that life.

There is no such thing as a right to life, but a right of life, sure. If you have a right to life, then you have a right to all the goods, services, labor, and material that is needed to sustain such life, and then, we can say that you have the right to enslave others for your own benefit. That's the same rationale given for 'Universal Healthcare (misnomer)', and all sorts of other statist measures that destroy individual rights. Simple put, a right of life means no one else has the right to invade your property (body) without your consent.

Carlybee
07-04-2013, 01:11 AM
I would. Love black kids.

You might but statistics show the majority don't. Especially if it's a child that will have health problems or developmental delays. I did see an episode of Hoarders though where this single white guy was raising two black kids and one of them had some major mental problems (crack baby).

kcchiefs6465
07-04-2013, 01:22 AM
You might but statistics show the majority don't. Especially if it's a child that will have health problems or developmental delays. I did see an episode of Hoarders though where this single white guy was raising two black kids and one of them had some major mental problems (crack baby).
This actually falls back on the morality of the people.

It isn't just crack babies, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is arguably more detrimental.

How do we get the mother not to? Crack whores selling their body for nothing more than a puff, continuing their "work" as normal, hardly noticing if they are pregnant and if do, don't care.

It is a complex issue that needs addressed from all sides. The society I envision wouldn't have many of the problems. It is unfortunate the world which we live. I've said it before and I'll say it again, cities are the places where at the end of the day all of the corruption, shadyness, backroom deals and unjust laws bubble into. They create a cesspool of immorality and injustice.

The people reflect their government as well. We aren't a shining standard of morality across the world.

It won't change.

Feeding the Abscess
07-04-2013, 01:33 AM
There is no such thing as a right to life, but a right of life, sure. If you have a right to life, then you have a right to all the goods, services, labor, and material that is needed to sustain such life, and then, we can say that you have the right to enslave others for your own benefit. That's the same rationale given for 'Universal Healthcare (misnomer)', and all sorts of other statist measures that destroy individual rights. Simple put, a right of life means no one else has the right to invade your property (body) without your consent.

You are correct, and are putting forward the same arguments I am in several of these abortion threads. I should have used 'right of life' or 'property is the only right, and your person is the ultimate form of property.' Poor use of language on my part, thank you for the correction.

Sola_Fide
07-04-2013, 01:53 AM
There is no such thing as a right to life, but a right of life, sure. If you have a right to life, then you have a right to all the goods, services, labor, and material that is needed to sustain such life, and then, we can say that you have the right to enslave others for your own benefit. That's the same rationale given for 'Universal Healthcare (misnomer)', and all sorts of other statist measures that destroy individual rights. Simple put, a right of life means no one else has the right to invade your property (body) without your consent.

When you attempt to base your ethics on the axiom of self-ownership alone, the atomistic particularity leads to insane conclusions like "the family order is slavery".

But this kind of atomism is exactly what calls the state into being. The family structure is the bulwark against statism, and the forces of statism are squarely aimed against the family order.

spladle
07-04-2013, 01:53 AM
I would. Love black kids.

http://a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/85/93763de6c10843fe93a75f8a1b3ae949/l.png

Ender
07-04-2013, 01:58 AM
You might but statistics show the majority don't. Especially if it's a child that will have health problems or developmental delays. I did see an episode of Hoarders though where this single white guy was raising two black kids and one of them had some major mental problems (crack baby).

One of my brother's adopted kids is half black; smart, fun, and one of the cutest kids I know.

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-04-2013, 04:40 AM
When you attempt to base your ethics on the axiom of self-ownership alone, the atomistic particularity leads to insane conclusions like "the family order is slavery".

But this kind of atomism is exactly what calls the state into being. The family structure is the bulwark against statism, and the forces of statism are squarely aimed against the family order.

Who said the family order is slavery? It is if it is non-consensual, and having State-police forces chase down and kidnap individuals wanting to leave such units is unfathomably tyrannical. Also, I have to laugh that the forces of statism are squarely aimed against the family. Don't make me laugh. They do everything they can to maintain it, and socially engineer to maintain it.

Between child labor laws, courts skewed against the children and towards the parents, police forces who will literally kidnap your children and bring them back to you, as well as all the economic benefits bestowed upon you from the state which are taken from non-familial entities, etc. etc. Now, I have nothing against non-coercive familial units, but to say the family is the bulwark against statism and the State is attacking it is LAUGHABLE and the only reason you put that forward as some kind of argument is because you're attempting to unduly justify one arrangement of society by saying - see the State is against it, therefore it must be good. Lol...

How you sit there and defend parents kidnapping their own children (if they want to leave) is silly. That's ok though, the State has done everything they can to render children as inept, dependent, and under your thumb as they can. Used to be, back in the day before this silliness, you were an adult in your early teens, got married, had your own family, and were productive members of society. Now, we treat our youngsters as babies well into their mid and late twenties, and keep them trapped in a sick system of State-brainwashing they call schooling, as well as foist upon everyone the idea of property tax to pay for such schemes and we have child labor laws (in the name of the children of course) that prevent them from making it on their own. Yeah, you're really the epitome of moral.

Contumacious
07-04-2013, 06:54 AM
I don't see abortion as any different than killing an 8 month old baby in my house.

I can easily just say "its my house, my choice" which is complete BS because its another human INSIDE of you, you can't agress against it and kill it unless your life is in danger.

But I bet that you do not oppose deporting 11,000,000 "illegal" immigrants from "your" house !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

You have no difficulty concluding that a fetus is a "baby" hence a human being

nevertheless, you have tremendous difficulty concluding that Juan is human being.

go fig.

Brett85
07-04-2013, 07:01 AM
There is no such thing as a right to life, but a right of life, sure. If you have a right to life, then you have a right to all the goods, services, labor, and material that is needed to sustain such life, and then, we can say that you have the right to enslave others for your own benefit. That's the same rationale given for 'Universal Healthcare (misnomer)', and all sorts of other statist measures that destroy individual rights. Simple put, a right of life means no one else has the right to invade your property (body) without your consent.

In 99% of cases, the woman consented to get pregnant and have a baby start growing in her body.

Contumacious
07-04-2013, 07:01 AM
Quit comparing apples to oranges. A house guest can walk out and leave when you ask him/her to while a fetus cannot. Also the woman is in the process of creating this person and while it is being created, she is solely responsible for this being. So up until the point it is able to live independent of the woman, the woman calls all the shots.

On the other hand, I think it would be justified to use deadly force on a house guest who refuses to leave your house after more than 1 week.

Exactly.

Why is that so hard to understand?

.

Origanalist
07-04-2013, 07:10 AM
I just react to the utter coldness with which some people speak about this. This is A BABY we are talking about here. I like how Ron compares the dehumanization of unborn babies with the dehumanization of brown people in the middle east. The same kind of twisted thinking goes in to both.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Sola_Fide again.

Origanalist
07-04-2013, 07:16 AM
OK sit down, and listen closely,

Someday you will find out that FUCKING feels great and that people love to fuck because it feels great and not because they were planning on having a baby.

.

THAT is one of the most shallow posts I have ever read.

Ender
07-04-2013, 07:18 AM
But I bet that you do not oppose deporting 11,000,000 "illegal" immigrants from "your" house !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

You have no difficulty concluding that a fetus is a "baby" hence a human being

nevertheless, you have tremendous difficulty concluding that Juan is human being.

go fig.

Not here, buddy.

I do not believe in abortion and I believe in immigration and freedom of travel.

matt0611
07-04-2013, 07:30 AM
But why should the circumstances surrounding the creation of the child's life make it legal to kill him in one instance and illegal to kill him in another?

Only because she didn't consent to the act. Once you consent to the act you are bound to deal with the consequences.

matt0611
07-04-2013, 07:33 AM
Locking the doors of your house greatly lowers the risk that a burglar will enter, but it's not a guarantee. Should I not be allowed to expel a burglar from my home because I did not guarantee that he could not get in?

The burglar is taking the action though, he's initiating the force against you.

You took the action to have sex which has a possibility of creating another human being, it wasn't the babies choice. Once you create the new human being you are responsible for caring for it and carrying it to term. If you want to give it up for adoption after then that's your choice but you can't kill it before or after its born.

matt0611
07-04-2013, 07:36 AM
But I bet that you do not oppose deporting 11,000,000 "illegal" immigrants from "your" house !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

You have no difficulty concluding that a fetus is a "baby" hence a human being

nevertheless, you have tremendous difficulty concluding that Juan is human being.

go fig.

I'm for basically open borders, unlimited legal immigration, I got no problem with it.

My country isn't the same as my house anyway. Not sure why you assume I'm some anti-immigrant person.

Even if I was, "deporting" isn't the same thing as "killing".

muh_roads
07-04-2013, 07:43 AM
Abortion is also for those that live. If there are complications and the mother could die, the existing children she already has still need their mother. The individual should decide for personal family matters, not the state.

It's funny how so many people here that despise tyranny think women should be considered nothing more than broodmares for the state.

Focus on economics instead. Everyone wants less abortions. Improve the economic status for the population and abortion rates will reduce.

matt0611
07-04-2013, 07:49 AM
Abortion is also for those that live. If there are complications and the mother could die, the existing children she already has still need their mother. The individual should decide for personal family matters, not the state.

It's funny how so many people here that despise tyranny think women should be considered nothing more than broodmares for the state.

Focus on economics instead. Everyone wants less abortions. Improve the economic status for the population and abortion rates will reduce.

Economics huh?

So if we have a 5 year old and have some infants babies and our money is getting low we'll just throw the infant babies in the trash and you'd be ok with that?

"Hey, focus on the economics! I'm not some slave to the state, I can kill my infant babies if I want to!" :rolleyes:

Do you people even think? You disgust me.

And I already said I'm ok with it if the woman's life is in danger.

muh_roads
07-04-2013, 07:55 AM
Economics huh?

So if we have a 5 year old and have some infants babies and our money is getting low we'll just throw the infant babies in the trash and you'd be ok with that?

"Hey, focus on the economics! I'm not some slave to the state, I can kill my infant babies if I want to!" :rolleyes:

Do you people even think? You disgust me.

And I already said I'm ok with it if the woman's life is in danger.

You thinking the state knows what is best instead of the family during a difficult choice for themselves in a time of duress is what disgusts me.

Origanalist
07-04-2013, 07:58 AM
You thinking the state knows what is best instead of the family during a difficult choice for themselves in a time of duress is what disgusts me.

Abortion, the new family value.

matt0611
07-04-2013, 07:59 AM
You thinking the state knows what is best instead of the family during a difficult choice for themselves in a time of duress is what disgusts me.

So I can kill my infant babies now and that would be ok?

"Hey, don't tell me what's best for me you statist! Its a difficult point in our life, we're throwing our infants in the trash ok?!"

That wouldn't be ok...but if its still in the womb then it is? Makes no sense.

Smart3
07-04-2013, 07:59 AM
I own the house where I live. Do you think I should have the right to kill people who enter my house?

You just shot yourself in the foot.

Yes you should have that right, as long as they entered against your will.

cajuncocoa
07-04-2013, 08:10 AM
Think about it...these are the people who want to ban soda and junkfood because it causes obesity and diabetes. They want every consumer safeguard known to man. They want to regulate everything (except abortion). Historically and pre-Obama they were anti-war. Against all these things that can cause harm in one way or another.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BGD2pFwCIAAoXVc.jpg

Contumacious
07-04-2013, 08:14 AM
I cannot leave my newborn baby in the back yard and let it starve. If I do, I am guilty of murder. It is the same with abortion.

There is huge distinction between a NEWLY BORN BABY and a fetus.

A fetus has the potential to become human but is not yet human.


May I remind that sperm is also alive, it has the POTENTIAL to become human .

But if you believe that all live cells are human then you might as well outlaw internet porno and masturbation.

:rolleyes:.

Contumacious
07-04-2013, 08:21 AM
Yep.

Though I would still say it is morally wrong to abort a baby even if it wasn't consensual.

OK , do that means that you do not seen to grant LEGAL RIGHTS to a fetus?

.

cajuncocoa
07-04-2013, 08:25 AM
There is huge distinction between a NEWLY BORN BABY and a fetus.

A fetus has the potential to become human but is not yet human.


May I remind that sperm is also alive, it has the POTENTIAL to become human .

But if you believe that all live cells are human then you might as well outlaw internet porno and masturbation.

:rolleyes:.
That is so full of fail. If a fetus created by the fertilization of human egg by human sperm is not human, what is it?

matt0611
07-04-2013, 08:26 AM
OK , do that means that you do not seen to grant LEGAL RIGHTS to a fetus?

.

I would consider it to be legal to kill the fetus in the case where the sexual act wasn't consensual, because if it was consensual then there is a responsibility to live out potential consequences of the act.

Just because something has legal rights doesn't mean it can't be lawfully killed. A person attacking someone still has legal rights but he/she can still be lawfully killed by another person in self-defense.

But once you make the willful choice to take an action that can potentially create another human being then you must take care of it until you are able to give it up without killing it.

Contumacious
07-04-2013, 08:34 AM
In the same way its wrong to kill an infant child in your house, its wrong to kill a baby in the womb without cause.

1- If it is in utero is not a baby

2- If it is in utero it is subject to mumsy's discretionary authority

.

matt0611
07-04-2013, 08:38 AM
1- If it is in utero is not a baby

2- If it is in utero it is subject to mumsy's discretionary authority

.

No. It isn't subject to her discretion. It has legal rights.

See? I can just assert things too.

angelatc
07-04-2013, 08:42 AM
I would. Love black kids.


Time has shown the propaganda about the long term problems crack babies would face didn't pan out. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/health/27coca.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 , http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126478643

And instead of calling people racist, check out the facts. There are shortages of black babies to adopt, too. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/724219?uid=3739728&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102144401323 (Interesting that this is from 1978, before the liberal manifesto was ingrained in an entire generation of adults today.)

Babies for adoption are in short supply, period.

angelatc
07-04-2013, 08:44 AM
There is huge distinction between a NEWLY BORN BABY and a fetus.

A fetus has the potential to become human but is not yet human.


May I remind that sperm is also alive, it has the POTENTIAL to become human .

But if you believe that all live cells are human then you might as well outlaw internet porno and masturbation.

:rolleyes:.


DNA says otherwise.

Contumacious
07-04-2013, 08:48 AM
The comments on his Facebook page are just sad. Such a complete disregard for human life.

Liberals: "It should be completely legal to kill a baby in the womb when the woman is six months pregnant. You don't have the right to force your religious beliefs on me. Oh, by the way, the government should take away your guns since guns are immoral."

Well, I am not a liberal as that term is used nowadays.

But the message that they were trying to convey is that you have a right to protect your life by using firearms and the women have the right to protect their life by aborting a fetus.

So, what is the contradiction?

.

cajuncocoa
07-04-2013, 08:50 AM
Well, I am not a liberal as that term is used nowadays.

But the message that they were trying to convey is that you have a right to protect your life by using firearms and the women have the right to protect their life by aborting a fetus.

So, what is the contradiction?

.

I don't believe anyone here has voiced an objection to protecting the woman's life if her pregnancy puts her life in danger.

Contumacious
07-04-2013, 08:51 AM
What would you consider a crime if murder isn't a crime?

Murder does not apply to a fetus just as it doesn't apply to those cells you destroy during masturbation.

.

Contumacious
07-04-2013, 08:54 AM
Statements like that indicate that it isn't the religious who are nuts. The inverse is actually more true - abortion dehumanizes the fetus.

"The essential question becomes: 'What does it mean to be an individual?" For only by being an individual can the fetus possess individual rights. When defining a thing, it is necessary to discover the core characteristics-the characteristics without which it would be something else. With human beings, you subtract accidental characteristics such as race, sex, and hair color until you are left with the things which cannot be subtracted without destroying humanness itself. One such characteristic is a rational faculty.

An essential characteristic--indeed, a prerequisite--of considering something to be individual is that it be a discreet entity, a thing in and of itself. Until the point of birth, however, the fetus is not a separate entity; it is a biological aspect of the pregnant woman which possesses the capacity to become discrete. At birth, the fetus is biologically autonomous and is a self-owner with full individual rights. Although it cannot survive without assistance, this does not affect its biological independence; it is simply the dependence that any helpless individual experiences."

Wendy McElroy (http://www.wendymcelroy.com/abort.htm)

.

klamath
07-04-2013, 08:56 AM
You can kick your children out without having to kill em. Doesn't work the same way for a 6 month old fetus and the fact that they are killed after eviction is to prevent anymore suffering before death. So please stop comparing evicting a fetus from the uterus with evicting your child, husband, house guest from your house. It ain't the same thingThis has to be one of the most creepy, sick sentences I have seen in a while. I am sure people like Stalin, Hitler, Mao had similar thought processes in their brains.

angelatc
07-04-2013, 08:57 AM
The comments on his Facebook page are just sad. Such a complete disregard for human life.

Liberals: "It should be completely legal to kill a baby in the womb when the woman is six months pregnant. You don't have the right to force your religious beliefs on me. Oh, by the way, the government should take away your guns since guns are immoral."


Or even better - '"It's your choice unless you're choosing to abort it because of the sex or sexual orientation. You can't abort for those reasons. Downs Syndrome - ok, kill it. Going down syndrome - protected."

angelatc
07-04-2013, 09:04 AM
"The essential question becomes: 'What does it mean to be an individual?" For only by being an individual can the fetus possess individual rights. When defining a thing, it is necessary to discover the core characteristics-the characteristics without which it would be something else. With human beings, you subtract accidental characteristics such as race, sex, and hair color until you are left with the things which cannot be subtracted without destroying humanness itself. One such characteristic is a rational faculty.

An essential characteristic--indeed, a prerequisite--of considering something to be individual is that it be a discreet entity, a thing in and of itself. Until the point of birth, however, the fetus is not a separate entity; it is a biological aspect of the pregnant woman which possesses the capacity to become discrete. At birth, the fetus is biologically autonomous and is a self-owner with full individual rights. Although it cannot survive without assistance, this does not affect its biological independence; it is simply the dependence that any helpless individual experiences."

Wendy McElroy (http://www.wendymcelroy.com/abort.htm)

.

she's a sick puppy.

I though liberals were all about science, but that piece is just an opinion - a rationalization. She is trying to convince readers that an embryo isn't really human, because it isn't cute, and it is helpless. Dehumanizing it, as I said. But babies depend entirely on parents even after they're born, so that's a moot point.

The baby is a unique human individual from the moment the first strand of DNA is formed. Science.

Contumacious
07-04-2013, 09:28 AM
You created a new person and they CANNOT live unless they stay in the womb for a certain amount of time.

It is NOT the same thing!

Sickle cell disease can cause (a) Miscarriage (b) Stillbirth and newborn death

Should a woman be prosecuted for murdering her baby when she knew or should have known that her illness could destroy the baby?

.

juleswin
07-04-2013, 09:35 AM
This has to be one of the most creepy, sick sentences I have seen in a while. I am sure people like Stalin, Hitler, Mao had similar thought processes in their brains.

You will be shocked to learn this but Hitler, Mao or Stalin did not invent mercy killing which is the practice I was talking about. IT is a practice that have been going on ever since humans realized that killing a terminally ill patient in pain is better than allowing em to die a slow painful death. My guess is that those guys u mentioned will opt for the slow and painful death for their enemies instead.

Ender
07-04-2013, 09:51 AM
Well, I am not a liberal as that term is used nowadays.

But the message that they were trying to convey is that you have a right to protect your life by using firearms and the women have the right to protect their life by aborting a fetus.

So, what is the contradiction?

.

Baloney.

If a woman's life is going to be endangered by becoming pregnant, then she should get sterilized.

A "fetus" is a convenient name for a child that is still in the womb. It is still human and it is murder to kill it because it may inconvenience your life.

klamath
07-04-2013, 09:54 AM
You will be shocked to learn this but Hitler, Mao or Stalin did not invent mercy killing which is the practice I was talking about. IT is a practice that have been going on ever since humans realized that killing a terminally ill patient in pain is better than allowing em to die a slow painful death. My guess is that those guys u mentioned will opt for the slow and painful death for their enemies instead.And you might be surprised that it has nothing to do with "mercy killing" but the complete indifference to life for their goals. and no they they didn't prefer a slow and painful death, they just did what they felt was right without any emotion. "For mother Russia!"
The very fact that you admit that there IS suffering created by the abortion shows your indifference. Some people call it cold blooded killing when you wound somebody and then step up and pump a round into the wounding persons forehead.

Contumacious
07-04-2013, 10:00 AM
Every single civilized nation on the planet disagrees with you. The right to self-defense must be exercised proportionally; the defense of property almost never warrants the taking of a life.

If we are all equal , how did you acquire the right to tell a woman, your equal, that the life inside HER utero is more important than she is?!?!?!?!?

.

Sola_Fide
07-04-2013, 10:10 AM
Who said the family order is slavery? It is if it is non-consensual, and having State-police forces chase down and kidnap individuals wanting to leave such units is unfathomably tyrannical. Also, I have to laugh that the forces of statism are squarely aimed against the family. Don't make me laugh. They do everything they can to maintain it, and socially engineer to maintain it.

Between child labor laws, courts skewed against the children and towards the parents, police forces who will literally kidnap your children and bring them back to you, as well as all the economic benefits bestowed upon you from the state which are taken from non-familial entities, etc. etc. Now, I have nothing against non-coercive familial units, but to say the family is the bulwark against statism and the State is attacking it is LAUGHABLE and the only reason you put that forward as some kind of argument is because you're attempting to unduly justify one arrangement of society by saying - see the State is against it, therefore it must be good. Lol...

How you sit there and defend parents kidnapping their own children (if they want to leave) is silly. That's ok though, the State has done everything they can to render children as inept, dependent, and under your thumb as they can. Used to be, back in the day before this silliness, you were an adult in your early teens, got married, had your own family, and were productive members of society. Now, we treat our youngsters as babies well into their mid and late twenties, and keep them trapped in a sick system of State-brainwashing they call schooling, as well as foist upon everyone the idea of property tax to pay for such schemes and we have child labor laws (in the name of the children of course) that prevent them from making it on their own. Yeah, you're really the epitome of moral.

Yes, the state has attempted for centuries to socially engineer the family. That is why I said the forces of government are squarely against it. There is no question that the goal of statism is to manipulate the family, in particular to emasculate men and replace them as the all-provider. And of course we also see this manipulation in eugenics/abortion.

As far as your example of the government enforcing the kidnapping of children, its a non-sequitur, because it assumes that my position requires a state, and it doesn't. None of the moral obligations of the family require a state, just as none of the moral obligations to love your neighbor require a state.

Carlybee
07-04-2013, 10:13 AM
There are a lot of reasons women choose abortion. Yes many of them because they are clueless, lazy and have no respect for life but more often probably, fear of raising a child alone, the cost...most insurance does not cover pregnancy now or if it does it's cost prohibitive, fear of being ostracized for being a single parent...so yes they should have thought of all that but most don't and a 16 year old girl who gets pregnant certainly doesn't. It's a huge fallacy to pretend the men who got them pregnant want anything to do with raising a child too. Most of them would help pay for the abortion. If we are going to have a dialogue at least be honest about it. Plus people who use the moral imperative automatically assume everyone shares the moral imperative...another fallacy. To many, aborting a fetus is the same as removing a big blood clot. I would really like to know how you are going to "force" people to think differently about it. They either do or they don't. I had a friend in high school who got pregnant with her first sexual experience. The boy broke up with her when he found out. She was terrified of her father finding out so she drove out of state and got an abortion. Granted times have changed, but not so much that young girls aren't still terrified at the thought of telling their parents. So to make broad statements ignores the reality in many of these cases and to think that a ban is going to really stop abortion is kind of unrealistic as well.

juleswin
07-04-2013, 10:22 AM
There are a lot of reasons women choose abortion. Yes many of them because they are clueless, lazy and have no respect for life but more often probably, fear of raising a child alone, the cost...most insurance does not cover pregnancy now or if it does it's cost prohibitive, fear of being ostracized for being a single parent...so yes they should have thought of all that but most don't and a 16 year old girl who gets pregnant certainly doesn't. It's a huge fallacy to pretend the men who got them pregnant want anything to do with raising a child too. Most of them would help pay for the abortion. If we are going to have a dialogue at least be honest about it. Plus people who use the moral imperative automatically assume everyone shares the moral imperative...another fallacy. To many, aborting a fetus is the same as removing a big blood clot. I would really like to know how you are going to "force" people to think differently about it. They either do or they don't. I had a friend in high school who got pregnant with her first sexual experience. The boy broke up with her when he found out. She was terrified of her father finding out so she drove out of state and got an abortion. Granted times have changed, but not so much that young girls aren't still terrified at the thought of telling their parents. So to make broad statements ignores the reality in many of these cases and to think that a ban is going to really stop abortion is kind of unrealistic as well.

^^^ What she said ^^^^

This is all you need to read to understand the futility of debating this topic in the public. You are not going to change anybody's mind by debating it. So I say we let the 50% plus of people who disapprove of abortion never perform it and allow the others who happen to have an unwanted pregnancy, are medically suitable and who can afford it go ahead and receive an abortion.

At the end of the day, only a very small fraction of the pro choice people will ever receive an abortion in their lifetime.

cajuncocoa
07-04-2013, 10:37 AM
^^^ What she said ^^^^

This is all you need to read to understand the futility of debating this topic in the public. You are not going to change anybody's mind by debating it. So I say we let the 50% plus of people who disapprove of abortion never perform it and allow the others who happen to have an unwanted pregnancy, are medically suitable and who can afford it go ahead and receive an abortion.

At the end of the day, only a very small fraction of the pro choice people will ever receive an abortion in their lifetime.
Exactly what I said in post #2 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?420238-Liberals-going-nuts-on-Steve-Stockman-s-Facebook-page&p=5108046&viewfull=1#post5108046) of this thread. And I agree that laws, by themselves, do nothing to deter behavior. People are going to act according to their own moral code. Therefore, perhaps we should just do away with all laws and let God sort it out in the end.

Contumacious
07-04-2013, 11:01 AM
How difficult could it be, after enduring the pregnancy for 6 months, to hold on for 3 more and put the baby up for adoption?

The decision to evict a fetus depends ENTIRELY on the woman, not on a consensus.

.

Brett85
07-04-2013, 11:03 AM
.But the message that they were trying to convey is that you have a right to protect your life by using firearms and the women have the right to protect their life by aborting a fetus.

So, what is the contradiction?

.

Who's "they?" Almost all liberals I know are opposed to the right to keep and bear arms. Also, almost all pro lifers support an exception to an abortion ban when the life of the mother is in danger.

Brett85
07-04-2013, 11:06 AM
The decision to evict a fetus depends ENTIRELY on the woman, not on a consensus.

.

So you're arguing in favor of the eviction position on abortion rather than the pro choice position? I don't agree with the evictionist position, but the people who hold that position aren't in favor of using abortion tools to actually kill the baby.

juleswin
07-04-2013, 11:11 AM
Exactly what I said in post #2 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?420238-Liberals-going-nuts-on-Steve-Stockman-s-Facebook-page&p=5108046&viewfull=1#post5108046) of this thread. And I agree that laws, by themselves, do nothing to deter behavior. People are going to act according to their own moral code. Therefore, perhaps we should just do away with all laws and let God sort it out in the end.

I couldn't agree more with your first reply (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?420238-Liberals-going-nuts-on-Steve-Stockman-s-Facebook-page&p=5108046&viewfull=1#post5108046). I am a little perplexed on why you included the last sentence in your reply, are you trying to suggest humanity will go wild like they did in the movie Purge (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/the-purge/) if there were no laws?

Brett85
07-04-2013, 11:21 AM
At the end of the day, only a very small fraction of the pro choice people will ever receive an abortion in their lifetime.

I don't think that's true. I read that something like 1 in 4 women living in the U.S have gotten an abortion.

Some stats even show that it's 1 in 3.

Contumacious
07-04-2013, 11:22 AM
The bottom line is that unless you have a fetus declared legally a human being at some point in its development and have laws that declare aborting it as murder this is a neverending battle. Banning is not the same as declaring abortion as murder.

This is not a philosophical issue.

The citizens of the welfare/warfare state , who want to bomb every country on the face of mother earth , who believe that children in foreign countries are merely collateral damage , come here feigning to be concerned about the unborn.

In reality they want to punish females because (a) they are frigid, (b) are in the late 40's and have not had the pleasure to see a vagina up close and in person, (c) no testosterone on board (d) females who are older than 40 yet their hymens are intact.

'fess up, and the truth shall set you free

.

cajuncocoa
07-04-2013, 11:26 AM
I couldn't agree more with your first reply (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?420238-Liberals-going-nuts-on-Steve-Stockman-s-Facebook-page&p=5108046&viewfull=1#post5108046). I am a little perplexed on why you included the last sentence in your reply, are you trying to suggest humanity will go wild like they did in the movie Purge (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/the-purge/) if there were no laws?Not necessarily. I just don't think it's laws that deter people from acting out (didn't see the movie, but I can imagine). I believe each person's moral code dictates that another's life and property should be respected...or not. We already have tens of thousands of laws, and yet we still have crime.

Carlybee
07-04-2013, 11:30 AM
Not necessarily. I just don't think it's laws that deter people from acting out (didn't see the movie, but I can imagine). I believe each person's moral code dictates that another's life and property should be respected...or not. We already have tens of thousands of laws, and yet we still have crime.


Exactly. Living here in one of the murder capitols...see it every single day. Using words like ban rather than actually enacting a law making it a crime would entail hauling 16 year old girls off to prison.

Sola_Fide
07-04-2013, 11:53 AM
This is not a philosophical issue.

The citizens of the welfare/warfare state , who want to bomb every country on the face of mother earth , who believe that children in foreign countries are merely collateral damage , come here feigning to be concerned about the unborn.

In reality they want to punish females because (a) they are frigid, (b) are in the late 40's and have not had the pleasure to see a vagina up close and in person, (c) no testosterone on board (d) females who are older than 40 yet their hymens are intact.

'fess up, and the truth shall set you free

.


You sound like a pervert. Also, you are complicit in the same kind of twisted thinking that goes in to dehumanizing brown people in the middle east when you dehumanize unborn babies.

helmuth_hubener
07-04-2013, 12:09 PM
The disconnect seems to be along the lines between those who believe what is in the mother's womb is human life, and those who don't believe this. And there are varying degrees among those who do not believe that human life begins at conception as to when that life does begin. Both sides can shout at each other all day long but until there is an agreement on that basic and all-important point, we will be arguing about this forever.

The solution and correct answer is exactly the same as the "parents can't kill their children" thread. See here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?420151-rothbard-is-wrong-parents-cannot-allow-baby-to-die(this-is-murder!) A fetus, like an infant, is not a full human being with full human rights, but it is a potential human being and thus has some rights. You can't just kill it. Both the fetus and the infant are in the exact same situation.

Here is what spladle and Contumacious have said:

She OWNS the uterus where the fetus resides and she is the boss and she decides. And I support her right to life and to decide.
I own the house where I live. Do you think I should have the right to kill people who enter my house?

And they are absolutely right, of course. Now the thing to realize is the exact same principle can and should be applied to the infant child who becomes unwelcome. The couple owns their house. They decide who lives there and who does not. They decide they're sick of their guest's behavior of crying all the time, etc. They can kick the guest, the baby, out. That's their right. It's their house. Absolutely. But they don't have the right to murder their guest. If they're sick of their baby, they need to make the guardianship rights available on the market. Someone will adopt. Problem solved, for everyone: both parents and child.

The same principles apply to abortion. You can kick it out as a trespasser, yes. But if there is a way to do it non-lethally, you must. Freeze the embryo. Transplant the embryo into a willing host mother who wants to adopt it. I don't know if the technology is 100% there, but it's close. Many babies now aborted could be saved. And they should be. They need to be. That does not mean the mothers having second thoughts need to be forced to carry them to term, but it does mean they must not be intentionally killed. The fetus, as a potential human being, must be given some amount of respect and some attempt must be made to preserve his life, within the limits of technology.

This, I think, is the solution that Libertarianism offers. It is a third way, so to speak, out of the abortion dilemma.

AuH20
07-04-2013, 12:18 PM
This is not a philosophical issue.

The citizens of the welfare/warfare state , who want to bomb every country on the face of mother earth , who believe that children in foreign countries are merely collateral damage , come here feigning to be concerned about the unborn.

In reality they want to punish females because (a) they are frigid, (b) are in the late 40's and have not had the pleasure to see a vagina up close and in person, (c) no testosterone on board (d) females who are older than 40 yet their hymens are intact.
'fess up, and the truth shall set you free

.

I have never read such contrived hokum & nonsense in my entire life. Do you realize that this mysterious universe is guided by karma, irrespective of the elusive question of a living God?????? So do you think infanticide, perpetrated upon the most innocent is the so-called right path? Dismembering, chopping up, mutilating life to finality so one can experience fleeting pleasure?

That is the so-called rational tradeoff for a bunch of selfish animals as opposed to a thinking, human being capable of higher judgment. Animals that kill their young, act in such a ruthless fashion and deserve to be put down as so. Enlightened men walk on two feet. Savage animals are relegated closer to the ground on all 4s.

Contumacious
07-04-2013, 12:19 PM
Why does it matter if they are "solely" dependent on the woman?

A newborn baby is dependent upon the mother (or someone else) to take of it, still not right to kill it.

.

It is well understood that neonates and children are dependent on adults.

But neonates and childen can be taken care of by any adult --not necessarily the biological parents.

The problem arises when some of you make the claim that FETUSES have RIGHTS while INSIDE The women's UTERO.

klamath
07-04-2013, 12:38 PM
This is not a philosophical issue.

The citizens of the welfare/warfare state , who want to bomb every country on the face of mother earth , who believe that children in foreign countries are merely collateral damage , come here feigning to be concerned about the unborn.

In reality they want to punish females because (a) they are frigid, (b) are in the late 40's and have not had the pleasure to see a vagina up close and in person, (c) no testosterone on board (d) females who are older than 40 yet their hymens are intact.

'fess up, and the truth shall set you free

.

Sorry, but your argument is joke around here because nobody here believes in the wars it is your type of proabortionist on here that are the worse hypocrites.
you cry crocodile tears for brown babies in the middle east but are fine with killing all babies here.

AuH20
07-04-2013, 12:41 PM
Sorry, but your argument is joke around here because nobody here believes in the wars it is your type of proabortionist on here that are the worse hypocrites.
you cry crocodile tears for brown babies in the middle east but are fine with killing all babies here.

It's a complete copout as well. War is not analogous to abortion. The birth canal is the gateway to life and we have subhumans masquerading as human beings, denying life to those who have committed no transgressions against others. Let's think about that for a second. We have multiple appeals available for those on death row, yet for the most innocent, judgment is swift and ruthless. We live in a wonderful society.

Contumacious
07-04-2013, 12:46 PM
Is it your view that there should be no restrictions on abortion at all? Should abortion be legal when the woman is eight or nine months pregnant since the baby is still dependent on the woman?

No restrictions whatsoever other than those which the women VOLUNTARILY adopt.

Americans are FREE PEOPLE who have the UNALIENABLE ****RIGHTS****to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness.

.

angelatc
07-04-2013, 12:48 PM
^^^ What she said ^^^^

This is all you need to read to understand the futility of debating this topic in the public. You are not going to change anybody's mind by debating it. So I say we let the 50% plus of people who disapprove of abortion never perform it and allow the others who happen to have an unwanted pregnancy, are medically suitable and who can afford it go ahead and receive an abortion.

At the end of the day, only a very small fraction of the pro choice people will ever receive an abortion in their lifetime.


The problem i have with that is evidenced by the sway of public opinion. i remember when abortion was a dirty, filthy, ugly, choice to make. it was nothing to brag about - it was condemned by society at large. It was done in the alley by sleazebags, because that's where it belonged.

Now we're sending a message out to our children that it's no big deal to kill your baby. And it's horrifying.

angelatc
07-04-2013, 12:49 PM
No restrictions whatsoever other than those which the women VOLUNTARILY adopt.

Americans are FREE PEOPLE who have the UNALIENABLE ****RIGHTS****to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness.

.

Unalienable right to life, did you say?

AuH20
07-04-2013, 12:50 PM
The problem i have with that is evidenced by the sway of public opinion. i remember when abortion was a dirty, filthy, ugly, choice to make. it was nothing to brag about - it was condemned by society at large. It was done in the alley by sleazebags, because that's where it belonged.

Now we're sending a message out to our children that it's no big deal to kill your baby. And it's horrifying.


We've come a long way since then...

http://www.jillstanek.com/safe%20legal%20rare.jpg

Sola_Fide
07-04-2013, 12:51 PM
No restrictions whatsoever other than those which the women VOLUNTARILY adopt.

Americans are FREE PEOPLE who have the UNALIENABLE ****RIGHTS****to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness.

.

If rights are inalienable, how is acceptable to alienate the right of life from an innocent baby?

klamath
07-04-2013, 12:53 PM
The house argument is wrong. The analogy is more like a man invites a beautiful young woman out on his boat has his pleasure with her then bashes her overboard, with the oar, when there is no possibility for her to swim ashore. "It is my boat get off!" Then the analogy on an earlier posters "mercy killing" beliefs, when he sees she is bleeding and in great pain he finishes her off by breaking her neck in the water.

angelatc
07-04-2013, 12:55 PM
This is not a philosophical issue.

The citizens of the welfare/warfare state , who want to bomb every country on the face of mother earth , who believe that children in foreign countries are merely collateral damage , come here feigning to be concerned about the unborn.

In reality they want to punish females because (a) they are frigid, (b) are in the late 40's and have not had the pleasure to see a vagina up close and in person, (c) no testosterone on board (d) females who are older than 40 yet their hymens are intact.

'fess up, and the truth shall set you free

.

Just so you know, sometimes it's better to disappear from a thread than to resort to nonsensical babbling.

Contumacious
07-04-2013, 12:57 PM
I think this is a poor analogy. Suppose she used birth control? Does abortion become acceptable then?

They don't care .

Their modus operandi is to PUNISH sexually active FEMALES.

Why else would they ARBITRARILY conclude that "life" begins at conception not when they are produced by the males as sperm.

The reason being that they would have to prosecute all those teenage BOYS who furiously jerk-off killing millions of "babies" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

angelatc
07-04-2013, 01:00 PM
They don't care .

Their modus operandi is to PUNISH sexually active FEMALES.

Why else would they ARBITRARILY conclude that "life" begin at conception not when they are produced by the males as sperm.

The reason being that they would have to prosecute all those teenage BOYS who furiously jerk-off killing millions of "babies" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

That's a pretty damning, albeit hysterical, thing to say about Ron Paul.

AuH20
07-04-2013, 01:03 PM
They don't care .

Their modus operandi is to PUNISH sexually active FEMALES.

Why else would they ARBITRARILY conclude that "life" begin at conception not when they are produced by the males as sperm.

The reason being that they would have to prosecute all those teenage BOYS who furiously jerk-off killing millions of "babies" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

Sexually active females are being punished by their own ignorance of human physiology. This has nothing to do with pro-life critics.

angelatc
07-04-2013, 01:11 PM
Sexually active females are being punished by their own ignorance of human physiology. This has nothing to do with pro-life critics.


This is what we're up against though. Screeching shills who devotedly fall on their swords of science to cling to a talking point that insists that that sperm are, in fact, babies.

You can't reason with insanity, which is why society ends up making laws.

Generalissimo
07-04-2013, 01:14 PM
They don't care .

Their modus operandi is to PUNISH sexually active FEMALES.

Why else would they ARBITRARILY conclude that "life" begins at conception not when they are produced by the males as sperm.

The reason being that they would have to prosecute all those teenage BOYS who furiously jerk-off killing millions of "babies"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A sperm is not a human being, it could be argued its not even human as it only has 23 chromosomes whereas a healthy human has 23 pairs (ie we have 46 chromosomes). It is not until the sperm fertilized the egg that a new, genetically unique, human being is created.

AuH20
07-04-2013, 01:15 PM
This is what we're up against though. Screeching shills who devotedly fall on their swords of science to cling to a talking point that insists that that sperm are, in fact, babies.

You can't reason with insanity, which is why society ends up making laws.

Everybody is a victim. Mother nature can be so cruel for creating STDs and unwanted pregnancies. I speculate that Mother Nature is an ugly, barren White Christian woman!!! ROFL

Carlybee
07-04-2013, 01:18 PM
A sperm is not a human being, it could be argued its not even human as it only has 23 chromosomes whereas a healthy human has 23 pairs (ie we have 46 chromosomes). It is not until the sperm fertilized the egg that a new, genetically unique, human being is created.

No but it contains living swiimming organisms so technically speaking is life.

Generalissimo
07-04-2013, 01:20 PM
No but it contains living swiimming organisms so technically speaking is life.

It is as alive as a skin cell. That does not mean it is a living being. A sperm cell will never become anything other than a sperm cell, it does not contain the genetic material to create a human being on its own.

Equating the abortion of an unborn human being with allowing sperm to die through the act of masturbation is absurd.

Contumacious
07-04-2013, 01:23 PM
As someone who is pro-choice prior to the point of fetal viability, I feel compelled to point out that I don't agree with this. Human life begins at conception.

.


HUMAN Reproduction Stages:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__zsFyoRBdf4/SUK_8wob9RI/AAAAAAAAAPA/rtAhbECKQh8/s400/human+ccle.jpg

Are the SPERM and OVUM part of the REPRODUCTIVE cycle?

Are the SPERM and OVUM HUMAN AND ALIVE?

Sorry to burst your bubble.

.

angelatc
07-04-2013, 01:23 PM
They don't care .

Their modus operandi is to PUNISH sexually active FEMALES.

!!!

.

And there's the other subtext. Babies aren't punishments - they're one of the true miracles of science. I had a high school friend who gave a baby up for adoption. I don't remember anybody saying that she was anything less than a heroine for carrying the child to term.

Women who abort face a myriad of future mental and physical health issues, but we're the people that want to punish women?

angelatc
07-04-2013, 01:25 PM
HUMAN Reproduction Stages:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__zsFyoRBdf4/SUK_8wob9RI/AAAAAAAAAPA/rtAhbECKQh8/s400/human+ccle.jpg

Are the SPERM and OVUM part of the REPRODUCTIVE cycle?

Are the SPERM and OVUM HUMAN AND ALIVE?

Sorry to burst your bubble.

.

You just proved our point. Human life begins at conception.

Human sperm is not human life. They are a by-product.

Carlybee
07-04-2013, 01:30 PM
It is as alive as a skin cell. That does not mean it is a living being. A sperm cell will never become anything other than a sperm cell, it does not contain the genetic material to create a human being on its own.

Equating the abortion of an unborn human being with allowing sperm to die through the act of masturbation is absurd.

I didn't equate it with that nor am I saying it constitutes a human.....just pointing out that technically a living cell is still considered life and without that sperm cell an egg cannot become an embryo therefore masturbating could be technically construed as killing millions of potential lives.

Generalissimo
07-04-2013, 01:34 PM
I didn't equate it with that nor am I saying it constitutes a human.....just pointing out that technically a living cell is still considered life and without that sperm cell an egg cannot become an embryo therefore masturbating could be technically construed as killing millions of potential lives.

Unless you have the accompanying millions of eggs, then no, there is no potential for life there. A sperm is not a self sustaining form of life, it is just a cell. It cannot live on its own for more than a few days and will always die a sperm unless it creates a new life which requires an egg.

There is no potential for life in a single sperm without an egg, so the masturbation killing millions of potential life is an intellectually dishonest proposition. If you seriously believe that then every time one has sexual intercourse, even if a baby is conceived, you are still guilty of "murdering millions of potential lives" because the average ejaculation has millions of sperm which never fertilize any eggs.

angelatc
07-04-2013, 01:35 PM
A sperm is not a human being, it could be argued its not even human as it only has 23 chromosomes whereas a healthy human has 23 pairs (ie we have 46 chromosomes). It is not until the sperm fertilized the egg that a new, genetically unique, human being is created.


Amazing that the self-anointed pro-science crowd gets hung up in this. It isn't that hard.

They have no idea when live begins, but they're damned sure it doesn't begin when it actually takes on a life of it's own.

Generalissimo
07-04-2013, 01:37 PM
Amazing that the self-anointed pro-science crowd gets hung up in this. It isn't that hard.

They have no idea when live begins, but they're damned sure it doesn't begin when it actually takes on a life of it's own.

lol but I'm the anti-science one because I'm a Catholic and believe in the sanctity of life.

Carlybee
07-04-2013, 01:39 PM
Unless you have the accompanying millions of eggs, then no, there is no potential for life there. A sperm is not a self sustaining form of life, it is just a cell. It cannot live on its own for more than a few days and will always die a sperm unless it creates a new life which requires an egg.

There is no potential for life in a single sperm without an egg, so the masturbation killing millions of potential life is an intellectually dishonest proposition. If you seriously believe that then every time one has sexual intercourse, even if a baby is conceived, you are still guilty of "murdering millions of potential lives" because the average ejaculation has millions of sperm which never fertilize any eggs.



No one is saying sperm is a human. But it IS a life..even if it dies off quickly on it's own. A frigging amoeba is a life..such as it is. That's all I was saying.

Contumacious
07-04-2013, 01:40 PM
It's actually kind of ironic that the nanny state people support abortion...honestly you would think it would be the other way around.

Oh my fucking god, the pot calling the kettle black.

Here is a "CONSERVATIVE" complaining about "LIBERALS" while advocating the creation of an OMNIPOTENT GARGANTUAN state that will track down wayward females.

Give me a fucking break

..

Carlybee
07-04-2013, 01:42 PM
Oh my fucking god, the pot calling the kettle black.

Here is a "CONSERVATIVE" complaining about "LIBERALS" while advocating the creation of an OMNIPOTENT GARGANTUAN state that will track down wayward females.

Give me a fucking break

..

Excuse me? First of all I am neither conservative or liberal and how am I advocating anything? I was making an observation. Kindly go fuck yourself Sparky.

angelatc
07-04-2013, 01:44 PM
The same people that support abortion support drafting women into the military. Wait until you see how those two things fit together for women who get pregnant in violation of military rules.

angelatc
07-04-2013, 01:45 PM
Oh my fucking god, the pot calling the kettle black.

Here is a "CONSERVATIVE" complaining about "LIBERALS" while advocating the creation of an OMNIPOTENT GARGANTUAN state that will track down wayward females.

Give me a fucking break

..


Did you forget that Ron Paul is pro-life?

juleswin
07-04-2013, 01:46 PM
No one is saying sperm is a human. But it IS a life..even if it dies off quickly on it's own. A frigging amoeba is a life..such as it is. That's all I was saying.

The pro life people are talking about human life and bio forms with the ability of attaining human life. In that regard a sperm is not a human life. I dont know why anyone on this side of the debate would make such a claim.

Carlybee
07-04-2013, 01:49 PM
The pro life people are talking about human life and bio forms with the ability of attaining human life. In that regard a sperm is not a human life. I dont know why anyone on this side of the debate would make such a claim.

I'm aware of that but someone in one of these threads did use the term "taking a life"..just pointing out the technicalities of that expression.

Carlybee
07-04-2013, 01:52 PM
Okay...out of this thread. Now I remember why I generally don't get involved in this debate, why I didn't post here for several months, and why the Republicans will probably lose because the only thing that seems to matter to them is this issue above all else. (not that it shouldn't matter but it's right up there with the gay marriage issue).

Contumacious
07-04-2013, 01:53 PM
Which is what makes this a particularly redundant debate.There will always be abortions. The morality of the people is what needs to change. If there were no legal clinics there would be ones on the black market.
I've come to the conclusion that we are a wicked world.

Black markets are the result of tyrannical rules.

Hitler believed that the "national security" required incinerating/gassing 6,000,000 human beings.

Here the anti-female anti-liberty crowd want to crucify women in the altar of greater morality.

.

juleswin
07-04-2013, 01:57 PM
I will say this and then try and stay out of this thread. I agree with the pro lifers that a fetus even at day 1 is a human being (potential) with full rights but because he/she is living within another human being with those same rights, the right of the host human providing the accommodation supersedes that of the fetus. The fetus right is only conditional to the whim of the host.

So yes, it is life but until that life is able to exist without the internal supports of the host, the host reserves the right to be sole decider and administrator of the baby's natural rights.

Contumacious
07-04-2013, 02:06 PM
If rights werent conditioned on the stage of life then you would agree with me that from conception forward there is a right to life.



WHY?

.

spladle
07-04-2013, 02:14 PM
Only because she didn't consent to the act. Once you consent to the act you are bound to deal with the consequences.

But why is abortion not a legitimate way of dealing with the consequences? You agree that it should be legal if the woman was raped. Why should it not be legal if she was not raped?

angelatc
07-04-2013, 02:14 PM
The pro life people are talking about human life and bio forms with the ability of attaining human life. In that regard a sperm is not a human life. I dont know why anyone on this side of the debate would make such a claim.


It is intended to dehumanize the victims.

angelatc
07-04-2013, 02:17 PM
Black markets are the result of tyrannical rules.



Here the anti-female anti-liberty crowd want to crucify women in the altar of greater morality.

.

Ron Paul is pro-life.

Black markets exist in infant trafficking because of abortion.


Giving birth is a form of crucifixion now. got it.

matt0611
07-04-2013, 02:18 PM
But why is abortion not a legitimate way of dealing with the consequences? You agree that it should be legal if the woman was raped. Why should it not be legal if she was not raped?

Because once you consent to the act then its YOUR responsibility. Your actions -> your responsibility.

The ONLY way of stopping it is to end the unborn babies life. If it were possible to save it then I would also make that illegal as well.

spladle
07-04-2013, 02:18 PM
The burglar is taking the action though, he's initiating the force against you.

The fetus is taking the action though, it's initiating the force against the woman.

What is wrong with this analogy?


You took the action to have sex which has a possibility of creating another human being, it wasn't the babies choice.

Suppose a woman took the action of walking alone, in a short skirt, down a dark alley, which has a possibility of creating another human being. It wasn't the baby's choice. Why should it be legal to kill the baby under these circumstances?


Once you create the new human being you are responsible for caring for it and carrying it to term. If you want to give it up for adoption after then that's your choice but you can't kill it before or after its born.

Unless you were (or claim that you were) raped, right? In which case killing it should be legal. Or have I misunderstood you? Surely you realize that legalizing abortion only in the case of rape would cause the number of rape accusations to explode, yes? What is your solution to this problem?

angelatc
07-04-2013, 02:19 PM
WHY?

.


You're the one who said there was a right to life.

matt0611
07-04-2013, 02:20 PM
The fetus is taking the action though, it's initiating the force against the woman.

What is wrong with this analogy?



Suppose a woman took the action of walking alone, in a short skirt, down a dark alley, which has a possibility of creating another human being. It wasn't the baby's choice. Why should it be legal to kill the baby under these circumstances?



Unless you were (or claim that you were) raped, right? In which case killing it should be legal. Or have I misunderstood you? Surely you realize that legalizing abortion only in the case of rape would cause the number of rape accusations to explode, yes? What is your solution to this problem?

The fetus is ONLY existing though, its not an active action against you, only passive. That's the only thing it can do to live. Your actions made it EXIST so its not taking any actions that were not caused from YOUR OWN DOING.

If the woman was raped then I would be ok with it (but not morally, only legally, its a compromise that I'm willing to make).

If you want to be make it illegal even in case of rape then I'd be fine with that too.

spladle
07-04-2013, 02:20 PM
You thinking the state knows what is best instead of the family during a difficult choice for themselves in a time of duress is what disgusts me.

Have you ever seen The Texas Chainsaw Massacre?

spladle
07-04-2013, 02:23 PM
You just shot yourself in the foot.

Yes you should have that right, as long as they entered against your will.

Suppose the person in your house against your will is a baby incapable of walking or talking. Someone left it on your doorstep. You're not sure who. The baby will not leave when you order it to - it just sits there, crying and pooping.

Do you think that people should have the right to shoot this baby in the head with a pistol?

spladle
07-04-2013, 02:24 PM
There is huge distinction between a NEWLY BORN BABY and a fetus.

A fetus has the potential to become human but is not yet human.

What makes this distinction so huge?

How should we decide what is a human and what is not a human?

Sola_Fide
07-04-2013, 02:37 PM
WHY?

.

Dude, you're all kinds of confused. Your signature line is a quote from one of the greatest Calvinist statesman to ever live (and a person who detested the dehumanization of slavery). Yet, here you are promoting the dehumanization of people.

The reason that conception is the start of life is because this is when a unique person with a unique DNA is formed. It is a human signature that never existed before and will never exist again.

Sola_Fide
07-04-2013, 02:38 PM
But why is abortion not a legitimate way of dealing with the consequences? You agree that it should be legal if the woman was raped. Why should it not be legal if she was not raped?

Why should an innocent baby pay the death penalty for the crimes of his mother or father?

spladle
07-04-2013, 02:39 PM
If we are all equal , how did you acquire the right to tell a woman, your equal, that the life inside HER utero is more important than she is?!?!?!?!?

.

We are not all equal.

I am not sure what you mean by the word "right" in this context. I have the ability to say virtually anything that I would like to virtually anyone that I would like to.

No woman is my equal. Some are better, others are worse.

I would almost never render a judgment that the life inside a woman's uterus is more important than the woman herself.

You seem to me to be very confused and angry. I suggest that you leave this place and go read some books.

spladle
07-04-2013, 02:42 PM
This is all you need to read to understand the futility of debating this topic in the public. You are not going to change anybody's mind by debating it.

I have changed some people's minds by debating this topic. You are mistaken.

spladle
07-04-2013, 02:47 PM
And I agree that laws, by themselves, do nothing to deter behavior.

This is wrong. There is an extensive body of literature demonstrating that laws shape incentives and hence encourage or deter certain behaviors. This is in fact one of the central insights of the science of economics.


People are going to act according to their own moral code.

It is true that people act according to their own moral codes. But it is also true that people's moral codes are shaped by the society in which they live, and by the laws which govern them.


Therefore, perhaps we should just do away with all laws and let God sort it out in the end.

There are some laws that God has not granted us the ability to do away with, but which are written into the very fabric of the universe. Recognition of and respect for these laws is pretty important.

Alex Libman
07-04-2013, 02:48 PM
I OWN the home where my children live. I do not have the right to cut their heads off with scissors. Completely failed argument.

No, it isn't. You can evict your children from your home without killing them.

In my understanding of rational philosophy, their Right to Life and Right to Emancipation would require you to announce it publicly, and, in a civilized society, there'd be no shortage of charities that would be willing to help them. The fetus cannot yet be transplanted out of a womb where it is not welcome without killing it - its negative Right to Life is not an issue.

See also:


Wikipedia article on Evictionism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism)

Forum thread: Fetal "Right To Free Exit" (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/the-polling-pit/fetal-'right-to-free-exit')



Did you forget that Ron Paul is pro-life?

First of all, I hope that the goal of this discussion is the rational pursuit of Truth, not "Ron Paul is an infallible authority on everything".

I like Ron Paul, and getting the Federal Government out of the abortion regulation business, leaving it up to the states, is a perfectly reasonable position. If Ron Paul was running for a state Governor on a prohibitionist platform, then we'd have a problem, but that issue never came up.



Why should an innocent baby pay the death penalty for the crimes of his mother or father?

It is an eviction, not a "penalty". The death of the fetus is an inevitable side-effect, not the goal of abortion.



What makes this distinction so huge?

Physical autonomy. A baby can exist with just its negative Right to Life and Right to Emancipation - somebody else can take care of it. A fetus, if it is not wanted, requires some "positive right" to trespass in its mother's body against her will.



How should we decide what is a human and what is not a human?

That isn't related to the question being debated.

spladle
07-04-2013, 02:48 PM
The decision to evict a fetus depends ENTIRELY on the woman, not on a consensus.

This is just factually incorrect. If a large enough consensus exists that a woman should not be allowed to evict her fetus, then she will not be allowed to evict her fetus, or she will be punished if she does.

Contumacious
07-04-2013, 02:50 PM
This is an assertion without an argument. Why is birth the precise moment at which a person becomes actualized? What is it about passing through the birth canal that so completely changes the nature of a human being?

Look at the human reproductive cycle closely:

Do biologists show the baby at the END of the cycle or at MID cycle?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__zsFyoRBdf4/SUK_8wob9RI/AAAAAAAAAPA/rtAhbECKQh8/s400/human+ccle.jpg

.

Red Green
07-04-2013, 02:51 PM
This is what a 24 year old woman looks like:

http://fabfunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/funny-celebrity-pictures-veronica-belmont.gif

She OWNS the uterus where the fetus resides and she is the boss and she decides. And I support her right to life and to decide.

.

I would like to support her boobs.

spladle
07-04-2013, 02:55 PM
They don't care .

Their modus operandi is to PUNISH sexually active FEMALES.

Why else would they ARBITRARILY conclude that "life" begins at conception not when they are produced by the males as sperm.

The reason being that they would have to prosecute all those teenage BOYS who furiously jerk-off killing millions of "babies" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

You are showing a rather extreme lack of empathy here.

Have you ever spoken with a psychiatrist?

spladle
07-04-2013, 02:59 PM
HUMAN Reproduction Stages:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__zsFyoRBdf4/SUK_8wob9RI/AAAAAAAAAPA/rtAhbECKQh8/s400/human+ccle.jpg

Are the SPERM and OVUM part of the REPRODUCTIVE cycle?

Are the SPERM and OVUM HUMAN AND ALIVE?

Sorry to burst your bubble.

.

Yes, the sperm and ovum are part of the reproductive cycle.

No, the sperm and ovum are not human and alive.

Any more brain busters?

Contumacious
07-04-2013, 03:00 PM
There is no such thing as a right to life, but a right of life, sure. If you have a right to life, then you have a right to all the goods, services, labor, and material that is needed to sustain such life, and then, we can say that you have the right to enslave others for your own benefit. That's the same rationale given for 'Universal Healthcare (misnomer)', and all sorts of other statist measures that destroy individual rights. Simple put, a right of life means no one else has the right to invade your property (body) without your consent.

Unfortunately , from the welfare/warfare state crowd's standpoint the right to life has been distorted to mean that the government and taxpayers owe the parasites a living.

.

AuH20
07-04-2013, 03:00 PM
This is just factually incorrect. If a large enough consensus exists that a woman should not be allowed to evict her fetus, then she will not be allowed to evict her fetus, or she will be punished if she does.

Don't we have murder laws on the books? There is nothing new here.

spladle
07-04-2013, 03:04 PM
Black markets are the result of tyrannical rules.

No, black markets are simply the result of rules. There is no need for them to be tyrannical. Consider that the rule against murder has resulted in a black market for assassination contracts. Yet surely you do not think that we should legalize murder, do you?


Hitler believed that the "national security" required incinerating/gassing 6,000,000 human beings.

http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/3/2933/tumblr_m90f6l8Rba1qe7sl3o1_400.jpg

Origanalist
07-04-2013, 03:05 PM
Look at the human reproductive cycle closely:

Do biologists show the baby at the END of the cycle or at MID cycle?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__zsFyoRBdf4/SUK_8wob9RI/AAAAAAAAAPA/rtAhbECKQh8/s400/human+ccle.jpg

.

LOL!

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4659787183816752&pid=15.1

Contumacious
07-04-2013, 03:09 PM
Even if I was, "deporting" isn't the same thing as "killing".

Familiarize yourself with the Ed Snowden case.

Also learn about the hundreds of "illegals" who die attempting to cross the Arizona desert.

.