Abortion

To which enty do you refer?

Ice Dancer said:
You keep wanting to make abortion about an entity you don't even believe in ...stupid.

Your opinion is that abortion kills a woman's kid, but that's OK with you 'cause it isn't "your kid".

My opinion is that it's not OK to deliberately kill an innocent person...no matter its current location or who's kid it is. Children are not personal property to be destroyed or kept at whim...they are individules who should have rights of protection like every other person.

I base my opinion on the fact that it is ethically unjust to kill what even you acknowledge is "a kid".

You are one twisted up dude~~~
Click to expand...
No, stupid is assuming I don't believe in God. I do. Just not your version of God and I never speak for God. I figure He's big enough to fight His own battles. As long as we're on the subject...why does God need money?

Moi? Twisted? You been talking to my wife?
I've just seen too many atrocities committed in my lifetime by do-gooders to have any faith at all in your ability to prevent more atrocities committed in God's name. That's what this boils down to. How many will you have to murder to enforce compliance with your dogma?
 
Cypress said:
Surprisingly, most of the "controversy" I see on a regular basis is from dudes that either don't have girlfriends, or dudes who are stressed out about women whom they don't even know having abortions. Just look at this board. How many wingnut dudes do you see complaining about women they don't even know, having a right to reproductive choice? I see a ton of wingnuts like that.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am sure you think a person who is concerned about a society that allows their progeny to be killed out of hand because the law refuses to acknowledge the scientific fact of their humanity "wingnuts". People throughout history have referred to those who object to their morally corrupt practices using derogatory references.
 
augustino5150 said:
No, stupid is assuming I don't believe in God. I do. Just not your version of God and I never speak for God. I figure He's big enough to fight His own battles. As long as we're on the subject...why does God need money?

Moi? Twisted? You been talking to my wife?
I've just seen too many atrocities committed in my lifetime by do-gooders to have any faith at all in your ability to prevent more atrocities committed in God's name. That's what this boils down to. How many will you have to murder to enforce compliance with your dogma?
Click to expand...
You are the one who seems to insist that any objection to abortion must stem from religious objections.

If this is not your stance, why do you focus only on that aspect, with the defense that you will not allow religious dogma to determine law?

If it IS your stance, you are wrong. What we are seeing is society (societies) using law to deny a specified class of humans basic human rights - specifically the right to life. Yes there are other aspects to it, including the rights of women. However, when rights conflict, the more basic right should always take precedence. My right to play my music at the volume I desire is overshadowed by my neighbor's right to peace. His right is more fundamental than mine, so I must keep my music down to a level that does not bother my neighbor.

Here we are talking about two rights: the rights of women to control their own bodies, and the right of the unborn to life. The rright to life is the most basic, most fundamental of all rights. Therefore it should take precedence. Even most pro-choice advocates admit the right to life is fundamental with all other rights being derived from that one basic right. So their answer is to either claim that the unborn are not human (a claim easily proven false by science) or that they are not FULLY human (a claim without substance, you are either human or not) or that they are not deserving of the legal label "person" from which the law derives it's definition of whose rights are protected.

This latter view still needs to answer the question: how is it moral for law to deny human rights to a class of living humans?
 
Simple Common Sense?

Good Luck said:
You are the one who seems to insist that any objection to abortion must stem from religious objections.
If this is not your stance, why do you focus only on that aspect, with the defense that you will not allow religious dogma to determine law?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with objections to abortion. It's when you decide to make law that I become worried. History paints an ugly picture of morality laws.

If it IS your stance, you are wrong. What we are seeing is society (societies) using law to deny a specified class of humans basic human rights - specifically the right to life. Yes there are other aspects to it, including the rights of women. However, when rights conflict, the more basic right should always take precedence.
Click to expand...

There is no conflict. The fetus is a part of the mother's body. The mother owns her body and all of the parts, including the fetus. The fetus becomes a human being when it is no longer part of the woman's body...at birth. This is Natural Law. It goes all the way back to the very beginning of human civilization.



My right to play my music at the volume I desire is overshadowed by my neighbor's right to peace. His right is more fundamental than mine, so I must keep my music down to a level that does not bother my neighbor.
Click to expand...

LOL
Now I get it!
The right of a woman to own her body annoys you, so if you have to turn down your volume she must submit to ownership!

This latter view still needs to answer the question: how is it moral for law to deny human rights to a class of living humans?
Click to expand...

Law does not deny human rights to any class of living humans. You aren't in the class of the living until you are no longer part of the woman's body.

Now, let me ask you a question.
Are we going to prosecute women who miscarry?
What if it was caused by riding a bicycle?
Don't laugh. It has happened here in our past.
You're preaching Dominionism and I ain't buyin'.

I will not vote for anyone who will order a woman to bear a child against her will.
 
augustino5150 said:
I have no problem with objections to abortion. It's when you decide to make law that I become worried. History paints an ugly picture of morality laws.
Click to expand...
Really? Laws against theft are, essentially, morality laws. They enforce the morality that it is wrong to take something that is not yours. Laws against unjustified homicide are also moral in nature. As are laws against slavery. And laws against punching people in the face. Laws which instate progressive tax systems for the purpose of supporting the poor are, in the end of it, morality laws, enforcing the moral philosophy that it is wrong to allow the poor to suffer without offering any help. Law is, essentially, the codification of an established morality.

augustino5150 said:
There is no conflict. The fetus is a part of the mother's body. The mother owns her body and all of the parts, including the fetus. The fetus becomes a human being when it is no longer part of the woman's body...at birth. This is Natural Law. It goes all the way back to the very beginning of human civilization.
Click to expand...
This is ignorance of science, as well as the history of human civilization. The medical aspects of human reproduction have been reasonably understood for centuries, and the ability to deliberately stop the process has been known for for well over two centuries. Yet abortion has been legal for less than 50 years. And the last 50 years would not have occurred if it were not for the deliberate lies of the pro-abortionists with their deliberate campaign of misinformation about unborn humans.

So much for "natural law". The fact is the abortionists have conducted a deliberate campaign of misinformation aimed at dehumanizing the unborn. I pointed this out before: the pro-abortionnist (laughingly calling themselves "pro-choice") use ignorance and false claims - scientifically proven false time and again - to deny the humanity of the unborn. They act like the moment of birth is magic: it transforms from one thing to another. You are one holdding onto of the most ignorant (or biggest lies - take your pick) who actually claim the unborn are not human until birth.

Sorry. You lose in the face of science. Go read a book or two from the biology section of your local library. Pay particular attention to the sections about reproduction in mammals. The fetus is NOT part of the mother, they simply reside in the mother during the early stages of their development. This is true for ANY mammal. They are unique living organisms with a unique combination of genome and biochemistry - even identical twins, who share the same genome, do not have exactly duplicated biochemistries. They are unique living organisms. Further, their genome determines their species. If they have a human genome, they are human. If the gametes that mated to create the new life came from humans, the result can be nothing less than a full blooded human. That is the science of it. You can lie about "natural law" all you want, it only proves you to be maintaining a deliberate cloak of ignorance (or lies - take your pick) in order to support your conclusions that killing unborn children is somehow OK to do.

augustino5150 said:
LOL
Now I get it!
The right of a woman to own her body annoys you, so if you have to turn down your volume she must submit to ownership!
Click to expand...
LOL
Now I get it!
When your lies are exposed for what they are, you resort to absurd and inflammatory accusations and act as if you are making a point.

FACT: In most societies the right to life takes precedence over ALL other rights. No one disputes this basic precept.

FACT: Unborn humans are living humans - abortionists take two approaches to this basic fact. One, they lie through their teeth to deny this basic fact, even though it is proven science. Or, two, they claim that a scientific definition of humanity is not good enough.

You are obviously one of those who insists on ignoring established scientific fact in favor of their views about the status of the unborn. Why do you insist on denying proven science? Are you truly that hopelessly stupid that you cannot comprehend basic biological facts? Or are you so hopelessly wedded to your philosophy of moral corruption that you have only lies left to your defense?
 
Last edited:
augustino5150 said:
No, stupid is assuming I don't believe in God. I do. Just not your version of God and I never speak for God. I figure He's big enough to fight His own battles. As long as we're on the subject...why does God need money?

Moi? Twisted? You been talking to my wife?
I've just seen too many atrocities committed in my lifetime by do-gooders to have any faith at all in your ability to prevent more atrocities committed in God's name. That's what this boils down to. How many will you have to murder to enforce compliance with your dogma?
Click to expand...

Great you believe in God.

Having a problem with do gooders is your problem not mine. My position is as I stated earlier:

"Your opinion is that abortion kills a woman's kid, but that's OK with you 'cause it isn't "your kid".

My opinion is that it's not OK to deliberately kill an innocent person...no matter its current location or who's kid it is. Children are not personal property to be destroyed or kept at whim...they are individules who should have rights of protection like every other person.

I base my opinion on the fact that it is ethically unjust to kill what even you acknowledge is "a kid".

You are one twisted up dude~~~"
 
Your Opinion Ain't Law...Thank Moses!

Ice Dancer said:
Great you believe in God.

Having a problem with do gooders is your problem not mine. My position is as I stated earlier:

"Your opinion is that abortion kills a woman's kid, but that's OK with you 'cause it isn't "your kid".

My opinion is that it's not OK to deliberately kill an innocent person...no matter its current location or who's kid it is. Children are not personal property to be destroyed or kept at whim...they are individules who should have rights of protection like every other person.

I base my opinion on the fact that it is ethically unjust to kill what even you acknowledge is "a kid".

You are one twisted up dude~~~"
Click to expand...
Oh Baby! Beat me with a red hot hanger!
I still will not order a woman to bear a child against her will nor vote for anyone who will.
 
Thanks but no thanks

Really? Laws against theft are, essentially, morality laws.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Laws against theft prevent me from killing you after you steal my horse. The law takes care of you instead of me. That prevents range wars that kill innocents with all of those ride by shootings.

Or are you so hopelessly wedded to your philosophy of moral corruption that you have only lies left to your defense?
Click to expand...

What lies? I deny none of the science nor the ethics. History teaches that abortion law is always used as a weapon against women. I'll trust history before I'll trust your good intentions.
 
augustino5150 said:
Wrong. Laws against theft prevent me from killing you after you steal my horse. The law takes care of you instead of me. That prevents range wars that kill innocents with all of those ride by shootings.
Click to expand...
You are truly an idiot.

Laws against theft are because we, as a society, recognize the right of persons to own property, and the resulting immorality of taking property that is not yours without permission. Your counter is dead wrong because there was a time when the laws concerning theft DID allow you to kill me after I took your horse.

What you describe as law is the criminal justice and penal systems that are designed to enforce the laws. But they are NOT the law themselves. The LAW is the code that formalizes the MORAL conclusion that theft (mureder, etc.) is wrong.


augustino5150 said:
What lies? I deny none of the science nor the ethics.
Click to expand...
Yes, you do. You CLEARLY stated more than once that the unborn are NOT HUMAN until they are born. That is patently false, and denies the science of reproduction. If your actually BELIEVE what you claim, then you are ignorant beyond belief. If, OTOH, you are aware of the basics of biological science, yet continue to make your claims about the unborn not being human, then you are lying.

augustino5150 said:
History teaches that abortion law is always used as a weapon against women. I'll trust history before I'll trust your good intentions.
Click to expand...
Okay, why don't you show me the historical texts that make these claims. Otherwise, you are, once again, a liar. History makes no such conclusions, and teaches no such ideas. They are entirely your invention. Laws against abortion have ALWAYS been about protecting the lives of unborn human children. Sometimes they have been more religious moral based than scientific or social morals, but it has been about protecting children. Claiming the PURPOSE is to enslave women is an outright lie, and even claiming an unintended result is enslavement is pushing things into the typical liberal realm of emotionally charged disinformation.

But that is the way of defenders of legal abortion. The ONLY way to support it is to lie about who it kills, and why. The misinformation of the abortionists is being challenged more and more openly,
 
Good Luck said:
You are truly an idiot.

Laws against theft are because we, as a society, recognize the right of persons to own property, and the resulting immorality of taking property that is not yours without permission. Your counter is dead wrong because there was a time when the laws concerning theft DID allow you to kill me after I took your horse.

What you describe as law is the criminal justice and penal systems that are designed to enforce the laws. But they are NOT the law themselves. The LAW is the code that formalizes the MORAL conclusion that theft (mureder, etc.) is wrong.


Yes, you do. You CLEARLY stated more than once that the unborn are NOT HUMAN until they are born. That is patently false, and denies the science of reproduction. If your actually BELIEVE what you claim, then you are ignorant beyond belief. If, OTOH, you are aware of the basics of biological science, yet continue to make your claims about the unborn not being human, then you are lying.


Okay, why don't you show me the historical texts that make these claims. Otherwise, you are, once again, a liar. History makes no such conclusions, and teaches no such ideas. They are entirely your invention. Laws against abortion have ALWAYS been about protecting the lives of unborn human children. Sometimes they have been more religious moral based than scientific or social morals, but it has been about protecting children. Claiming the PURPOSE is to enslave women is an outright lie, and even claiming an unintended result is enslavement is pushing things into the typical liberal realm of emotionally charged disinformation.

But that is the way of defenders of legal abortion. The ONLY way to support it is to lie about who it kills, and why. The misinformation of the abortionists is being challenged more and more openly,
Click to expand...

A total dork...have fun :)
 
A Simple Matter Of Trust

Good Luck said:
You are truly an idiot.
Click to expand...
Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Laws against theft are because we, as a society
Click to expand...
Are you still in grammar school? Before civilization law was capture based. Do you understand capture? Do you even know what capture is? Hint: You can take as much as you want. You can keep as much as you can hold. That's the first law and is still in use today by tribes in primitive places.




You CLEARLY stated more than once that the unborn are NOT HUMAN until they are born.That is patently false
Click to expand...
That is patently the law.


Okay, why don't you show me the historical texts that make these claims. Otherwise, you are, once again, a liar.
Click to expand...
The Kosovo war? Ever heard of it? It was when Clinton was president, back when you were starting school. Here's a link to the official data: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/
Want more? There's plenty including bogus prosecutions of women right here in America. Like I said, I don't trust your good intentions.
 
Good Luck said:
No, I am not kidding - and there are many women who make that choice. I personally have known 2. One survived (barely), one did not. Are you saying both were wrong in their choice?
Click to expand...
No. You fool. I'm saying it's not a choice at all.


Are you implying that survival of the self is a moral obligation? Explain this concept farther. Because I can think of numerous examples when giving up one's own survival could be argued to be the moral obligation.
Click to expand...
If one has to choose between life and an uneccessary death (which is not a choice at all) then yes, one is morally obligated to chose life.


Yes, if were I in such a situation, I would feel the obligation toward my living children outweighed any obligation to pursue a miniscule chance at bringing the child to term at the cost of my life. But that is how I would choose according to that poarticualr situation. Some women may see it differently. Thgat is why it is a CHOICE.
Click to expand...
That would be an immoral choice then.


Actually it is you who has no concept of choice. You failed completely to address the fact that, all too often, people CHOOSE to ignore their moral obligations in pursuit of some other agenda - all too often a compeltely egocentric agenda. But in the cases of choosing to pursue an (almost) impossible goal of bringing a problem pregnancy to term, the agenda may be a religious or philosophical compulsion. But the fact is, even in the face of so called "moral obligations" (many of which people will not always agree are moral obligations) people have the CHOICE to still take other courses of action according to what THEY believe to be the higher obligation - even if that "higher" obligation, from their POV, is pursuit of personal hedonism.

And you still avoided my question. Why is that? I answered your question, so the least you can do is answer mine.

How is it moral to use law to deny human rights to a targeted class of humans?
Click to expand...
Sorry but you're utterly clueless if you think choosing a needless and uneccessary death over life is a moral choice. That's not a choice at all. It's suicide and I know no moral person that advocates suicide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top