Basic Logic...

It's not whole sale which the inclusion of dead fetuses in the abortion. They also do DnE's and DnC's for women who have miscarried on whose fetus dies in the second trimester as well. Christ, 74% of abortions in Georgia that you totalitarians decry as callous murder are actually fetuses that died and you Callously lump women who WANTED their children but they died. The majority of abortions in this country are done in the first 15 weeks. While it without argument, kills mechanistic human life, it is hardly the slaughter you emo totalitarians make it out to be.

On the other hand the point of my original post regarding Obama was his actions in IL Senate, for 'born alive' babies of late term abortions. Not d & c's and such. But you will spin away.

You never did answer, is 1 too many? For babies or innocent condemned felons?
 
On the other hand the point of my original post regarding Obama was his actions in IL Senate, for 'born alive' babies of late term abortions. Not d & c's and such. But you will spin away.

You never did answer, is 1 too many? For babies or innocent condemned felons?
Anyone that kills a baby should go to jail. But to KILL a baby the BABY has to be born, otherwise it is a fetus, as for actual later term abortion, IMO ONLY life or health of the mother or in cases of Anacephaly are acceptable for late term abortions.
 
No Jarod.......you must have missed this in the thread.

Here is how the conversation went:

Jarod: Do you support Satanic worship?

LR: No.

Jarod: Are you for making it illegal?

LR: Only if it involves killing someone.

Now, using your logic, since I believe abortion to involve killing someone I am for making it illegal. Mr. Obama, by his continued voting against all such efforts to even reduce the number of abortions, clearly supports a woman's "right" to kill someone.

only by your definition is it killing 'people', not the legal definition per the supreme court...or until they change their minds - as far as the law is concerned, your 'beliefs' are not relevant :pke: only the law is
 
You do not understand basic logic.

There is a difference between supporting someone in doing something and supporting there right to do it.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose a bill other than supporting the thing it proports to bann.

I am against Late term abortion, however I was against that bill because it did not make a provision for the life of the WOMAN.

j

late term abortion is not done electively but only for medical reasons, i.e., the health of the woman carrying the fetus

any abortion should be decided between the woman carrying the fetus and the medical provider, no one else should have a final say

abortion is hard enough on the woman carrying the fetus without others chiming in with their emotions
 
There is a difference in allowing someone to have the right to their own belief and allowing someone to take the life of another human being.

One does not affect you or anyone else. The other does affect someone else.

how is it that your belief trumps another persons belief
 
LMAO....

It is not emotion Jarod... it is that "basic logic" you mention.

It is not logical to compare having the right to worship someone/something to someone having the right to take a life. One does not affect anyone but the individual. The other takes the life of a second individual.

As for your above example... I do support making the life of the woman and the life of the child equal. Meaning that if the womans life is in danger... she most certainly has the right to choose to protect her own life over the life of her child.

However, when it comes to taking the life of the child out of convenience... that is completely different.

sf

so you are saying that views on life are better than the law's views on life, if so please move to another nation where the laws follow your views
 
Most abortions are done at a point when they don't really AFFECT someone else. Most abortions are done in the first trimester, there is no SOMEONE there. The brain is not evolved enough for the other to be affected. And they are different from BORN people in that Born people are protected by the constitution whereas unborn are not.

oh soc,

if you all want to have a debate on abortion, please move to another site


people, in general, are too polarized to debate abortion rationally
 
You really need to work on your analogies. They are horrid.

When the mothers life is in danger... her rights are not superceded by that of the child. She has the right to choose between her life and the childs. On this we agree.

The question is.... Should the unborn child be entitled to basic human rights?

That is the argument Jarod. Yes or no? If yes, then the mother should not have the right to end the kids life for any reason other than her life being in danger.

If no, then things should remain as they are today.

When you actually THINK LOGICALLY about this issue and take your emotion out of it. This is what the real debate should break down to. Genetics show the child to be human. It is obviously alive or you would not have to kill it. Thus... the question we must ask ourselves is should that child be entitled to basic human rights protections?

sf

substitute the word awareness for the word life, or the word soul for the word life and you could really get a debate going

at what point is the production of conception 'alive'

sperm and egg separate are each alive

the zygote is alive

the embryo is alive

the fetus is alive


somewhere in the above, awareness occurs (likely)

successful conclusion results in a baby


the law is inconsistent on when the live portion transitions to a killable entity for the purposes of determining is a murder has occurred

earlier if a crime induces the abortion

later if it is a medically induced abortion

fyi - over 50% of all matings between an egg and sperm result in a spontaneous abortion - includes at the zygote, embryo and fetus stages

in other words, the odds are against a delivered healthy baby for every egg/sperm mating

oh well
 
LOL.

I'm sorry, I don't normally hassle the spelling thing.

Satin worship though... well, the picture is hilarious!

damo

i wondered if someone would point this oops out:tongout:

and hey, satin is pretty neat...but worship, it takes all types...:pke:

notice the segue from satan worship to abortion, can we have a section for abortion topics to keep from cluttering up the site...please
 
Anyone that kills a baby should go to jail. But to KILL a baby the BABY has to be born, otherwise it is a fetus, as for actual later term abortion, IMO ONLY life or health of the mother or in cases of Anacephaly are acceptable for late term abortions.

I agree with your exceptions, problem is in these cases, the 'aborted' baby-even after the trama of late term abortion lived. Obama, along with others said these babies, should be considered 'fetuses' as they were products of abortions.
 
It's not whole sale which the inclusion of dead fetuses in the abortion. They also do DnE's and DnC's for women who have miscarried on whose fetus dies in the second trimester as well. Christ, 74% of abortions in Georgia that you totalitarians decry as callous murder are actually fetuses that died and you Callously lump women who WANTED their children but they died. The majority of abortions in this country are done in the first 15 weeks. While it without argument, kills mechanistic human life, it is hardly the slaughter you emo totalitarians make it out to be.
First let me state unequivocally that placing DNEs performed on fetuses who died a natural death in the same classification as abortion is wrong, corrupt, and ridiculous.

Totalitarians? The pro-life faction are not the ones defending killing other humans without just cause as a "right". And 3700 per day is wholesale.

And your precious 74% figure only applies to those procedures applied during the third trimester. Did you forget that? The percentage of procedures performed during the first trimester due to natural death are MUCH lower. It is rare that first trimester miscarriages need a DnC. The vast majority of all abortions at all stages of development deliberately kill the unborn child.

And you completely bypass the fact that 74% being fetuses that died in uturo from natural causes still leaves 26% that are killed in their third trimester by direct and purposeful intervention. That is 11,000 unborn children who have reached their 29th or later week of development. And that is just one year in one state. Some of those are due to life threatening medical conditions, but the percentage is very low.

These are human beings who can hear and react to music and their parents' voices, which indicates the ability to learn (voice recognition) which means the mental capacity to consciously process information. It is quite common for premature births at the 29th week or later to survive. (The current record premature birth to survive is 20 weeks, 5 days) So we are talking about VIABLE humans being killed.

There is no magical change that takes place in a human fetus during the birth process. The idea that birth makes a real definable difference, except in the minds of pro-choicers, is incorrect. As in flat out brainlessly, selfishly, deliberately, inhumanely wrong.

You can call the unborn by the correct scientific name for their developmental stage all you want. It does not make them any less human than correctly labeling humans with infant, child, adolescent, or adult. It just lets the pro-choice faction feel better, like "nigger" "spic" "feather" and any other time people have dehumanized a sector of humans for their own purposes. History is full of instances where a society has dehumanized a sector of humans. Every other time history has determined that deliberately dehumanizing a sector of humanity to justify killing them is morally corrupt. 200 years from now it is likely that historians will look on this period in our society and lump us with the Hitlers and Stalins of history.
 
Last edited:
Wow scarecrow I would head back to the wizard lickety split. The fetus is not a person under color of law. Until it is feet out the constitution don't apply. Don't like it, amend it. Until then if you don't believe in abortions don't have one. No one is forcing you too. The force comes from the anti-choice side.

I was not aware of this... where in the Constitution does it declare that a child has to be born before it is entitled to basic human rights?
 
sf

substitute the word awareness for the word life, or the word soul for the word life and you could really get a debate going

at what point is the production of conception 'alive'

sperm and egg separate are each alive

the zygote is alive

the embryo is alive

the fetus is alive


somewhere in the above, awareness occurs (likely)

successful conclusion results in a baby


the law is inconsistent on when the live portion transitions to a killable entity for the purposes of determining is a murder has occurred

earlier if a crime induces the abortion

later if it is a medically induced abortion

fyi - over 50% of all matings between an egg and sperm result in a spontaneous abortion - includes at the zygote, embryo and fetus stages

in other words, the odds are against a delivered healthy baby for every egg/sperm mating

oh well

1) Life is not defined by being self aware

2) A sperm cell and egg cell may be alive, but genetically speaking they are not a unique human life. It is the combination of the two that a unique genetic code is created.

3) At no time can the combination be anything other than human. It is genetically impossible. No matter how many times you call the child by a STAGE of its development. No matter how many philisophical twists you try to use to define a "person" or declare that "only when self aware" will they "count". None of that matters when speaking in terms of genetics. The offspring of two humans must be human. If it is alive.... then you have a human life.

The question, as I stated, then becomes "is that human life entitled to basic human rights". As I stated, valid arguments can be made for both sides of this discussion. But it is complete stupidity to continue to pretend that an abortion doesn't end a human life. It is genetically proven.

4) The topic of a soul is simply a mystical twist by you. No one, to my knowledge, has ever shown that a "soul" exists in anyone.... so it is moot point.
 
Also Mr. Quixote, you miss the whole point of this thread as it started. I asserted that Mr. Obama supported abortion. Jarod begged to differ and asked for evidence to that end, which many gave. Then he came up with the "Satin" analogy....which was not a good one even for a lawyer. I realize that there are many differing opinions out there on abortion and when life begins, but that doesn't change my opinion that abortion is nothing short of legalized murder nor will it stop me from talking out against it. I have read the opinions of others on this matter and they are as free as I to state them. As to Jarod's reason for starting this thread........well, let's just say it seems he is trying to gather up the feathers and stuff them back in the pillow.
 
Also Mr. Quixote, you miss the whole point of this thread as it started. I asserted that Mr. Obama supported abortion. Jarod begged to differ and asked for evidence to that end, which many gave. Then he came up with the "Satin" analogy....which was not a good one even for a lawyer. I realize that there are many differing opinions out there on abortion and when life begins, but that doesn't change my opinion that abortion is nothing short of legalized murder nor will it stop me from talking out against it. I have read the opinions of others on this matter and they are as free as I to state them. As to Jarod's reason for starting this thread........well, let's just say it seems he is trying to gather up the feathers and stuff them back in the pillow.

NO, my point still stands.

Just because you dont support making something illegal, does not mean you support it.

It is basic logic.
 
I was not aware of this... where in the Constitution does it declare that a child has to be born before it is entitled to basic human rights?
He is talking about the definition of citizen which states is a person BORN in the United States.

"All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

But of course, they ignore the rest of the 14th amendment, which goes on to say that "nor shall any State deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That is when we get into what defines a "person". The common use definition is, of course, not adequate for the pro-choice faction because it prevents them from excluding those they wish to kill under legal protection. There is no other practical reason for not accepting a common use, neutral definition of "person" than to have the power to exclude humans we do not wish to consider deserving basic human rights.
 
He is talking about the definition of citizen which states is a person BORN in the United States.

"All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

But of course, they ignore the rest of the 14th amendment, which goes on to say that "nor shall any State deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That is when we get into what defines a "person". The common use definition is, of course, not adequate for the pro-choice faction because it prevents them from excluding those they wish to kill under legal protection. There is no other practical reason for not accepting a common use, neutral definition of "person" than to have the power to exclude humans we do not wish to consider deserving basic human rights.

that is what I thought he meant as well.... and we all of course know that you must be a citizen to qualify for basic human rights.
 
He is talking about the definition of citizen which states is a person BORN in the United States.

"All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

But of course, they ignore the rest of the 14th amendment, which goes on to say that "nor shall any State deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That is when we get into what defines a "person". The common use definition is, of course, not adequate for the pro-choice faction because it prevents them from excluding those they wish to kill under legal protection. There is no other practical reason for not accepting a common use, neutral definition of "person" than to have the power to exclude humans we do not wish to consider deserving basic human rights.
That is a requirement of citizenship, not of rights, or of 'personhood'. The definition of 'personhood' was set later by court precedent, exactly as you say, to allow for the denial of rights to a select group.
 
That is a requirement of citizenship, not of rights, or of 'personhood'. The definition of 'personhood' was set later by court precedent, exactly as you say, to allow for the denial of rights to a select group.

So what is the court precedent definition of personhood?
 
Back
Top