IDIOT STATEMENT: If you dont want to make it illegal, you support and condone it!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"The reason I dont think it should be illegal is because I belive there is enough debate as to if a fetus is a "person" to warrant allowing people to make there own decision about it. I also understand that the hardship on the pregnant woman can be great."
There is no argument as to whether it is human or not. If it is human and alive then it should be afforded human rights protections.
The whole "is it a person" crap is just that... crap.
Unless you can show me that there is some question as to some point after fertilization that the child isn't human.
Now if you want to argue about whether the unborn child should have human rights protections or whether the womans rights supercede the rights of the child, those are valid arguments. Trying to argue whether or not it is a human being is simply stupid as science answers that quite clearly for us.
There is no argument as to whether it is human or not. If it is human and alive then it should be afforded human rights protections.
The whole "is it a person" crap is just that... crap.
Unless you can show me that there is some question as to some point after fertilization that the child isn't human.
Now if you want to argue about whether the unborn child should have human rights protections or whether the womans rights supercede the rights of the child, those are valid arguments. Trying to argue whether or not it is a human being is simply stupid as science answers that quite clearly for us.
Good point, I should restate my position.
I belive there is enough debate about when a fetus's rights begin to supercede the rights of the pregnant woman that at least in the first trimester abortion should be legal. I should have said there is enough debate as to if a fetus is a seperate human deserving of rights that supercede those of the pregnant woman.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I belive there is enough debate as to if a fetus is a "person" to warrant allowing people to make there own decision about it.
There is no debating science and biology on this. After conception, it is a human being, just like you and I, only in an earlier stage of development.... (like YOU are in an earlier stage of mental development than ME!)
Your liberal abortion lobby has created this canard about "personhood" and tried to blur the distinctions. You've bought into it, because you are a koolaid drinking idiot who doesn't know how to think for himself, and you just go along with whatever the liberals tell you to.
Again, there is no debate in science over when a human life begins, and C Everett Koop's 'three questions' is basically the clincher...
1. If it's not living, why would it need to be terminated?
2. If it's not human, what kind of living organism is it?
3. If it's human life, why are we debating it?
There is no debating science and biology on this. After conception, it is a human being, just like you and I, only in an earlier stage of development.... (like YOU are in an earlier stage of mental development than ME!)
Your liberal abortion lobby has created this canard about "personhood" and tried to blur the distinctions. You've bought into it, because you are a koolaid drinking idiot who doesn't know how to think for himself, and you just go along with whatever the liberals tell you to.
Again, there is no debate in science over when a human life begins, and C Everett Koop's 'three questions' is basically the clincher...
1. If it's not living, why would it need to be terminated?
2. If it's not human, what kind of living organism is it?
3. If it's human life, why are we debating it?
1. If it's not living, why would it need to be terminated?
WE terminate Cancer, is it living?
2. If it's not human, what kind of living organism is it?
Is a tumor human?
3. If it's human life, why are we debating it?
Because some control freaks want to make it illegal.
__________________
WE terminate Cancer, is it living?
2. If it's not human, what kind of living organism is it?
Is a tumor human?
3. If it's human life, why are we debating it?
Because some control freaks want to make it illegal.
__________________
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
LMAO... well maybe you should try reading past the comma, and comprehend the entire sentence in context, rather than parsing out the portion you think is idiotic by itself.
I am a Christian, I follow the Christian faith, I believe in the Bible, I wish everyone believed as I did, but they don't. That is reality. We live in a society of people who are all different in what they believe, so it is foolish to expect all of society to follow all of your personal beliefs! Now, there are some issues, where I am morally and ethically bound, as a Christian, to support or not support, but this doesn't mean that's the case across the board with everything. I believe in going to church on Sunday, but I don't support passing a law making it mandatory for you to go.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
1. If it's not living, why would it need to be terminated?
WE terminate Cancer, is it living?
Cancer grows, so yes... it's living. So is a fetus.
2. If it's not human, what kind of living organism is it?
Is a tumor human?
No, it has no characteristics of a living human being and will never be a human being... unlike a fetus.
3. If it's human life, why are we debating it?
Because some control freaks want to make it illegal.
It should be illegal to kill innocent human beings. That's not a "control" thing, it's an ethical and moral thing.
WE terminate Cancer, is it living?
Cancer grows, so yes... it's living. So is a fetus.
2. If it's not human, what kind of living organism is it?
Is a tumor human?
No, it has no characteristics of a living human being and will never be a human being... unlike a fetus.
3. If it's human life, why are we debating it?
Because some control freaks want to make it illegal.
It should be illegal to kill innocent human beings. That's not a "control" thing, it's an ethical and moral thing.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"Good point, I should restate my position.
I belive there is enough debate about when a fetus's rights begin to supercede the rights of the pregnant woman that at least in the first trimester abortion should be legal. I should have said there is enough debate as to if a fetus is a seperate human deserving of rights that supercede those of the pregnant woman."
Now while I disagree with the above, I can respect your right to hold that view. I personally do not believe that the childs rights should ever supercede the rights of the woman. They should be equal.
By the way... it is always a "seperate" human.... genetics prove this.
That said, I know what you meant.
I belive there is enough debate about when a fetus's rights begin to supercede the rights of the pregnant woman that at least in the first trimester abortion should be legal. I should have said there is enough debate as to if a fetus is a seperate human deserving of rights that supercede those of the pregnant woman."
Now while I disagree with the above, I can respect your right to hold that view. I personally do not believe that the childs rights should ever supercede the rights of the woman. They should be equal.
By the way... it is always a "seperate" human.... genetics prove this.
That said, I know what you meant.
"Good point, I should restate my position.
I belive there is enough debate about when a fetus's rights begin to supercede the rights of the pregnant woman that at least in the first trimester abortion should be legal. I should have said there is enough debate as to if a fetus is a seperate human deserving of rights that supercede those of the pregnant woman."
Now while I disagree with the above, I can respect your right to hold that view. I personally do not believe that the childs rights should ever supercede the rights of the woman. They should be equal.
By the way... it is always a "seperate" human.... genetics prove this.
That said, I know what you meant.
When two seperate entities have equal rights what do you do when the desires of both are diametrically opposed?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Would you support and condone your 10 year old quiting church?
Why are we diverting off into issues unrelated to the topic? We were discussing laws and what we support being legal, not parental guidance.
My kids make up their own minds about religion, I have never forced them to attend church, nor would I pass a law that they had to attend church.
Do you have a valid point to make, or are we just going to keep throwing out lame examples and scenarios? Let me save you some time... If I think it should be legal, I support and condone it, there is no tenable way for me to have any other view on it, if I did, it would be hypocritical.... like you!
Why are we diverting off into issues unrelated to the topic? We were discussing laws and what we support being legal, not parental guidance.
My kids make up their own minds about religion, I have never forced them to attend church, nor would I pass a law that they had to attend church.
Do you have a valid point to make, or are we just going to keep throwing out lame examples and scenarios? Let me save you some time... If I think it should be legal, I support and condone it, there is no tenable way for me to have any other view on it, if I did, it would be hypocritical.... like you!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
My point there is debate even to these silly questions the Koopester made up.
LMAO.... that would have been great, IF you had made a point!
You didn't!
LMAO.... that would have been great, IF you had made a point!
You didn't!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I should have said there is enough debate as to if a fetus is a seperate human deserving of rights that supercede those of the pregnant woman.
There is no debate, the fetus has its own distinct DNA, nervous system, brain function, circulatory system, fingerprints and heartbeat. It is a separate entity from the mother, science proves this. It is also human, nothing contradicts this, there is no debate over this, science and biology are quite clear on this, and when it begins.
Human rights should apply to ALL humans, not just the selected and chosen ones you deem worthy. That is a slippery slope, and one I don't care to go down. You've not presented anything to support an argument for denying human rights to another human being, and I don't believe you can.
There is no debate, the fetus has its own distinct DNA, nervous system, brain function, circulatory system, fingerprints and heartbeat. It is a separate entity from the mother, science proves this. It is also human, nothing contradicts this, there is no debate over this, science and biology are quite clear on this, and when it begins.
Human rights should apply to ALL humans, not just the selected and chosen ones you deem worthy. That is a slippery slope, and one I don't care to go down. You've not presented anything to support an argument for denying human rights to another human being, and I don't believe you can.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"When two seperate entities have equal rights what do you do when the desires of both are diametrically opposed?"
In my opinion, you protect life over convenience. Men and women choose to have sex and they choose whether or not they use protection. If pregnancy is a result of their actions then the childs right to life (my opinion) supercedes the womans right of convenience. Now if the woman's life is in danger then she has the right to protect her life should she choose to do so.
In my opinion, you protect life over convenience. Men and women choose to have sex and they choose whether or not they use protection. If pregnancy is a result of their actions then the childs right to life (my opinion) supercedes the womans right of convenience. Now if the woman's life is in danger then she has the right to protect her life should she choose to do so.
Not true if the precedure would be a "partial birth" abortion, according to congress's new law there would be NO exception for when the mother's life is at risk.
Otherwise I understand your point, and am inclined to agree. However, although I personally agree, I do not feel so sure about it that I would be willing to tell others how to act in the situation.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"When two seperate entities have equal rights what do you do when the desires of both are diametrically opposed?"
Just to add to my last post... when it comes to their equal rights, I guess the way I see it is what is the greater evil? Having the woman inconvenienced for her and the mans actions for 9 months or taking the childs life? Both options are bad in that you don't want to "force" someone to do something, but I would go with the lesser of the two.
That said, I am a man and it is much easier for me to say as it would never happen to me personally. Which is why I understand the argument of whether or not the unborn child should possess human rights protections.
Just to add to my last post... when it comes to their equal rights, I guess the way I see it is what is the greater evil? Having the woman inconvenienced for her and the mans actions for 9 months or taking the childs life? Both options are bad in that you don't want to "force" someone to do something, but I would go with the lesser of the two.
That said, I am a man and it is much easier for me to say as it would never happen to me personally. Which is why I understand the argument of whether or not the unborn child should possess human rights protections.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"Not true if the precedure would be a "partial birth" abortion, according to congress's new law there would be NO exception for when the mother's life is at risk."
Is there a law in Congress to that affect? Or are you referring to the South Dakota law? To have no exception for the woman's life being in danger is idiotic and I certainly don't agree with that whether it is in South Dakota or the US Congress.
"Otherwise I understand your point, and am inclined to agree. However, although I personally agree, I do not feel so sure about it that I would be willing to tell others how to act in the situation."
I can understand that sentiment.
__________________
Is there a law in Congress to that affect? Or are you referring to the South Dakota law? To have no exception for the woman's life being in danger is idiotic and I certainly don't agree with that whether it is in South Dakota or the US Congress.
"Otherwise I understand your point, and am inclined to agree. However, although I personally agree, I do not feel so sure about it that I would be willing to tell others how to act in the situation."
I can understand that sentiment.
__________________
The Partial Birth abortion law passed by the Republicans in Congress last year prohibits the procedure even in the event its required for the life of the mother.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"The Partial Birth abortion law passed by the Republicans in Congress last year prohibits the procedure even in the event its required for the life of the mother."
Well, obviously I agree that it should be banned in most cases, but never at the expense of the womans life. If her life is in danger, the decision is hers.
Well, obviously I agree that it should be banned in most cases, but never at the expense of the womans life. If her life is in danger, the decision is hers.