Abortion...what should be the line?

Originally posted by jammer
Of course.
He's a lawyer, by definition, a liar.

An easy shot to make, but no, he actually does lie and distort the views of those that do not agree with him. I would not make the claim all lawyers behave as badly as he does.
Kelly

Originally posted by no1marauder
The same way anybody else is protected: by law.

Can you give a link to this law ?

Do you know any examples in which the law was applied to punish an abortionist who violated this law ?

Originally posted by no1marauder
🙄

Brain dead implies that you were at some point brain alive. A fetus that hasn't developed any part of the brain has never been brain alive, so it can't be brain dead. We don't say that a tree or a rock is brain dead, do we?

Does a tree or a rock have the capacity to become 'brain alive' as you call it?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Actually, you have said on numerous occasions that just life itself is not sufficient for moral consideration; in addition you have also stated that even human life too isn’t sufficient either on its own. I’m only taking you at your word; I’m not distorting you, but simply accepting those things that you are saying are your points of view! You have written ...[text shortened]... iews, I’m telling you how those views are playing out in life, or in this case abortions.
Kelly

Actually, you have said on numerous occasions that just life itself is not sufficient for moral consideration; in addition you have also stated that even human life too isn’t sufficient either on its own.

Yep, and when I stated those I was, of course, correct. And I firmly believe you'd actually agree with me if you could understand my point for what it is and not for what you only think it is. We could extract a tiny chunk of living tissue from your body, for example, such that presumably no one, including yourself, would think it is a morally considerable entity while it still satisfies the requirements for biological (and human) life. That doesn't mean you're a hypocrite KJ: more likely you just don't understand the content of my argument.

Now, quote me away. Nothing I have said implies that I would "want to deny...until I get permisson" any rolls that I may find myself in regarding fatherhood. You are distorting my views, so as I said before, stop it (and for the good of your own growth take some steps to develop better comprehension skills).

Her decisions are always going to be her decisions, as they affect you and your two’s children you do have stake in that.

The hypothetical situation doesn't imply that we have any children -- only that she is in the early stages of pregnancy. And I've never said that her decision would not or could not affect me. That's just not the point. The point is that I don't have any sufficient grounds (or even somewhat reasonable grounds) to deny her self-autonomy and the choice to undertake abortion based on any moral considerations related to the young fetus itself or the act itself. Now, you may well disagree with me there, but it'd be nice if you would in your response (1) stop distorting my argument and (2) present some argument of your own, as directly opposed to whatever it is you have been presenting.

Originally posted by Starrman
For the fiftieth time (so please, for the love of Christ take this on board), brain death is not reversible. If you are brain dead you do not have any chances of improving, good or otherwise.

You obviously have not heard of it before. I don't care how you want to define brain death.

For interest sake you might want to Google the follwing: "Reversible brain death: A manifestation of amitriptyline overdose."

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are a liar, and a warped person.
You push an agenda that does kill; I've stuck to the terms you use when you justify those abortions. There is killing taking place daily, you support it, I have not once supported the killing of anyone at any stage of their lives, while you have in the past, and continue to do so now. You seem to want to paint me to be ...[text shortened]... you could stop even if you wanted too without the help of God in your life, I pity you.
Kelly

So you continue to essentially call people who suppport abortion rights baby killers but avoid using that term specifically. Why? Because you're dishonest.

Why don't you answer the question from the Army of God website? Why don't you have the guts to blow up an abortion clinic if you really believe thousands of babies are being killed there? Are you that much of a coward?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Does a tree or a rock have the capacity to become 'brain alive' as you call it?

"Capacity" doesn't mean crap. Most zygotes "die" before they even develop a brain.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Actually, you have said on numerous occasions that just life itself is not sufficient for moral consideration; in addition you have also stated that even human life too isn’t sufficient either on its own. I’m only taking you at your word; I’m not distorting you, but simply accepting those things that you are saying are your points of view! You have written ...[text shortened]... iews, I’m telling you how those views are playing out in life, or in this case abortions.
Kelly

Blah, blah, blah. Nothing of substance as usual.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Can you give a link to this law ?

Do you know any examples in which the law was applied to punish an abortionist who violated this law ?

Why don't you do your own research? Roe v. Wade allowed states to ban abortions in the third trimester; I believe all of them have.

Originally posted by no1marauder
So you continue to essentially call people who suppport abortion rights baby killers but avoid using that term specifically. Why? Because you're dishonest.

Why don't you answer the question from the Army of God website? Why don't you have the guts to blow up an abortion clinic if you really believe thousands of babies are being killed there? Are you that much of a coward?

Let us look at the use of your words!

"So you continue to essentially call people who suppport abortion rights baby killers but avoid using that term specifically."

I'd say I am avoiding to the use of that term specifically is because I have no desire to call anyone a "Baby Killer", which validates as far as I'm concern you are a liar when you accuse me of calling people that.

You acknowledge I am not and have not used those words directed at anyone, and you are saying I'm the dishonest one!? It isn't me that is being dishonest here it is you, if you know I'm not using that term they way you have said I did, even you admit you have lied.

I"m glad we got that cleared up.
Kelly

Originally posted by no1marauder
"Capacity" doesn't mean crap. Most zygotes "die" before they even develop a brain.

And how many fetuses develop a brain if they are left to do so naturally, and are not deprived the privilege and killed off before they get the chance?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Actually, you have said on numerous occasions that just life itself is not sufficient for moral consideration; in addition you have also stated that even human life too isn’t sufficient either on its own.

Yep, and when I stated those I was, of course, correct. And I firmly believe you'd actually agree with me if you could understand my point fo ...[text shortened]... argument of your own, as directly opposed to whatever it is you have been presenting.[/b]

I agree; we can cut off a small piece of either your body or mine and for a limited amount of time we could claim it is living; however, that does not mean it is life on the same scale as a human fetus, or even that it does contain what we’d call that life which makes up you or me. Through time and normal processes that small slice will die out and start to decay unless we graft into something that will cause that slice to maintain its normal processes through time if possible. That slice of flesh wouldn’t be you or me, it would only be a small piece of you or me, it wouldn’t contain all of what we are, and it would be only a small piece of what we are physically. While the fetus does contain all that it will be while it grows and matures through normal processes, if you want to make comparisons on a fetus and a germ or something along those lines, I believe you are being purposely misleading. You want to put requirements down to satisfy before you are willing to give value to human life in its earliest stages of development, don’t you think they need to consistent, and don’t you think they should be there without something so vague as feelings to define them?

“Now, quote me away. Nothing I have said implies that I would "want to deny...until I get permisson" any rolls that I may find myself in regarding fatherhood. You are distorting my views, so as I said before, stop it (and for the good of your own growth take some steps to develop better comprehension skills).”

Here you go,

“Who says I wouldn't value a fetus even in the early stages? People can place value on all sorts of things. People even have cherished rock collections, you know. If I were with a woman I loved and wanted to start a family with her, I would certainly value any fetus that formed inside her. But if she decided at some point in the early stages of pregnancy that she wanted an abortion, on what grounds could I deny her that choice? I couldn't argue against it on the basis that the fetus has a right to life because it doesn't have any rights: no thing that lacks the capacity for consciousness, the capacity to suffer and feel pain, the capacity to even hold an interest or a point of view merits rights. I may well try to convince her otherwise, but it would be her decision. And if she did abort it, the act of aborting it would not be morally wrong.

You be honest, too, and quit distorting my views."

You are making the claim that there isn’t anything about your position as father that matters, your being the father has as much worth to the life within her as a door knob does, so you simply accept it as ‘just the way it is’ you have successfully bought into it isn’t the two of you having a child, it is only her. You are nothing but a prop in the scheme of her desires, and your roll with that child only becomes important if she allows it. I’m not denying that isn’t the law, or even that without the law she doesn’t have powers to do what she will with her body, law or no law that will always be the case. As we define life and family we are destroying both with the verbiage being used.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree; we can cut off a small piece of either your body or mine and for a limited amount of time we could claim it is living; however, that does not mean it is life on the same scale as a human fetus, or even that it does contain what we’d call that life which makes up you or me. Through time and normal processes that small slice will die out and start to . As we define life and family we are destroying both with the verbiage being used.
Kelly

Good, I'm glad we now agree, as I anticipated we would, that human life (biological sense of 'life'😉 itself is not sufficient for moral consideration. That is, after all, what you just argued -- that the fetus is not considerable just on the basis of constituting human biological life; but rather on that coupled with other considerations (or maybe on the basis of a different sense of 'life' that you have in mind). And you ought to recall that my germ example was just in support of the above point on which we both agree -- so I just can't get myself to empathize with your harping over it.

You are making the claim that there isn’t anything about your position as father that matters

No, I am not making that claim at all. And that's in part because I don't consider what I have described in that example as a state of fatherhood. I wouldn't deny that in the example I satisfy some minimal considerations related to the biological concept of male parent, or something like that. But I'm not the father of it in this context. Minimal to my concept of fatherhood in this context is obligation for the care and entrustment of another's interests. The fetus described, however, does not possess the capacity for holding interests. If you're merely asserting that in the example I'm shirking obligations and responsibilities toward the fetus, then I would say you're also just begging the question.

EDIT: I just noticed that you have changed your posting MO since your posts are now no longer horizontally challenged (a la Nemesio).

Originally posted by dj2becker
You obviously have not heard of it before. I don't care how you want to define brain death.

For interest sake you might want to Google the follwing: "Reversible brain death: A manifestation of amitriptyline overdose."

You are a massive idiot sometimes. The taking of a drug which causes a loss of discernible function in the brainstem, is not equivalent to the brain actually being dead. It is not a permanent state, ie. it is reversible. The article actually admits as much in the discussion at the end. That the doctor chooses to use these words in the write up does not destroy the definition of brain death, that it is brain 'death', not brain 'temporary pretending to be death'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death

Originally posted by KellyJay
Let us look at the use of your words!

"So you continue to essentially call people who suppport abortion rights baby killers but avoid using that term specifically."

I'd say I am avoiding to the use of that term specifically is because I have no desire to call anyone a "Baby Killer", which validates as far as I'm concern you are a liar when you accuse ...[text shortened]... e said I did, even you admit you have lied.

I"m glad we got that cleared up.
Kelly

BS. In this thread you've described abortion as baby killing. And accused people of supporting the same. So you ARE accusing people of being morally the same as baby killers. Unless you're a total idiot (a distinct possibility) you know this. Stop pretending otherwise.

You're a truly disgusting individual who acts like they're being polite while you accuse others of the most morally objectionable things anybody can think of. That's as dishonest as anybody can be, s**thead.