20 Nov 05
Originally posted by chancremechanicDon't make me laugh. "I'm not calling what you did murder. That will be for God to judge"; is calling the guy a murderer as you well know. It always amazes me that you right wing nuts are always afraid to come right out and say what you mean. I don't have any problem saying what I really think. The context of your comment makes it perfectly clear what you were saying, even if you're now gutlessly backpedalling. My description of you and KellyJay as "judgmental jerks" stands.
Wait a minute? Did I have a conversation with this dude before? If so, please point it out in the threads. I just stumbled on this thread and asked him a question, and a fair one too. Lay off the pseudoephedrine, no1, 'cause it makes you a hot-head....take a cold shower and calm down. I respected his belief by not calling him a murderer, OK?... ...[text shortened]... ....calm down, man...so far I've resisting the urge to load my chit sling-shot at you.....peace
20 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by chancremechanicYou should apologize to the first poster since you called him a murderer in all seriousness (don't squirm and say you didn't use the exact words; your meaning was clear). Bosse knows I was mocking you and KellyJay by my post. You are an incredible hypocrite to ask me to apologize unless you are trying to be ironic in response to my irony which I believe you are toooooooo dense to do.
What a terrible thing to say, no1....you should apologise to Boss.....what a hypocrite...you that is....
20 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI never "backpeddle", schmuck. If I am wrong about anything, I admit it, but I don't cover up my mistakes like a cat covering up chit. There you go again assuming I am a right-wing nut. You can't prove it, and that's why you are probably a lousy lawyer. A good lawyer never spouts accusations and assumptions just because of someone's disposition on a topic. For your information, I'm just right of center, so that makes me almost neutral or slightly alkaline in scientific terms...you are sulfuric acid..that's how far left you are. Is abortion murder to me? YES!! However, I will not call anyone who does it a murderer. I do not have the right to call someone an alcoholic just because he drinks a case of beer every night...only that person and God have the right to judge whether he is an alcoholic or not...see how simple it is marauder? I'm telling you, man...get off the pseudoephedrine and coffee...not a good combination...sort of like hipocrisy and sarcasam.....🙄
Don't make me laugh. "I'm not calling what you did murder. That will be for God to judge"; is calling the guy a murderer as you well know. It always amazes me that you right wing nuts are always afraid to come right out and say what you mean. I don't have any problem saying what I really think. The context of your comment makes it perfectly clear wh ...[text shortened]... now gutlessly backpedalling. My description of you and KellyJay as "judgmental jerks" stands.
20 Nov 05
Originally posted by chancremechanicYou're own words show you're a right wing nut; I don't have to "prove" something when there's an endless supply of inculpatory statements pointing to an obvious conclusion. You know as much about what it takes to be a good lawyer as you do about most things, which is nothing. Perhaps you lack the guts to call the guy a murderer outright, but your post's meaning was obvious. Drawing logical inferences from the words people use is something lawyers do and the inference from your post was what it was for the reasons stated. Why are you a-scared just to say so?
I never "backpeddle", schmuck. If I am wrong about anything, I admit it, but I don't cover up my mistakes like a cat covering up chit. There you go again assuming I am a right-wing nut. You can't prove it, and that's why you are probably a lousy lawyer. A good lawyer never spouts accusations and assumptions just because of someone's disposi ...[text shortened]... pseudoephedrine and coffee...not a good combination...sort of like hipocrisy and sarcasam.....🙄
20 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderIs drawing logical "inferences" what lawyers do to send innocent people to the electric chair or people to prison who turn out to innocent years later? I do have the guts to call you an idiot...but it doesn't take a genius to realize that you are just that.....
You're own words show you're a right wing nut; I don't have to "prove" something when there's an endless supply of inculpatory statements pointing to an obvious conclusion. You know as much about what it takes to be a good lawyer as you do about most things, which is nothing. Perhaps you lack the guts to call the guy a murderer outright, but your p ...[text shortened]... ence from your post was what it was for the reasons stated. Why are you a-scared just to say so?
20 Nov 05
Originally posted by chancremechanicI think you better check out a book on the legal system; lawyers don't find people guilty of anything. Seriously, is there ANY subject you're not totally misinformed on?
Is drawing logical "inferences" what lawyers do to send innocent people to the electric chair or people to prison who turn out to innocent years later? I do have the guts to call you an idiot...but it doesn't take a genius to realize that you are just that.....
20 Nov 05
Originally posted by chancremechanicWe did consider the possibility, but I feel we made the correct decision. There are so many children in this world living in dire situations that we did not wish to be the cause of another one, and there are plenty of children available for adoption by worthy parents already.
Let me ask you a fair question without judging your deeds. Did you not think about possibly giving up your child-to-be for adoption? In that case, all three of you would have "won". I am not calling what you did murder; that will be for God to judge. However, I am amazed that you can say you were "justified" in aborting your son or daughter-t ...[text shortened]... ..I'm really trying to gage the feelings of post-abortive "parents-that-could-have-beens"....
Sorry if I suprise you, but no, it doesn't bother me in the slightest, and I don't think it's down to my emotional maturity.
I don't agree that the sperm and egg when joined are automatically a human...they have the potential to become a human. A significant proportion miscarry. If you say that once a sperm and an egg is joined it's murder, taking it further you could say that refusing to have sex is murder (or at best manslaughter), because you prevent the chance of having a baby. You then also fall into the 'every sperm is sacred' dilema. Every egg has the potential to become a human, so missing one is tantamount to murder. Every time you shoot your gloop, millions of potential kiddies end up being 'wasted' - I guess that must put you off the main event altogether ?
I feel totally justified in aborting our foetus, it was the right thing to do for the two of us, and the third person you mention didn't exist, and will not exist, just like the millions of others who didn't reach the egg.
20 Nov 05
Originally posted by fooeyIf you say that once a sperm and an egg is joined it's murder, taking it further you could say that refusing to have sex is murder (or at best manslaughter), because you prevent the chance of having a baby. You then also fall into the 'every sperm is sacred' dilema. Every egg has the potential to become a human, so missing one is tantamount to murder. Every time you shoot your gloop, millions of potential kiddies end up being 'wasted' - I guess that must put you off the main event altogether?
We did consider the possibility, but I feel we made the correct decision. There are so many children in this world living in dire situations that we did not wish to be the cause of another one, and there are plenty of children available for adoption by worthy parents already.
Sorry if I suprise you, but no, it doesn't bother me in the slightest, and I don ...[text shortened]... n didn't exist, and will not exist, just like the millions of others who didn't reach the egg.
Hold on just a second there, this above statement doesn't follow.
Some pointers:
The ovum and sperm are each a product of another's body; unlike the conceptus, neither is an independent entity. Genetically, the zygote is a unique individual which needs only oxygen, nutrition and a favourable environment (something all humans need) to grow and develop to fruition.
20 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderOkay, No1, here's just the basic arguments against the summation of your Pg 4 stance, I have only the time to post the main points, but will try and elaborate where necessary:
ME: I'll leave it to Bbarr to discuss his definition of personhood the philosophical basis of which differs from mine, though the result is the same in this case. I will say as a legal matter, it was never a double homicide until fairly recently when a pregnant woman was murdered; those laws are of recent vintage. I would also state that in traditional ...[text shortened]... a manner she would not have agreed to and violate the Social Contract.
But that's me.
Even if the unborn are human beings, it should not restrict the mother's rights...
1. One we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to life.
2. The right to life doesn't increase with age and size; otherwise toddlers and adolescents would have less right to life than adults.
3. The comparison between a baby's rights and a mother's rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby's life.
4. It is reasonable for society to expect an adult to live with temporarily with an inconvenience if the only alternative is killing a child.
Every person has the right to choose. If would be unfair to restrict a woman's choice by prohibiting abortion..."
1. Any civilized society restricts the individual's freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person.
2. The one-time choice of abortion robs someone else the lifetime of choices and prevents him/her from ever exercising his/her rights.
3. Many violations of human rights have been defended on the grounds of the right to choose.
Every woman should have control over her own body. Reproductive freedom is a basic right...
1. Abortion assures that hundreds of thousands if not millions of aborted females each year do not have control over their own bodies.
2. Not all things done with a person's body are right, not should they be legally protected.
3. The "right to control one's body" argument is no longer valid if the unborn is a human being.
4. Control over the body can be exercised to prevent pregnancy in the first place.
5. It is demeaning to a woman's body and self-esteem to regard pregnancy as an unnatural, negative and "out of control" condition.
I guess that’s it for starters, just shout if you need me to flesh out some of the arguments.
21 Nov 05
Originally posted by HalitoseThese aren't arguments; it's just the screeching of "IT'S A BABY!" in different forms. As mentioned, historically a fetus was never considered a human being in any society. If it was, abortion would have been punished as murder. It never has been in any place that I am aware. Thus, to all of a sudden arbitrarily give a fetus the status a human being is a radical change in our society. You have failed to give a single reason why such a radical change should be made and yelling "IT'S A BABY" ain't an argument.
Okay, No1, here's just the basic arguments against the summation of your Pg 4 stance, I have only the time to post the main points, but will try and elaborate where necessary:
[b]Even if the unborn are human beings, it should not restrict the mother's rights...
1. One we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of th ...[text shortened]...
I guess that’s it for starters, just shout if you need me to flesh out some of the arguments.[/b]
Logically if a fetus is a human being than not only can't a woman have an abortion, but she can't do anything that might possibly be harmful to it. But there are a myriad of things that a woman can do with her own body that can have negative effects on a fetus. A woman being overweight or not exercising regularly can increase the chance of miscarriage or birth defects. Since the fetus' right to be healthy trumps the woman's right to self-autonomy, you would have to make it a crime for a woman to eat too much or not exercise regularly while she is pregnant if you are to be logically consistent. Do you support such laws?
When I was discussing some subject with Ivanhoe, I looked up and found out that there are tests which can identity birth defects like spina bifida early in pregnancy. Once the condition is ID'ed there are things that can be done prenatally which can be helpful after the fetus is born in treating the condition.Obviously any woman who didn't have these tests would be endangering the welfare of the fetal human being and should be liable to the criminal law.
In short, once you artificially decide that a fetus is a human being, a woman has no right at all to do anything with her own body that may possibly harm the fetus. Her right to self-autonomy is completely forfeit due to your arbitrary decision that she may very well disagree with. You may insist on your moral beliefs all you want, but criminal laws regarding what a woman does with her own body are anathema to the concept of a free society. Down the road you are travelling is the tyranny of a Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
21 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderAbortion is murder! There, I finally made up my mind and expunged my opinion with the possibility of offending anybody who has had, or is planning to have, an abortion. The Bible states that God knows us even when we are in the mother's womb. No constitutional ammendment, Roe vs. Wade ruling, or verbal vomitus from you or anybody else is going to change my mind and the authority of the Holy Bible. Lump me with the right-wing fanatics if you must, but I know where I stand politically and spiritually, and killing unborn babies, (or feotuses/zygotes/unthinking masses of tissue/"unwanted preganancies"😉 as some of you God-less people like to say it, is WRONG! I still don't judge anybody as that is not my job, but we know who the ultimate Judge will be don't we marauder and no lawyer, especially a pro-abortionist, will be able to represent his clients, and there will be millions, effectively, while the souls of millions of murdered babies cry for justice and mercy at the same time....sorry if this post is offensive to some of you, but y'all needed to hear it from somebody who could care less about offending anyone on this importatnt issue if the truth needed to be spoken.....and it did..."The truth shall set you free"...'nuff said.
These aren't arguments; it's just the screeching of "IT'S A BABY!" in different forms. As mentioned, historically a fetus was never considered a human being in any society. If it was, abortion would have been punished as murder. It never has been in any place that I am aware. Thus, to all of a sudden arbitrarily give a fetus the status a human being ...[text shortened]... of a free society. Down the road you are travelling is the tyranny of a Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
21 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderA loaded question, why is that? They made a choice, a legal one,
Only a true fanatical jerk would ask that question, but I'm sure you knew that before you did. You obviously couldn't care less, but loaded the question with your preconceived ideas. You have no shame.
they have happy lives, all is well with their world according to the
one posting. Their lives wouldn't have been so nice had they allowed
the life they started to survive, I was asking a simple quesiton, and
no, I have no shame about asking, why should I? There something
wrong in pointing out that what was killed would be how old now? What
does shame have to do with this?
Kelly
21 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI wasn't challenging him to a debate on his religion, I don't care what
He already told both you and KellyJay that he doesn't agree with your religious beliefs that a "child" is formed at conception. Asking him how old his "child" would be now is BS, plain and simple. To his mind and to the mind of most people who have abortions, no child ever existed. You and KellyJay don't respect these people's beliefs. so why pret ...[text shortened]... the confines of her body. Why don't you both stop being such self-righteous, judgmental jerks?
age he thinks that life starts to matter, it may not matter to him until
the child is 2 years old for all I know. Who cares, the child would have
grown well past the time where he, or anyone else says that the life
has value if it was not cut short by the abortion. All lives that were and
are aborted could grow past any age of value or stage of value,
whatever that age or stage happens to be for each person. Since
I guess there are sliding standards among the massives on what is
and is not worthy of life in its own right.
Kelly
21 Nov 05
Originally posted by Halitose
1. One we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to life.
Why? This is the essential question. Why does a zygote (say) one day of age, which has
no more capacity to experience the world than a paramecium, have any rights whatsoever?
If you say, 'because it's human' then your above statement is not an 'argument' per se, but
an empty statement and cannot be used to demonstrate the variety of positions which rest
upon it.
Nemesio