It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So, ATS, Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

page: 19
11
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by igor_ats
 

Here, from the majority opinion,delivered by Judge Blackmun, Roe v. Wade:



On the merits, the District Court held that the "fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment," and that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were void on their face because they were both unconstitutionally vague and constituted an overbroad infringement of the plaintiffs' Ninth Amendment rights.

As you can see, the decision held that there is a fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children. As there were no child support laws at the time, it's obvious to me that the omission of "single men" is not an intentional assertion that the 9th through 14th amendments don't apply to single men, but rather the laws that have since been passed were completely unimaginable at the time. Hard for the Justices to imagine a time when single men were forced to have children. But as you can see, the decision was not about the autonomy of a woman's body, but about government intrusion into people's "choices."




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


A fetus doesn't have an opinion. So you can go on thinking that the fetus is in the belly just hoping and praying that mommy doesn't get an abortion. You are living in a fantasy world. Have you adopted any children? Do you open your home to children that are living on the street? Pay for their clothes, food, education? Probably not...and if not then you have absolutely no say with what a woman does with her body...no say. That is what you people don't get. You can spout off at the mouth all day long about how horrible abortion is but it doesn't really matter what you think. It doesn't matter what I think. It matters what the woman in the situation thinks because she is the one who lives with her decision...NOT YOU.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowen20
reply to post by Truth_Hz
 


I have seen first hand the trauma that abortion has on people. Many women really don't know what else to do, I blame the system for not offering more alternatives. .


You blame the 'system'? What system is that?

I'd say the "blame" lies more in the family, community, etc, then the government keeping the option for abortion open.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Truth_Hz
 


the most difficult decision a girl/woman should have to make is
to keep her pants on and just say no.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by igor_ats
 

Here, from the majority opinion,delivered by Judge Blackmun, Roe v. Wade:



On the merits, the District Court held that the "fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment," and that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were void on their face because they were both unconstitutionally vague and constituted an overbroad infringement of the plaintiffs' Ninth Amendment rights.

As you can see, the decision held that there is a fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children. As there were no child support laws at the time, it's obvious to me that the omission of "single men" is not an intentional assertion that the 9th through 14th amendments don't apply to single men, but rather the laws that have since been passed were completely unimaginable at the time. Hard for the Justices to imagine a time when single men were forced to have children. But as you can see, the decision was not about the autonomy of a woman's body, but about government intrusion into people's "choices."


?

Men can't have the fundamental right to privacy in regards to abortion because it's not their body that is the life support for the unborn.

And the right to privacy came before Roe:

"
The right to privacy did not originate in these reproductive rights cases. In the 1891 case Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, the Supreme Court outlined the right to bodily integrity and linked it to the right to privacy: "[n]o right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others..." Subsequent Supreme Court decisions also relied on the right to privacy to protect individuals against government intrusion into family relationships, and government-compelled medical treatment.
"

"
One year later, the Court decided Roe v. Wade, and extended the privacy right established in Griswold and Eisenstadt to abortion: "This view of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
"

It was clearly about the right to privacy protecting a womans choice and not merely "protecting peoples choices" devoid of it. Persons have complete control of their bodily resources without government interference because of the right to privacy. So to say Roe wasn't about the right to privacy is incorrect. It was the reason for the case in the first place based on previous rulings.

I can see your an advocate of male reproductive rights, yet I have a strange feeling your idea of men having a "say" in a womans "decision" only follow a one-way street called pro-life avenue. If you were really concerned about men having a "say" that would also encompass the option to abort.


Originally posted by joechip
You really mean to claim that you meant zygote and woman as the "actors" you were referring to? We both know that's a lie. You just got called out using your own logic, and wouldn't stand by your own words. I have no interest in debating the intellectually dishonest.
Good day, ma'am.


If I added "to not remain pregnant" would it make a difference since that was the context, and you ignored the part about fertilization, which can happen in a test tube. But I see you've signed off from the debate.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by igor_ats
 


The choice/life groups are rigidly divided.
How many choice people eventually come to the realization that abortion WRONG?
Versus
How many life people eventually come to the realization that abortion is RIGHT?

I bet the more a choice person looks into what actually happens, the nurses, technicians, women who had abortions and others that there are thousands more choice people changing into life people than the other way around.

That speaks volumes.

The more SHALLOW your understanding and insight into abortion is the more probably you will be pro choice.
The more DEEPER your understanding and insight into abortion you will changs from choice to life.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by igor_ats
 

Funny how you quoted my post with a cited quote from the majority opinion, and then just ignored what it clearly said. Perhaps you should reread it, or is your opinion about what the supreme court meant so rigid that a direct quote where they expressly state their rationale for the decision is invisible to you?
The privacy right (I NEVER said Roe v. Wade wasn't based on privacy rights) involved the perceived overreach of the government in the area of people's choices, namely the choice of whether or not to have children. (God, I hate repeating myself) This also included married couples, and as I argued, and you failed to refute, would also include single men (think equal protection clause, or even the absurdity that single men would somehow be exempt from the 9th-14th amendments) who would have been thought to be unaffected (and were at the time) by said government overreach.

Also, you are now retracting you contention that the "actors" you were referring to in your earlier post were the zygote and the woman, right? It's the man and the woman again? But now you'd like to add a clause that restricts (in your mind) the logic to "pregnancy" only. Clearly you didn't get my point; I extended your logical train to include (logically) the lack of "liability" by the "actors" to the product of said pregnancy. I didn't misunderstand the context. I simply applied your general statement to its own logical conclusion.
And finally, you can have a "feeling" about my motives being pro-life, but that's not the basis for a dismissal of my arguments, and shows that you are unable to approach this issue aside from your preconceived notions, your black and white, us vs. them nonsense. You want me to fit in the "hat" you've put me in. Well, I don't. Your presumption is incorrect and I'll leave it at that.
I'm tired of repeating myself. Can you see how debating someone without the fundamental intellectual honesty to admit when someone else has made a valid point, who lies about what they meant, then changes it back, is literally exhausting. And ultimately pointless. I mean you're all over the place. And I really am done with this.

You're going to assert your exclusive "rights" and deny the obvious exclusive responsibilities that by all that is natural, logical, and fair, would be yours alone. Your rights, but both parties' responsibilities, under threat of criminal prosecution, that's your ultimate mindset. And it's indefensible. And no matter how many ways I point that out, you're never going to see it, because you don't want to. Reply if you must, but please understand, you have already failed to "debate" the issue. Debate is honest.



edit on 16-9-2010 by joechip because: grammar




edit on 16-9-2010 by joechip because: spelling




edit on 16-9-2010 by joechip because: to remove several unnecessarily insulting adjectives



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   
This is a very good/scary article on how the embryos, fetuses, the comatose, incapacitated, and those with mental disabilities are at risk of every kind of abuse. We should be wary of linking our dignity to qualities that can be acquired and lost.

After all, “the recognition of our common humanity is prior to, and should take precedence over, definitions of personhood.”. Being Pro-Life, none of these "person / nonperson" statements are valid points. What is human is human and should be respected at all times.We all are persons in different stages of life, the only life we know.

Christ said - What ever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me.

Remember those acts of kindness? Feed the hungry, give clothes to the poor, visit the sick, give shelter from the storm to the needy? (The Gulf victims come into my mind) and those that have no voice. I consider those humans with no voice above me morally because they do not have as much capacity to do bad things or think or say evil thoughts. They are higher than me in this life we have here. And I would consider it a good thing to serve them.
Here is the article. It's about a book of essays titled:

True Medical Care or the Law of the Jungle?
September 2010 By Anne Barbeau Gardiner


Dr. David Albert Jones, author of Soul of an Embryo, is its present director, and its mission is to bring the principles of the natural law and Catholic teaching to bear on “the moral questions arising in clinical practice and biomedical research.” In the eight essays comprising Incapacity and Care, we find a powerful and unanswerable defense of the dignity of the most helpless and vulnerable among us.

Jones observes that some philosophers today contend that embryos, fetuses, and the comatose, as well as those with severe mental disabilities, are not “persons” because they lack rational activity and autonomy. This arbitrary definition serves to undermine the dignity of helpless human beings. Jones thinks we need to recover a sense of ourselves as substantial beings of a rational nature and be wary of linking our dignity to qualities that can be acquired and lost. After all, “the recognition of our common humanity is prior to, and should take precedence over, definitions of personhood.” In particular, we should have respect for non-autonomous persons based on our “natural solidarity” with them as members of our human community. We are all interdependent, rational beings, and if we fear the dependence brought about by mental impairment, it might be because it reminds us of our own vulnerability. Just as the Good Samaritan, by acting as he did, proved himself a “neighbor,” so we discover ourselves as “persons” when we act in solidarity with our dependent neighbor.

In his essay “From Beneficence to Love,” Aaron Kheriaty notes that while the Nazis sterilized intellectually disabled persons in the name of eugenics, English law today allows the same thing in the name of “compassion and care.” Instead of being protected from sexual abuse, persons who are incapable of consent are given contraceptives, abortions, and sterilizations, i.e., “purely technical solutions to non-technical problems — to fundamentally human and social problems.” What the intellectually disabled need is real affection and authentic love. Even if their intellect and will are impaired, they still have a heart; they can give and receive human love. We were all profoundly dependent once and could be so again in the future. Therefore, we should recognize our solidarity with the intellectually disabled and protect them in their vulnerability, not make them more vulnerable to abuse through contraceptives and sterilization.

In “Human Dignity and the Intellectually Disabled Person,” Anthony McCarthy asks whether it is ever warranted to sterilize intellectually disabled persons. Nowadays we are told that they “have a ‘right’ to a sex life and therefore should be permitted and/or encouraged to participate in sexual activity freely.” Yet since they cannot give their consent, they are in fact “being raped,” when “the perpetrator is in a position to understand the significance of the sexual act.” Those who take care of profoundly intellectually disabled persons are urged to give them contraceptives or have them sterilized, even though such measures lead to their being “raped on a regular basis.” Since the intellectually disabled are unable to consent to sexual acts, they are unable to consent to sterilization too, so there is no justification for the “permanent disabling of a very important function” when the operation is unconnected with their “overall health.” It might be argued that an intellectually disabled wo­man suffers harm if she has an abortion or gives birth to a baby that must be taken away, so sterilization is for her own good. The answer is that a direct attack on her body is “incompatible with the virtue of respect for health as a good with claims of its own.” We should oppose this “ongoing mutilation.”

Helen Watt, in “Justifying Research without Consent,” tells how in 2004 a Belgian bioethicist proposed that a patient in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) might be treated as a “person-void body” and used for experimental research, such as for the transplantation of organs from animals (xenotransplantation). Then, in 2006, Australian bioethicist Robert Sparrow suggested that, to avoid a public backlash, PVS patients might be co-opted secretly without prior consent for experiments like xenotransplantation. Watt calls this a bodily invasion that would bring “serious lasting harm, and no health good, for the subject.” Although she once believed that there should be a prohibition against all “invasive non-consensual non-therapeutic research” on those without capacity, she now thinks that intellectually disabled persons could be allowed to contribute to the welfare of others, especially the “group to which they belong,” as long as they are safeguarded from “subtle coercion,” “serious risk of medical harm,” and research “intending, and not just tolerating, adverse effects for those unable to consent.” In case of doubt, she thinks we should err on the side of shielding non-competent people, who are “owed more protection than competent people.” She finds it “easy to see how mentally disabled people could be exploited, in a world which often sees their very presence as a medical failure.”

Wendy E. Hiscox, in her essay “Non-Voluntary Euthanasia in the Netherlands and Belgium,” shows how voluntary active euthanasia (VAE), after legalization, does not remain within its initial boundaries but seeks to expand. In the Netherlands, where VAE has been allowed for over twenty years, empirical data shows widespread violation of guidelines and growing public approval of non-voluntary active euthanasia (NVAE), i.e., “the killing of incompetent patients — those who lack the capacity to request death.” The initial Dutch requirements for VAE included a voluntary request, unbearable suffering, consultation with a second physician, and a report to authorities. In practice, each of these requirements has been modified or ignored. Official studies have revealed a lack of accountability and a growing practice of NVAE — giving lethal injections to disabled newborns and implementing the Gron­in­gen Protocol for euthanizi­ng children up to the age of 12. Doctors are rarely prosecuted, and when they are the penalty is laughable, as in the case of a doctor convicted of murdering an 84-year-old comatose woman who received a suspended sentence of one week in prison and was allowed to continue his practice. In Belgium, where VAE was legalized in 2002, NVAE is growing. A 2007 study showed that about half the deaths of babies in Flanders were the result of NVAE, and almost seventy percent of physicians surveyed either admitted to having used lethal drugs to kill newborns or to conceiving of using them.

John Finnis, in his essay “The Mental Capacity Act 2005,” examines this recent English law, which provides for various kinds of proxies to make decisions for non-competent persons. He says it is “seriously defective” and capable of facilitating “both injustice and moral decay” because it does not protect individuals and the community from those “who by reason of conflict of interests, partiality, and other unconscionable motives wish to make unconscien­tious and wrong choices.” With regard to a patient’s “best interests,” the Act speaks of “past and present wishes and feelings, the beliefs and values that would be likely to influence the patient’s decisions, and other factors that might likely be considered” (italics in original). This “unrooted subjectivity” is a “deep weakness in the Act’s treatment of best interests.” It should have directed attention to the patient’s “life, health, virtue, and integrity, the objective good,” rather than “the wishes and feelings of someone who may be incapable of sound judgment, or be in the grip of wrong-headed views about his or her own worth.” Also, Catholics wanted a clause in the Act excluding “any purpose of bringing about death,” but instead got a clause stating that the proxy must not “be motivated” by such a “desire.” Besides this, parliament opposed amendments that would have invalidated an advance directive manifesting a suicidal purpose. Little wonder that the advocates of euthanasia saw the Act as a launching pad for physician-assisted suicide. As a result of this Act, it is now “assault” if a care-provider treats a patient in defiance of his suicidal advance directive.

Johanna Valiquette, in “PEG Tubes in End-Stage Dementia,” explains that one sign of end-stage dementia is the “incapacity to eat or drink, coupled with difficulty swallowing properly.” Studies show that inserting a percutaneous endoscopic gastronomy (PEG) tube often does not prolong life, and that the tube is inserted in part because it is less labor-intensive than hand-feeding and brings higher reimbursement from insurers. Since the principle of proportionality holds that the burdens of a given treatment should not outweigh expected benefits, it should be considered that the patient suffers distress from the hospitalization needed to insert the tube, and then has to endure increased incontinence, painful hygiene, irritation of sensitive skin, and the interruption of human contact from hand-feeding. Agitation ensues, and his final days turn into a tug-of-war with caregivers, making sedatives or restraints necessary.

Lastly, A.A. Howsepian, in “Very Quiet People,” notes that the word vegetative, in the phrase “persistent vegetative state,” coined in 1972, has a pejorative connotation. It is more accurate to use the term hypokinetic to emphasize the patient’s profoundly “restricted ability to move.” There exists a continuum of conscious states, and even at the pole of minimal consciousness there could be “intermittent, and often very difficult to detect, behavioural evidence of being conscious.” At this time, we have no certain test for determining who is wholly unconscious and who is only “locked in.” There is as yet no generally accepted neural correlate to human consciousness, and only recently was the cerebral cortex shown “not to be necessary for consciousness.” Since we cannot know “when consciousness is present but not apparent to an outside observer,” we “must endure and suffer with these very quiet people in the midst of their silence and our uncertainty.”

Incapacity and Care is a truly noble testimony to the love that the faithful Catholics of the Linacre Centre have for the most helpless and vulnerable human beings on earth.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


Are you saying that igor has a shallow understanding of the legal issues?
That is my understanding of the diaglogue.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Starbug3MY
 


Excellent and extremely deep understanding of the fundaamental right to life.
Not a shallow understanding here, Comprehensive and well thought out.

Notice how pro choice call the being in the womb an embryo, fetus, growth, alien, or some other dehumanizing word?

Kind of similar to other philosophies, Hitler for instance, who called others useless eaters.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Starbug3MY
 


I respect you for your decision, no doubt the toughest you'll ever have to make probably in your intire lifetime.

Saying that, every woman is different and the decision going full term and adopting their baby out is not for everyone. Who am I to judge should they decide to abort? A majority of women to not make this decision lightly.

I wish you were correct in saying every child born is wanted but unfortunately that is not the case.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


Thats just great slugger....now go tell that to all the women who fall pregnant after rape then go tell all the women who find out their unborn child has a severe disability that will ruin her financially for all time should she carry that unborn baby full term.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
A baby gets the death penalty for the crime of her father? A lot of women who are raped feel that they have been raped by a stranger, then raped and violated by another stranger who is more deadly because he kills. It may seem odd, but a raped woman has a need for peace and healing, and an abortion only makes it more violent and twice as hard to heal.

A lot of women these days may find it hard to give up their baby and a good life. Adoption is not that hard, and there are a lot of new family relationships like open adoption, the woman can get all kinds of help before and after the birth. She can still be a vital part of that life and is often welcomed to the family who adopts her baby.

God created a life and will provide for it, maybe not the way we all want, but He knew all of us before we were born and His plan for your life is the best plan because God loves you intimately, and He knows and wants what is best for you.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Pro-Life

simply because it's a human being and no one should have the right to take it's life.

if we can't respect life, what else is there left?

bottom line.... abortion is murder.


edit on 16-9-2010 by ThaCrip because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Starbug3MY
 


Starbug

I totally disagree with you there. Almost all women, victims of rape and fallen pregnant because of it, do in fact feel relief after the procedure. You can not in all honesty sit there and expect a woman to carry to full term a child bore out of rape just to suit the needs of a childess couple. If I fell pregnant to rape, I would not hesitate to abort.

Could you imagine the psychological consequences if that child grows up, hunts down the biological mother to hear how that child was conceived? So many other factors are involved.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Starbug3MY
 


I think it rare to find an opponent of abortion rights who gives voice to their religious convictions while at the same time bothering to make logical, reasonable arguments that show a grasp of the legal, ethical, and medical issues involved. I mean that, not as a general condemnation of the position, it's just my personal criticism based on observation. Too often the debate fails to connect due to an obstinate insistence that the moral ground of their position is self-evident.

Your post is an excellent exception to this. I have not been swayed, in that I believe there are still thorny issues, dealing with governmental overreach, the danger of "black-market abortions," and the possibility (remote, as you aptly point out) that the moment of the beginning of conscious life may still end up being a definable thing. And though I contend that the "autonomy" of one's body is NOT the argument underlying Roe v. Wade, it is nonetheless a compelling notion, at least to my mind.

You have, however, re-directed the debate in a useful direction, and given me something to think about, rather than the tired tit-for-tat that often characterizes this difficult issue.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by joechip
 


Are you saying that igor has a shallow understanding of the legal issues?
That is my understanding of the diaglogue.


Actually, I dislike saying this, but I feel that igor has a shallow understanding of the fundamentals of debate, and quite possibly an inability to honestly examine the legal issues. In other words, I feel that our particular debate was doomed to futility, though I take some responsibility for that. I am trying to become more patient and less confrontational in my exchanges, but I clearly have a ways to go.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
no matter what stage of development, from conception to final death the natural law dictates that the right to life is the wellspring of all other right which humans subscribe to.

The volutional aspect of a human is most intimately associated with the spirit of the human and the natural exercise of the most primary pristine and fundamental right that all humans naturally possess, the right to life.

This right to life is the basis and essence and foundation upon which EVERY other RIGHT must rest.

The right to life can take no other place in the nominal or ordinal measure against any and all other rights, except first place. There is no other right humans claim which is more ultimate than this right.

If the right to life is not in this position then the right to free speech is meaningless, dead men tell no tales.

What is the WILL or VOLUTIONAL aspect of a human being got to do with this?

The will has as its primary function to maintain and preserve life. The will to live is th most powerful function of the WILL ever to be demonstrated.

When does the will first become apparent in a human being? How can you test your will today in regards to foiling and experimenting its primar function and job to choose life?

Lets say that you as a human can right now embark on a action which f continued for a long enough time will kill you in the next fifteen minutes.

Choose to stop the inspiration of the SPIRIT/BREATH right now. Hold your breath, as this is using your will to choose death, which if successful, will occur within fifteen minutes. What happent is that even below the level of consciousness, the will is functioning, in that the longer you use your will to seek and choose death, the more difficult it becomes to continue along that course of action. Just for the sake of argument that you are one of the rare people who have such a strong will that you hold your breath until you become unconscious, (kind of like what pro choicers want to use to define the beginning of life in the womb).

What happens is the fundamental will which operates below the level of consciousness takes over and makes you begin breathing and INSPIRING/the spirit of life, the breath. So the will to live is in operative from the moment of conception, given that a normal pregnancy the newly formed cell NATURALLY and Inviolably begins to follow its NATURAL course and development, so in nine months you have a baby human being born.

Will and volution is deeper than consciousness, given that immediately following the instant of conception, the will, a natural aspect of life, propels towards the goal of higher consciousness and LIFE.

A mothe rwho aborts a baby is using her WILL to override the NATURAL WILL of the baby.

Is that not what happens when someone rapes another? The rapist use their more powerful physical body to force thier will to override the will of the raped.

two things are always before you DEATH AND LIFE. I tell you to choose LIFE.

To be intellectually emotionally and naturally honest with yoursevles then, and operate from the natural INTEGRITY that you clain either from an evolutionary primordal soup origin or a created being reality, and begin professing that from the instant of conception the human being though microcosmal and invisible, operates always with the volution and will to live. The same thing a germ or bacteria does as well, this newly concieved human LIFE is constantly choosing to LIVE and invairably choosing LIFE.

And a mother who aborts is telling this embryo, fetus, growth, alien, glob of cells, that her right to privacy, her right to freedom from responsibility (financial etc.), and her right to pursue pleasure, profession or perfection superceeds the right to life over the baby.


edit on 16-9-2010 by slugger9787 because: (no reason given)




edit on 16-9-2010 by slugger9787 because: conflict of rights



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by joechip
And finally, you can have a "feeling" about my motives being pro-life, but that's not the basis for a dismissal of my arguments, and shows that you are unable to approach this issue aside from your preconceived notions, your black and white, us vs. them nonsense. You want me to fit in the "hat" you've put me in. Well, I don't. Your presumption is incorrect and I'll leave it at that.


I can only assume things on what you type. If you keep bringing up male reproductive rights I assume your an advocate of such. Thing is, I think that is far from the truth, since you only see one option. So what is it? Do you want them to have a say (both options) or not?


Originally posted by joechip
Can you see how debating someone without the fundamental intellectual honesty to admit when someone else has made a valid point, who lies about what they meant, then changes it back, is literally exhausting.


Your saying the context involved in the responsibility derived from fertilization includes child support and maintenance. If you actually read the following paragraph you would see the context is clearly about whether or not to remain pregnant. You may insist this isn't the case, but theres nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. Also again you ignore the fact fertilization can occur in an IVf clinic where no legal obligation can be derived from the "actors".

If I added "to remain pregnant" at the end of the sentance it would be clear, but I thought it was obvious.


Originally posted by joechip
This also included married couples, and as I argued, and you failed to refute, would also include single men (think equal protection clause, or even the absurdity that single men would somehow be exempt from the 9th-14th amendments) who would have been thought to be unaffected (and were at the time) by said government overreach.


Oh please. . . single men were not part of the equation in the Roe v Wade ruling. As for "married couples", if Roe gave any indication the male partner had any say in a womans decision to abort or not to I think we would had seen that come into effect directly after the ruling. If Roe gave any indication men had a say in abortion we wouldn't see cases like this:
legacy.signonsandiego.com...

If that was successful men could use a father's child support, or lack thereof, to have a say in how she uses her reproductive rights. If you have an issue about men not having a say, I'd say talk to the one who designed the human reproductive system.

So the facts are "married couples" could decide for themselves, that doesn't mean the male partner could override her decision. She can take someones advice, but is not compelled to act upon it, even if they are the partner/husband/boyfriend etc.


Originally posted by joechip
I mean you're all over the place. And I really am done with this. . . Reply if you must, but please understand, you have already failed to "debate" the issue.


Your handwaving is noted. That's the second time you've signed off from the debate.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
no matter what stage of development, from conception to final death the natural law dictates that the right to life is the wellspring of all other right which humans subscribe to.


Except no one has the right to life at the expense of someone else. Because no living, already born human being has the right to demand so much as a drop of blood from another human being. Even when they are liable for their predicament.

Say you negligently started a fire and you were the only bone marrow match for a person who is dying as a result from it, it would be a very upright and good of you to donate to him/her, but the state cannot force you to undergo a medical procedure to which you have not consented. You may be thrown in jail or pay with your wallet, you don't pay for it with your own bodily resources. The same notion applies to pregnant women.

Personhood from conception? So what are pro-lifers doing about the "Holocaust" that is IVF? I doubt i'd see anything from them, not that they practice what they preach anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join