Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by The Old American

Not according to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Looks like they aren't "just a bunch of cells" in the eyes of the law. Unless, of course, one is committing filicide at the time.

Victims of Violence?

Is there science in there somewhere?

Not interested.

See, there you go with the term "science." .

NO! You're kidding me - - - right"

OH! The "self-righteous" just piss me off.

Actually, I haven't been self righteous at all. Just asking you to think and use some reason to formulate your conclusion. You state your position is science based. Fair enough. Please explain the science behind your belief.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by The Old American

Not according to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Looks like they aren't "just a bunch of cells" in the eyes of the law. Unless, of course, one is committing filicide at the time.

Victims of Violence?

Is there science in there somewhere?

Not interested.

Of course you're not interested...

Because you have no cogent argument on the hypocrisy of the issue.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by technical difficulties
This argument makes a lot of sense.............until you actually think about it. It's considered double murder because
A. The woman was killed against her own will
B. The woman's fetus was killed against her own will, being that the fetus is living off of the woman's body, and is as such a part of it meaning that any decision regarding it's life can't be done without the consent of the woman being that it's in her body.

Basically, if you understand the difference between sex and rape, murder and suicide, you should be able to understand the difference between abortion and double homicide.

The laws are in direct conflict. One says it's OK because it's just a lifeless mass of tissue that can't live outside its host's womb, the other says that its not OK because it's still a human being killed by someone other than itself. As a matter of fact, under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a mother that attempted suicide has been charged in the death of her child.

I'm not arguing whether abortion is moral or ethical. My argument stems from the bad laws created around it. One of them has to go, but I don't see the Roe vs. Wade crowd lining up to repeal UVVA anywhere, so they must be OK with it, right? Thus the hypocrisy.

BTW: Did you notice how I didn't rise to the bait of your backhanded comment against me? That's because I'm better than you.

/TOA

I have to agree with you. There seems quite a bit of dichotomy in the system.

Audio: Obama Says "That Fetus or Child" Was "Just Not Coming Out Limp and Dead"

www.weeklystandard.com...

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by The Old American

Not according to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Looks like they aren't "just a bunch of cells" in the eyes of the law. Unless, of course, one is committing filicide at the time.

Victims of Violence?

Is there science in there somewhere?

Not interested.

See, there you go with the term "science." .

NO! You're kidding me - - - right"

OH! The "self-righteous" just piss me off.

Actually, I haven't been self righteous at all. Just asking you to think and use some reason to formulate your conclusion. You state your position is science based. Fair enough. Please explain the science behind your belief.

I will not explain my belief.

My position (other then belief) is from personal experience.

Can you meet those personal experiences?

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Audio: Obama Says "That Fetus or Child" Was "Just Not Coming Out Limp and Dead"

www.weeklystandard.com...

Who the hell really cares with this #?

And who exactly is forcing this point of view?

Originally posted by beezzer
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes but in reality those "rights" are only applicable to the people who can afford them.

Children being born to prostitutes, the un-wed, drug addicts, those simply in poverty, have about as much chance of pursuing those "rights" as they have of staying out of jail.

However much "rights" you think the unborn have, they have less "rights" than the mother. Ultimately it is the mothers choice, not the states, and certainly not yours.

It fails to amaze me how the right claims to be the side of liberty, yet you want to control everybody. Giving a person rights by taking away anothers is not liberty.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by The Old American

Not according to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Looks like they aren't "just a bunch of cells" in the eyes of the law. Unless, of course, one is committing filicide at the time.

Victims of Violence?

Is there science in there somewhere?

Not interested.

See, there you go with the term "science." .

NO! You're kidding me - - - right"

OH! The "self-righteous" just piss me off.

Actually, I haven't been self righteous at all. Just asking you to think and use some reason to formulate your conclusion. You state your position is science based. Fair enough. Please explain the science behind your belief.

I will not explain my belief.

My position (other then belief) is from personal experience.

Can you meet those personal experiences?

So you have no basis in science then. Why keep bringing it up?

I've attended several abortions. How many have you attended?

reply to post by kaylaluv

But we DO make those decisions at other times of the life cycle. The death penalty, during war, when protecting ourselves against an attacker, taking someone off life support in the hospital. All considered legal and acceptable in our society.

With the exception of taking someone off of life support...none of the other situations involve an innocent human being.

The death penalty is a punishment for a person's actions, war is consenual on the two parties (killing innocent civilians is a war crime), protecting yourself from an attacker means the attacker is not "innocent".

Now for taking someone off of life support...that is only done at the determination of the doctor and only if they consider the patient irrecoverable.

And yes, I can just use biology...it is the best thing to use....science. Once you delve into philosophy, then your arguments are just as valid as people using the bible to say it's wrong...both are philosophical arguments...and neither can be logically proven.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

So you have no basis in science then. Why keep bringing it up?

I've attended several abortions. How many have you attended?

If you can not speak from personal experience. I have no interest.

I attended my own - - and why I made the decision.

Who the hell are you and why would you be involved in a woman's choice of abortion?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by beezzer
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes but in reality those "rights" are only applicable to the people who can afford them.

Children being born to prostitutes, the un-wed, drug addicts, those simply in poverty, have about as much chance of pursuing those "rights" as they have of staying out of jail.

However much "rights" you think the unborn have, they have less "rights" than the mother. Ultimately it is the mothers choice, not the states, and certainly not yours.

It fails to amaze me how the right claims to be the side of liberty, yet you want to control everybody. Giving a person rights by taking away anothers is not liberty.

Interesting point coming from a socialist/Marxist. So you believe that taking away another person's property rights, or income, or the redistrubution of weath by the state is also wrong or do are you selective in what individual rights you want the state to support or infringe?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

With the exception of taking someone off of life support...none of the other situations involve an innocent human being.

Who exactly do you consider innocent?

I personally considered by living children priority and innocent.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NavyDoc

So you have no basis in science then. Why keep bringing it up?

I've attended several abortions. How many have you attended?

If you can not speak from personal experience.

I have no interest.

edit on 23-8-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

I just gave personal experience. Do you frequently close your mind to evidence or contradiction of your deeply held belief systems?

You have a wonderful grandson that is doing very well. He was born very premature, yet, I am certain that as soon as you saw him in an incubator, on a respirator, you recognized him as a person and you loved him.

Yet, you say that someone else at the exact same level of development is nothing but a bunch of cells. What is the fundimental difference? What made him your grandson and another baby just a bunch of cells?

Had someone come in and shut off his respirator, I'd wager that you would not shrug and say "oh well, it was a bunch of cells and not a real person." No, you'd want that person charged with murder or at least negligent homocide. I ask what is the difference?

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Interesting point coming from a socialist/Marxist.

Right there you lose any credibility.

Actually - ALL credibility IMO.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

With the exception of taking someone off of life support...none of the other situations involve an innocent human being.

Who exactly do you consider innocent?

I personally considered by living children priority and innocent.

Not quite. Apparently if they are not yet born, they do not qualify. Why?

Originally posted by NavyDoc

I just gave personal experience. Do you frequently close your mind to evidence or contradiction of your deeply held belief systems?

No you didn't.

You gave your condemnation.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

But we DO make those decisions at other times of the life cycle. The death penalty, during war, when protecting ourselves against an attacker, taking someone off life support in the hospital. All considered legal and acceptable in our society.

With the exception of taking someone off of life support...none of the other situations involve an innocent human being.

The death penalty is a punishment for a person's actions, war is consenual on the two parties (killing innocent civilians is a war crime), protecting yourself from an attacker means the attacker is not "innocent".

Now for taking someone off of life support...that is only done at the determination of the doctor and only if they consider the patient irrecoverable.

And yes, I can just use biology...it is the best thing to use....science. Once you delve into philosophy, then your arguments are just as valid as people using the bible to say it's wrong...both are philosophical arguments...and neither can be logically proven.

Since when is guilt or innocence considered "science"?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Interesting point coming from a socialist/Marxist.

Right there you lose any credibility.

Actually - ALL credibility IMO.

Why? He has posted in many other areas that he does not believe in private property or capitalism. So it is a valid question:if one believes in the state violating some rights, then why not others?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

With the exception of taking someone off of life support...none of the other situations involve an innocent human being.

Who exactly do you consider innocent?

I personally considered by living children priority and innocent.

Innocent meaning that the unborn child has no fault, the child didn't decide to be concieved, the child didn't do anything to deserve it's life being terminated at a very early stage of life.

I really don't want to discuss your personal experience, nothing good will come of it.