Name a law that has entirely prevented whatever it made illegal. Laws can't stop people from doing a thing that they have set their minds on doing. Law only gives us a means by which to punish those who go ahead and do it anyway.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

Is it your place to get in the way of a man who is going to exploit the technology of a .38 special to end his wife's nagging? Is it your place to say no to anyone who wants to kill someone else who is not an immediate threat to their life?

More weak arguments. If you had a strong position, do you believe it would be necessary to compare a perfectly healthy living human being to someone who is so sick or injured that they can't reasonably be expected to recover or a dying animal? Is that really as good as your argument gets?

So do you favor going about killing children who we know beyond doubt are living in very poor families and require sacrifices? Following your logic, you must be. After all, how do you justify killing a child based on what "might" happen without also advocating killing children who you can readily identify as suffering the same fate you advocate killing children who might suffer it?

Sure, no problem.

First and foremost, a parasite, by definition, is described as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)

An unborn is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.

Second, A parasite is an invading organism, that is, it comes to parasitize the host from an outside source

An unborn is the result of the fertilization of an egg. The egg comes from an inside source. It is formed in the ovary of the mother

Number three. A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.

An unborn is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother(in normal circumstances) is not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the child, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.

There are numerous other reasons, but if you only want three, I suppose these will do. Parasites are what they are and unborns simply can not be accurately characterized as parasites.

The point is that you have the right to live because you are a human being and your right to live trumps any right that anyone else may invoke so long as you don't represent an imenent threat to their life.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

An unborn with a pending mother and a man killing his wife for nagging are completely different circumstances. If you gave equivalent rights to a zebra, would you not allow it to spit out it's fetus to survive while trying to out run a pack of hyenas? I'm not discouraging human rights I'm pointing out your place of persecution.


It is the very same state but in turn a reverse form. The unborn is coming to life, while the dieing is going from life. In that state they need an outside source to live until they are better or dead. The mother should even have a better reason to abort a baby because it can go into something to benefit that comatose relative.

I do not believe in pointless murder. I believe in natural selection and in turn I don't see why you are encouraging the existence of another unwanted mouth to feed. Abortion is a choice, not a mandatory requirement.

The Unborn still does the very same thing as a parasite, Living off another to live. And yes mothers can become crippled or die from child birth while the baby can leave unscathed. But I will say stillbirths occur so the baby doesn't sound like the infallible nemesis.



So all in all I will say that if there was an abundance of benevolent housings for unwanted children my views wouldn't be so stark and inhumane, but reality is not in favor.

__________________
PATRIOTISM IS NATIONALISM

The circumstances are irrelavent so long as one is not an imminent threat to the other's life. A man killing his nagging wife, and a sniper firing randomly from a bell tower on a college campus are also completely different circumstances. Do you support one, but decry the other?

Zebras have no right to live, human beings do? And I am no more persecuting a woman for killing her child out of convenience than you are persecuting a man who kills his wife for nagging.

The unborn is already alive and in 98% of cases is perfectly healthy. Being alive and perfectly healty is not analogous to being sick or injured beyond any reasonable expectation of recovery. If that is the basis for your support of abortion, your reasoning is flawed. Or is this just one of many things you will throw against the wall in hope of finding something that sticks?

You need an outside source to live. We all do. Dependence is not a valid reason to kill. If it were, we would need no life support equipment because at the point you were unable to feed and take care of yourself, you would be history. Oh, wait. You are in that state when you are born but we can't just kill you because you have a right to live.

And tell me, are you in favor of other forms of human experimentation without the permission of the one being experimented on or just on this particular segment of the population?

Natural selection is a specious argument at best. If you favor natural selection, then you would be suggesting that we not respond to single car accidents because the drivier is obviously not a good driver and natural selection has removed him from the gene pool. You also would not favor any sort of public assistance since that would certainly thwart nature's selection of the weak or the unfit. Is that really your stance, or is it just a hypocritical attempt to substantiate your position.

Your right to live is not based on whether you are wanted or not. You have the right to live because you are a human being and your right to live trumps any right that anyone else may invoke so long as you are not an imminent threat to their life.

And killing a nagging wife with a .38 or firing randomly at students from a college belltower is also a choice, not a mandantory requirement. Do you really support the choice to kill another human being for any or no reason, or do you just support this sort of killing because your personal politics demands it whether you can fashion a reasonable argument to defend it or not? I have to tell you, so far, you haven't even come close to a reasonable argument. Comparing a perfectly healthy human being to comatose relatives, dying pets and zebras is pretty weak.

We have already established that your argument is weak and inaccurate. So far, it has consisted of one misrepresentation after another so your insistence on calling unborns parasites even though they clearly are not isn't surprising. Why didn't you just say up front that you support allowing women to kill their children without legal consequence for any or no reason and save yourself the embarrassment of this argument?

The wating lists to adopt infants are years long in every state. Further, that argument represents yet another logical fallacy since it begs the question and must assume that all women who might otherwise have an abortion would give up their children. Statistically speaking, women who intend to give up their child for whatever reason rarely do it once the child is born. Women develop an emotional attatchment to their child and your assumption that women would be giving them up in droves if abortion were outlawed is baseless.

Aside from that, it is interesting that you fabricate all of these very weak arguments to justify your position and then at the end, you simply admit that you are inhumane for no better reason than that you believe that somehow your right to live is based on the availability of "benevolent" housing.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

So do you favor going about killing children who we know beyond doubt are living in very poor families and require sacrifices? Following your logic, you must be. After all, how do you justify killing a child based on what "might" happen without also advocating killing children who you can readily identify as suffering the same fate you advocate killing children who might suffer it?

Yes.

__________________

Well, at least you admit your position and you freely admit that constitutional rights mean nothing to you. It does lead one to wonder, however, if you hold your own constitutional rights in such contempt.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

accually yes. We ( americans now) do little to deserve our rights. We use them to trapple the same rights of those next to us. We are getting close to collapes and will hold on to outdated rights that are mere shadows of what they were right till the end.

either control or no control.......this mid ground leaves to much to debate and is counterproductive.

__________________

Yes and by punishing people for certain stupid laws that should be broken, how are you helping the cause? It seems to me when soemthing is against the law people think that the problem goes away.

I was reading the other day in the paper that the local town made pan handling illegal and some people were glad they threw them in jail.

Let me get this straight, some of these people are panhadling because they are homeless, have no job and are hungry and by putting them in jail, how are you helping them? Hell there glad to go to jail (At our expense) they get a free roof and some food.

Also got to remember that at one time Cocaine was legal and Booze was illegal, laws change like the wind.

__________________
This message is hidden because Lasher is on your ignore list.

Lasher your just a 12 year old Black Jew after birth child. I am not wasting my time with you.

So you believe that protecting the inalienable right of human beings to live is stupid? Interesting. Do you believe it is equally stupid to protect your inalienable right to live? Can you prove that you are more human than an unborn at any stage of development and not simply older and more mature?

You have no inalienable right to panhandle.

And roe is very near to being reversed. Things do change.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

And if it is I for one will stock up on coat hangers and rufies. C'mon in ladies I have warmed up the "mistake reversing hook" for ya.