Does the fetus have the right to live by constitution?

PaleRider · #**121** (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

LOL, I assure you that if palerider, O mr wonder liar, told you he is a bio chemist he is lying. He might wash some test tubes for a bio chemist, but that is as far as he goes.

Funny. I have brought your lies forward to prove that you are a liar. I have yet to see you point out a single lie on my part. I don't need to lie. Every time you call me a liar without providing proof, you only become more of a false witness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

LOL a bio chemist would know a lot more about everything than palerider does. Palerider can barely make rational thoughts . let alone understand the science of chemistry.

Still waiting for you to prove even one thing I have said is wrong. And waiting, and waiting, and waiting.

PaleRider · #**122** (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moggy

Ya haven't runaway on me Laddie? Hoots man!

Sorry, I can't sit here all day. I do have to earn a living.

wvpeach · #**123** (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 11:39 AM

Show us all some lies of mine paler rider?

Go ahead pull up lies I have told O' wonder liar paler rider.

We'll wait.

Forever I guess because I do not tell lies.

But we will wait while you stumble around in the dark and try to find some lies you think I have told paler rider?

Present these lies palerider.

wvpeach · #**124** (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Sorry, I can't sit here all day. I do have to earn a living.

LOL, does your boss know you spend most of your day while your supposed to be working posting on AWE?

I seriously doubt it.

PaleRider · #**125** (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

LOL, does your boss know you spend most of your day while your supposed to be working posting on AWE?

I seriously doubt it.

Once more, you lie. I am here for about 45 minutes at luch monday - thursday. I only work half days on friday so am usually here after 11:30 on friday. But I do invite you to try and prove that I am here for most of the day and prove that you aren't a false witness.

wvpeach · #**126** (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 11:54 AM

Nope, you started it .

I will wait on you to find a lie I have told .

Go ahead palerider you should be able to find a lie in my posts since you claim I have lied.

We'll wait.

PaleRider · #**127** (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Show us all some lies of mine paler rider?

Go ahead pull up lies I have told O' wonder liar paler rider.

Off the top of my head, here is one that you repeated often in different forms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Pale rider is one of the emotional over reactors Lexi, who bases decisions on emotions like a over wrought woman who is used to having her way.

I invited you several times to point out a single appeal to emotion on my part. You didn't, because there are none.

Then there is this one:

Quote:

Originally Posted by vapeach

At best your a immoral unthinking beast. Strange that you should say animals don't have a right to life because as far as I can tell pale rider your no better than a animal yourself.

Talking about wanting abortions stopped and then not caring how the babies that are born are fed is immoral palerider and that describes you perfectly.

Bring foreward a quote from me saying that I don't care how children are fed. Of course you can't because you lied when you said it.

How many more lies of yours do you wan't brought here to be viewed by all peach?

Further, you often call me a liar but have yet to provide evidence of even one lie that I have told, so every time you have called me a liar without providing evidence, you have lied yourself. Should I bring them all foreward as well?

ricechickie · #**128** (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funktacular

Politically speaking, abortion is an issue that involves competing rights. On the one hand, you have the mother's right not to be pregnant. On the other hand, you have the baby's right not to be killed. The question that must be answered is this. Which right is more fundamental? Which right has a greater claim? Abortion advocates argue that outlawing abortion would, in essence, elevate the rights of the unborn over and above those of the mother. "How can you make a fetus more important than a grown woman?", they might ask. In reality, outlawing abortion wouldn't be giving unborn children more rights, it would simply gain for them the one most fundamental right that no one can live without, the right to life.

If a baby is not to be aborted, then the pregnant mother must remain pregnant. This will also require of her sickness, fatigue, reduced mobility, an enlarged body, and a new wardrobe. Fortunately, it is not a permanent condition. On the flip side, for a pregnant woman not to be pregnant, her child must be killed (unless she is past her 21st week of pregnancy, in which case the baby may well survive outside the womb). Abortion costs the unborn child his or her very life and it is a thoroughly permanent condition. This is what's at stake, both for the child and for the mother. It is not an issue of who is more important, but rather who has more on the line.

Any time the rights of two people stand in opposition to each other, the government must protect the more fundamental right. Let's consider crosswalks. A car is driving down the street while a person is crossing the street. The law requires the driver of that car to slow down and stop (giving up their right to drive where they want, when they want, and at what speed they want) so that the pedestrian may cross the street in front of him. Why? Why must the driver temporarily give up his right to drive down the street just because someone else is walking across the street? Why is the right of the man on foot upheld while the right of the man in the car is denied? It is not because the pedestrian is more valuable than the driver but rather because, if the driver doesn't stop, the pedestrian will likely be killed. In order for the driver to proceed down the street at full speed, at that moment, it will cost the pedestrian his life. In order for the pedestrian to finish crossing the street, at that moment, it will cost the driver a few minutes of drive time.

Obviously, for a woman to remain pregnant, she gives up far more than a few minutes of drive time, but she gives up far less than the baby who would otherwise be killed. This is what it all comes down to. Abortion permanently takes away the life of the unborn. Pregnancy temporarily takes away some of the freedoms of the mother. Since there is far more at stake for the child, the more fundamental right to life must be upheld.

Thank you.

While I disagree with the conclusion you draw, thank you for framing a reply in a rational, coherent, and non-insulting manner.

Now, as for your conclusion that the fetus is losing something greater, I disagree. It may be "alive" but it doesn't have a LIFE. Pregnancy is temporary, but some of the effects can be long-lasting, even permanent.

That said, I think that's why abortion is a tough topic. You said it very well. It's about competing rights.

funktacular · #**129** (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricechickie

Thank you.

While I disagree with the conclusion you draw, thank you for framing a reply in a rational, coherent, and non-insulting manner.

Now, as for your conclusion that the fetus is losing something greater, I disagree. It may be "alive" but it doesn't have a LIFE. Pregnancy is temporary, but some of the effects can be long-lasting, even permanent.

That said, I think that's why abortion is a tough topic. You said it very well. It's about competing rights.

There is a scene at the end of Schindler's List where Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson) is given a ring from the 1,200 Jews he bought from extermination. The ring is inscribed in Hebrew with a phrase that translates, "Whoever saves one life, saves the world." As Schindler studies his gift, he starts to mumble, "I could've got more out... If I'd made more money, I threw away so much money, you have no idea. If I'd just..." His bookkeeper and friend interrupts to say, "There will be generations because of what you did," to which Schindler responds, "I didn't do enough... this car... why did I keep the car? Ten people, right there, ten more I could've got. This pin, Two people. This is gold. Two more people... at least one... one more person... I could've gotten one more person I didn't."

For Oskar Schindler, the financial cost of preserving human life was very high. It cost him his entire fortune, and yet at the end of it all, he wasn't lamenting the cost, but rather the fact that he hadn't given up more for the sake of a few extra people. We look at his example and applaud. He understood the unique value of individual human beings. He understood that the value of life far exceeds the value of gold pins and luxury automobiles. He understood that financial sacrifice was the only appropriate response to the "cost of life". Abortion proponents, however, have turned Schindler's equation on its head. They argue that, in many cases, the value of a new baby is less than the value of the money it will take to feed and clothe that baby. This is utilitarianism at its ugly extreme, and the reasoning is no more honest than any of the other arguments people use to justify abortion. Babies aren't any less expensive after they're born, but very few people dare cite "extreme financial burden" as a legitimate reason for terminating their lives after birth (one exception to this rule was Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger who said in Woman and the New Race, 1920, that "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.").

Essentially, there are two ways to evaluate the "Cost of Life". There is an immediate cost and a long-term cost. Abortion is a means of eliminating the short-term cost. For a few hundred bucks you can free yourself from the financial burden of diapers and baby food, but you also free yourself from a relationship with your child, you free yourself from someday having the support and care of a grown son or daughter. You free yourself from grand-kids and great grand-kids, and you free society from the long-term production and influence of an utterly unique human being. The late Julian Simon, well-known University of Maryland business professor, distinguished senior fellow at the Cato Institute, and author of The Economics of Population Growth, spent a lifetime demonstrating that people are the most valuable natural resource in the economic realm. He commented in the July 7, 1993 edition of Investor's Business Daily ("Is a Population Bomb Ticking?") that, "the most important benefit that population growth confers on an economy is that people increase the stock of useful knowledge. In the long run, the contributions people make to knowledge are great enough to overcome all the costs of population growth." Simon goes on to say, "If we measure the scarcity of people the same way we measure the scarcity of economic goods – by the market price – then people are becoming more scarce, because the price of labor time has been rising almost everywhere in the world." People create, people produce, people drive industry. With fewer people comes fewer innovations and less man-power.

The value of a single human soul is a staggering thing. In the biblical economy, in fact, the value of one human soul exceeds that of the entire material universe combined. Souls are eternal. Gold and diamonds are not. The cost of raising a child is real and significant, but the cost of killing them is far greater.

wvpeach · #**130** (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 04:27 PM

LOl palerider you really are retarded I think.

Your confusing my opinions of you with facts.

I am allowed to have whatever opinion of you I have palerider. That is my opinion not a stated fact.

And my opinion of you is that your a immoral beast who has no conscious , that for a fact is my opinion of you palerider.

It is also a fact my opinion of you is that your not very smart palerider, confusing opinions and facts as you do.

LOL

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Off the top of my head, here is one that you repeated often in different forms.

I invited you several times to point out a single appeal to emotion on my part. You didn't, because there are none.

Then there is this one:

Bring foreward a quote from me saying that I don't care how children are fed. Of course you can't because you lied when you said it.

How many more lies of yours do you wan't brought here to be viewed by all peach?

Further, you often call me a liar but have yet to provide evidence of even one lie that I have told, so every time you have called me a liar without providing evidence, you have lied yourself. Should I bring them all foreward as well?