Still waiting for you to provide some credible evidence that unborns at any stage are not living human beings. You seem to believe that because a large number of people do a thing that what they are doing somehow changes. Your logic is flawed and you just keep repeating it.

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

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

You really aren't a very bright guy are you? What exactly would make you think that I would argue that an unborn at any stage of development would be a US citizen?

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

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

You are starting all over again with my first post and making the same Straw Man arguments. I answered all your responses already, in post #58 on page 2 (linear mode), which I linked for you, but you went back to my previous post (#20 on page 1), which you had already replied to, and which I answered.

Let's try this again: the post I made that answered these questions of yours is #58
For or against abortion?

__________________
Hehetchetu. Wa uyun tinkte!

It isn't enough to read the Constitution, one must also comprehend and understand what it says. Read the 14th amendment. There is a clause there that is known as the equal protection amendment. It protects the basic rights of non citizens as well as those of citizens. One does not need to be a citizen of the US in order to have one's right to live protected. If you care to test this, go out and kill an illegal alien in front of a police officer. When you get to court, explain that he (or she) was not a citizen and therefore their right to live was not protected. Let me know how that works out for you. I believe you get a limited amount of computer access from prison.

Making who a slave to the state, the woman or the child? The woman still has all her rights intact. It is the child who is in the position of being owned by another individual and at the mercy of that individual. Maybe if you took the time to learn what actually constitutes slavery.


I don't differentiate between the rights of those who are born and those who are not born because they are equally human beings. A postion that acknowledges the rights of some human beings but denies the rights of others is by definition bigoted.

My sister in law was born with spina biffida. She lived 40 years and had a quite productive life. I suppose you would put Stephen Hawking down for his infirmaties. Since there is not an epidemic of handicapped and disabled people killing themselves, it would appear that your argument is baseless. Given the choice of living with an infirmity or dying, it seems that most choose to live.

Because if you are going to make an argument for one individual being allowed to kill another without legal consequences, your example must apply equally to all of us or it is nothing more than the rantings of a bigot. If you want to separate unborns from the human race and make arguments that apply only to them, then you must first provide some evidence that unborns are not, in reality, living human beings at all.

Learn what a strawman is.

[quote=Qurmudjin;432978]
Yes, the rational argument for a mother killing the fetus of a rapist is that she does not want to bear the child. It is not about punishing the rapist or punishing the unborn child. It is all about the mother's rights.['/quote]

Your argument begs the question and assumes that the child is not a human being and therefore has no basic human rights. The mother's right to not be inconvenienced does not outweigh anyone's right to live. Before you can argue that her rights take precedence, you must first prove that she is more human than the child.

This has nothing to do with a criminal profiting from a crime. This is an issue of a child being killed for the crime of its father.



On what basis do you kill children for the crime of their father? Is schizophrenia a valid reason to kill? If so, do you advocate killing anyone who is diagnosed with the disorder. A no answer makes you a hypocrite since you apparently are willing to kill children simply because the condition exists in their genetic history.

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

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Where is my logic flawed?

You consider billions of people to be murderers, don't you?

we don't know if ovulation is stopped 100%. we never know with hormones how much you need to get things just right.
not enough will not prevent pregnancy
enough should stop ovulation
and unless you are trying to terminate a pregnancy, you don't want too much

its hard to find a balance with these ideological issues.

I'd say keep abortion legal for safety reason, to limit the governement, and stop women from being machines instead of people.

and of course, if you oppose abortion or oppose it being used to often- work to make it less needed. work to make better options for people.

__________________
I'm so Obamafied

When other girls wanted to be a ballerina, I wanted to be a Vampire.

First, let me say thanks for going back. I do appreciate it especially since I know how adamantly you disagree with me.

The 14th Amendment does say due process is required before you can deprive someone else, citizen or not, of their rights. In the very specific case of a pregnant woman, the due process is her preexisting rights, which include what goes on inside of her body. The inside of her body is not like the inside of any other thing.

On the other hand, for someone to say a fetus' right to life is preeminent over a woman's right to life, liberty, etc. and that's the only due process necessary in order to legally restrain her and force her to have a child if she seeks an abortion despite the law is not what I think was intended when our Constitution was written.

I might give the argument of equal protection some credibility if the people advocating it believed that no killing is ever justified for any reason. Do you believe that? That one should never kill under any circumstance?

I think you are trying to equate every kind of killing with all others, and trying to say that if one believes one has a right to kill in one very specific circumstance, that the same reasoning is automatically applied to other circumstances. I am only talking about a preganant woman and not anything else. Not the killing of foreign visitors to America or criminals or enemy combatants. Just this one circumstance.

In this one circumstance, the rationale for the right to kill comes from the very unique fact that the person being killed is inside of the woman's body. There can be nothing that we have that can have greater protection than our very bodies. Would anyone deny that my body is my property? Or deny that some property has greater value or greater protections than others? Or deny that of all my property, the one thing that should have the highest priority in protecting is my body?

I'm not saying the fetus has no rights as a human being, only that those rights are superceded by another's in one and only one unique case: that of pregnancy.

The woman would be made a slave of the state if she were forced to have a child.

The fetus is not the "slave" of the mother, but is most certainly her property. This is the one and only case where a human being can be the exclusive, untouchable property of someone else. Do not try to extrapolate this concept to any other circumstance.

The reasoning for this exception, once again, is that this "owned" human being is inside the woman's body and depends entirely on the biological functioning of that woman's body for its life support. There are no other circumstances like this. Though many humans depend on other humans for their life support, I do not believe the benefactors have the right to kill their beneficiaries, though in some circumstances, they have the right to withdraw that support, even if it means the person will die if no one else intervenes.

What if a woman goes on a hunger strike in order to abort her pregnancy? Does not every citizen have the right to starve themselves for a while, even if it means their bodies will become stressed to the point of doing cellular and organ damage?

Or, would you make it illegal for men as well as women to go on hunger strikes just so you can force women to nourish their fetus?

Not in this case. That's what due process is all about. I can absolutely deprive someone of their rights if there is due process. We do it all the time for many reasons.

* * * * * *

Here's a scenario that will blow your mind:

You are being attacked by a woman who is pregnant who has the intent and means to kill you. You have a shotgun loaded with double-aught. If you kill her, are you not killing her fetus for her crime? Would you let her kill you so that her baby can be born?

* * * * * *

I think you are just making up statistics here. Though I do not know the suicide rate among the disabled, I am betting that it is higher than the general population (once you subtract those who are so disabled they couldn't commit suicide or even express their wish to do so). Whether it is "epidemic" or not, depends on how one defines the word. But, now that there are a growing number of doctors willing to assist in suicide, I'm also betting that the rate of suicide among the disabled has gone up relatively since ten, twenty years ago.
But, since you brought up the statistic, I'll leave the research to you. But I won't believe you until I see some numbers from medical journals.

It does not follow syllogistically at all.
Are you saying that because I can legally kill someone who is attacking me with a lethal weapon, that I should also believe that I can legally kill someone who is merely attacking me with words? We make these differentiations all the time.

No I don't. You may want it to be that way, because you believe you are so adept at proving a fetus is a human being, but I am telling you that even though I agree that it is a human being, there are specific circumstances when human beings may be killed by another.

I told you exactly what it was and why I think that's what you frequently engage in.
But, maybe this will clarify it for you:
You said, "Because if you are going to make an argument for one individual being allowed to kill another without legal consequences, your example must apply equally to all of us or it is nothing more than the rantings of a bigot."
The Straw Man here is that I "must apply" my idea of killing a fetus without recrimination to all types of killings. And since killing anyone for any reason is wrong, therefore, I am wrong. But I never said one should be able to kill anyone for any reason. You did. And then you disparaged what you proposed. That is a Straw Man Argument.

Inconvenienced? So, putting a woman under arrest, tying her down so she can't hurt her baby, and monitoring her for 8 months and 22 days is merely an inconvenience?
Forcing a woman to pass a baby with advanced encephalitis through her vagina and tear it to pieces is merely an inconvenience?

Yes, indeed, a rapist can "profit" from the law forcing a woman to have the baby he violently engendered against her will?
But that is just an additional factor, not the basis. The basis is simply that it is the mother's body and her choice whether or not to have "their" child. By committing that violent act, the rapist gave up any rights of fatherhood to that fetus.

I'm just curious. If you could force a raped woman to have her child, do you believe that the father should have parental rights?

Once again you are telling me that I must apply an idea that I believe fits only one circumstance to every other. You are trying to propose a syllogism where there isn't any.
You are missing the "If ALL A are B."

__________________
Hehetchetu. Wa uyun tinkte!

I have pointed out how your logic is flawed over and over. You are making an appeal to common practice. Here is some information from the Nizkor Project. They explain logical fallacies in detail. This explains why your logic is flawed.

Fallacy: Appeal to Common Practice

Description of Appeal to Common Practice
The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:

• X is a common action.
• Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.

The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.

Examples of Appeal to Common Practice

Director Jones is in charge of running a state waste management program. When it is found that the program is rife with corruption, Jones says "This program has its problems, but nothing goes on in this program that doesn't go on in all state programs."

"Yeah, I know some people say that cheating on tests is wrong. But we all know that everyone does it, so it's okay."

"Sure, some people buy into that equality crap. However, we know that everyone pays women less than men. It's okay, too. Since everyone does it, it can't really be wrong."

"There is nothing wrong with requiring multicultural classes, even at the expense of core subjects. After all, all of the universities and colleges are pushing multiculturalism."


Your argument doesn't rest on any evidence that unborns are something other than living human beings and therefore not deserving of the same basic human rights that all other living human beings have. Your argument rests on the fact that a large number of people simply don't care and are willing to deny basic human rights to human beings for reasons that rarely amount to more than convenience.

Murder is one human being killing another human being with intent. Anyone who deliberately kills a living human being for reasons other than self defense is a murderer. Someone who kills a human being through neglegence or ignorance is guilty of manslaugher.

Since murder is one human being killing another with intent and you are completely unable to prove that unborns at any stage are something other than human beings, exactly what do you call it? You simply keep making the claim that because a lot of people do it that it is OK.

During the days of slavery, just because a large number of people believed that blacks were not human and therefore it was fine to own them as property and do with them as one pleased, do you believe that the practice of slavery was OK?

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

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Well, science provided the ethical justification for enslaving blacks, for taking the lands of "indians" and Mexicans, for excluding the chinamen, and much more, based on them being inferior to whites.

Here is a timeline of science inventing race and white superiority, cut and pasted from RACE - The Power of an Illusion . Go Deeper | PBS :
So, just as you claim that science proves that embryos are fully human beings and to allow one to die is murder, science from the ratification of the US Constitution until 1972 supported the belief that race was a reality among humans, that whites were superior to the other races, and thus whites were justified in taking liberty and property away from non-whites.

In 1860 you would have arguing science justifies slavery. And in 1930 you would have been arguing that science supported Hitler's arguments about non-Aryan races.

My view that embryos are not human beings is based on the fact that an embryo can't live without active intervention by another human being who must become a host for the embryo. If no human being becomes a host for the embryo, the embryo destroys itself. You can put an embryo in a petri dish and provide it with nutients and such for as long as you want, but the embryo will eventually commit suicide, and you haven't provded any scientific evidence that embryos can exist independently as other human beings do.

But who knows, perhaps science will come up with a way to keep an embryo alive in a petri dish by figuring out more, and like the development in 1972 which disproved the scientific facts of the white races being superior to all others, people will have to see embryos as being just like a baby, but a lot smaller and in need of more expensive technology than diapers and baby bottles for it to thrive.

Meanwhile, science doesn't matter beyond providing a current understanding of nature. The laws of men are not required to agree with science. The abolitionists argued that slavery was immoral while slavers were saying science proved negros, but not whites, should be enslaved. That was a change from historical practice where people were enslaved for economic reasons no matter their skin color or physical features.

Using science to justify laws is dangerous.

The only reason why I would agree with murdering an unborn is as I have said, but, the reason I believe this, is, because the woman is known by those around her, eg, husband, family and etc., whereas the unborn is (although a new entity, as it were), is not known, nor has it yet existed in the outside world per say. So the question arises, obiviously, as a husband would you allow your wife to die for the babies sake, or would you allow it to die, thus allowing a new chance at a baby with your wife. Its a tough question, but I believe it is the only question, that should be contemplated, when in such a crisis.

__________________
To Love and be Loved, thats all that is required.

CHIEF CRAZY CROTCH