For or against abortion?

Moggy · #**171** (**permalink**) 05-31-2008, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

The world must seem to you to be an extremely evil place, especially the "Western world" given the billion women who have commited murder, and the billions of "unborn" killed in the name of birth control. But perhaps the rise of moral leaders like the Islamic fundamentalists who reject Western values gives you hope for the future.....

Agreed, the world is an evil place, and especially the "Western world", those AngloSaxons are the most evil, yes yes yes..
WHAT! so you agree with birth control, I spit in your face you Capitalistic/Communistic scum....

What are the reasons for a woman to have an abortion?, other than I have stated. None. Any other reason is hu-man generated therefore generally to do with selfishness and hatred, thus evil.
As with the Islam freaks, no go with me, sorry to disapoint you.

PaleRider · #**172** (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qurmudjin

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

No problem. Sorry to take so long getting back to you. In the summer, when the weekend comes and the weather cooperates more or less, I go fishing. I answered this twice towards the end of last week and both times, my computer turned off as I got close to the end so I am going to cut this in half and answer in two separate posts if you don't mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qurmudjin

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.

I reviewed a few legal dictionaries to see what precisely due process is. Here is the common answer. The variants were the same only more detailed.

"A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious."

As you can see, there can be no due process between individuals. Due process is a matter between the courts and one or more individuals. As to "preexisting rights". I did a thorough search throught the same legal dictionaries and could find no evidence at all of any such concept. In all likelyhood, I am considerably older than you and as such, all of my rights pre-existed yours. My rights, however, do not outweigh yours on the basis of who had them first but which right of yours or mine outweighs the competing right of the other.

Human beings have an unalienable right to live. The right belongs to you by virtue of you being a human being, not by how old you are or whether you "got" your right before someone else. A child's right to live is exactly as potent as your right to live and exactly as potent as a woman's right to live. So long as the child does not represent an imminent threat to the woman's life, the child's right to live outweighs any right she may invoke.

The very idea of "preexisting" rights would negate the concept of equal protection as the rights of those who had them first would necessarily outweigh the same rights of those who got them later. Equally, the concept of a "special" circumstance where the lesser "preexisting" right of one outweighs the more potent right of another would also negate the idea of equal protection.

No "due process" can take place between individuals and any argument built on the assumption that it can is flawed at its foundation and any argument built upon it is, by definition, flawed and invalid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qurmudjin

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.

When the founders of this country acknowledged that we have certain unalienable rights and brought a government into being whose primary responsibility and reason for existence was to protect those rights, they wrote them down in a specific order. In legal writings, when items are listed, the order in which they are listed necessarily determines thier importance with respect to the document in which they are listed.

Our founders wrote them in the order of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property rights). The logic of the order is flawless. A right to pursue happiness has no meaning unless one's right to be free and one's right to lvie are first protected. A right to be free is meaningless unless one's right to live is first protected.

The child's right to live outweighs any right that a woman may invoke unless she is acting in self defense because the child represents an imment threat to her life exactly as your right to live outweighs any right that I, or anyone else may invoke so long as you don't represent an imminent threat to their lives.

Again, no due process can happen between individuals. Due process exists so that conflicting rights of individuals may be sorted out in a peaceful means rather than at the point of a sword or at 20 paces with a handgun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qurmudjin

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?

Then you have lost your point already. If it is so weak that you are willing to make concessions, then it wasn't a very good point to begin with.

You are making a fundamental error with regard to killing and our legal system. There are a million and one circumstances in which you might kill and be found guilty of a crime and just as many circumstnaces (some very similar) in which you might kill and be found not guilty of a crime. It isn't possible for law to be written that covers every possible circumstance so our legal system doesn't operate on circumstances.

Motive, or motivation for killing is the factor for which you will be charged of a crime or exonerated. If you kill in self defense and you can prove it, then you are not guilty of any crime. If, however, you kill for personal reasons, your motivation was not in self defense and therefore you would be guilty of a crime.

Circumstance is entered into evidence but is important to determining your guilt or innocence only insofar as it will give a jury some insight into your motivation for killing. As with your flawed use of "due process" any argument for or against killing that rests on circumstance rather than motive is flawed at its foundation and any argument built upon that assumption is also flawed and invalid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qurmudjin

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.

As I have already said, and welcome you to test me by doing some research on your own, circumstance is secondary to motive. Our laws with regard to killing are not built on circumstances but upon motive. If you kill in self defense, no matter what the circumstance, you are not guilty of a crime. If, however, you kill for personal reasons, no matter what the circumstance, you are a murderer.

The idea of allowing a certain circumstance in which one individual may kill another over a clash of rights when the right of the one being killed outweighs the one being invoked by the one who is killing negates the concept of equal protection and is therefore flawed and invalid.

I will have to get to the second part of your post later.

(to be continued)

PaleRider · #**173** (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

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.

Do you ever actually think through anything you have to say? Science only says what is. It doesn't make moral determinations, or ethical determinations. Information is what it is. What is done with it is a matter of society.

Science says that unborns are living human beings at any stage. What we, as a society, do with that information is not a matter for science to decide. The problem here is that part of society is rejecting what science has to say because to admit the truth of the issue would be to drive many away from the position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

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.

A bit of research on your part would yield that in 1860, science was aware of the fact that blacks were human beings. Folks like you were using pseudoscience and misinformation to continue the argument that they weren't human beings much as you are doing today in the case of unborns.

And in 1930, there was no science that stated that non aryans were not humans. Again, people like you were using pseudoscience and misinformation in an attempt to deny the humanity of certain groups in an attempt to justify denying them their basic human rights. You belong to the very group that denied that blacks were human beings so that the could be denied thier most basic rights and you belong to the group that denied that jews were human beings so that they could be denied their human rights. Today your group denies that unborns are human beings so that they may be denied their human rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

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.

Being dependent upon a certain environment is not what makes you a human being. You are just as dependent on a particular type of environment as an unborn is. It doesn't, however, affect your humanity in the least. Your depenence status has nothing to do with whether or not you are a living human being. You are using pseudoscience, exactly as your predecesors did in an attempt to justify denying a particular group their human rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

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.

Again, the logic is flawed. It wouldn't matter a whit whether the child grew in an artifical environment or a natural environment. It would be the same creature. If it is a human being if it grows in a dish, it is equally a human being if it grows inside of a woman's body. The creature is the same and making differentiations based on where it grows is bigoted and biased.

Your logic is flawed at every level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

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.

As I have said before, science only says what is. What a society does with that information is up to the society. In your case, however, you deny the fact of science in favor of the story you have made up about what unborns are. You know that if you accept the facts that the science provides and attempt to justify killing living human beings for reasons that rarely amount to more than convenience, that your position would be indefensible to most people.

You really need to do some research with regard to the status of science in history. As with your efforts to represent living human beings as something other than human beings, you are misrepresnting what was accepted science and how it was used.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

Using science to justify laws is dangerous.

Denying the facts of science in order to justify laws is even more dangerous.

jebe · #**174** (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 11:44 AM

illegal, based on morality. for those who think the law should be legal in any way, im sorry your parents wernt allowed to excersize their " rights ". no point in taking it out on your children for the mistakes of your mother.

fenianforever1689 · #**175** (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 12:34 PM

We should sterilize ALL American Indians

and blacks.

Commissioner · #**176** (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 02:14 PM

I've always been against abortion, but after reading posts from cretons like naturemomma, Petey and Crowley there does seem to be a legitimate argument for it.

And if that wasn't enough then I ran across this:

Who You Daddy?

The following are all replies that Detroit women have Written on Child Support Agency Forms in the section for listing 'father's details' or putting it another way.... Who's your Daddy? These are genuine excerpts from the forms. Be sure to check out #11. It takes 1st prize and #5 is runner up.

1. Regarding the identity of the father of my twins, Makeeshia was fathered by Maclearndon McKinley. I am unsure as to the identity of the father of Marlinda, but I believe that she was conceived on the same night.

2. I am unsure, as to the identity of the father of my child as I was being sick out of a window when taken unexpectedly from behind. I can provide you with a list of names of men that I think were at the party if this helps.

3. I do not know the name of the father of my little girl. She was conceived at a party at 3600 East Grand Boulevard where I had sex with a man I met that night. I do remember that the sex was so good that I fainted. If you do manage to track down the father, can you please send me his phone number? Thanks.

4. I don't know the identity of the father of my daughter. He drives a BMW that now has a hole made by my stiletto in one of the door panels. Perhaps you can contact BMW service stations in this area and see if he's had it replaced.

5. I have never had sex with a man. I am still a Virginian. I am awaiting a letter from the Pope confirming that my son's conception was ejaculate and that he is the Saver risen again.

6. I cannot tell you the name of Alleshia dad as he informs me that to do so would blow his cover and that would have cataclysmic implications for the economy. I am torn between doing right by you and right by the country. Please advise.

7. I do not know who the father of my child was as they all look the same to me.

8. Tyrone Hairston is the father of child A. If you do catch up with him, can you ask him what he did with my AC/DC CDs? Child B who was also borned at the same time.... Well, I don't have clue.

9. From the dates it seems that my daughter was conceived at Disney World; maybe it really is the Magic Kingdom .

10. So much about that night is a blur. The only thing that I remember for sure is Delia Smith did a program about eggs earlier in the evening. If I had stayed in and watched more TV rather than going to the party at 8956 Miller Ave , mine might have remained unfertilized.

11. I am unsure as to the identity of the father of my baby, after all, like when you eat a can of beans you can't be sure which one made you fart.

wolf_22 · #**177** (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jebe

illegal, based on morality. for those who think the law should be legal in any way, im sorry your parents wernt allowed to excersize their " rights ". no point in taking it out on your children for the mistakes of your mother.

our laws aren't based on morality. morals vary person to person.
many people don't consider a fetus to be alive and we know they lack the abilty to feel and think in the first trimester.

your comment about rights is foolish. reproductive rights means to be able to have options when it comes to reproductive- to reproduce, to not reproduce, to terminate a pregnancy, to use birth control, to get pregnant, to parent, to give up for adoption, to steriliaze, to remain fertile, ect

it doesn't matter if you force pregnany, ban abortion, foce abortion. ban sterilization, or force sterilization it all amounts to the same thing - taking away people's rights and autonomy.

PaleRider · #**178** (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qurmudjin

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.

Your life is not in imment danger due to words. I don't know what your point is. If, however, you are asking for an exception to be made so that one individual may kill another individual from a particular group without legal consequence, you destroy the concept of equal protection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qurmudjin

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.

No. There are certain motivations that justify killing another. As I said, there are too many possible circumstances to ever write laws sufficient to cover them all. There is one motivation by which you may kill and not find yourself guilty in the eyes of the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qurmudjin

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.

You are left with either proving that unborns are not human beings and therefore have no right to live, or you will have to consider motivation rather than circumstance. Killing in self defense is justified while killng for personal reasons is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qurmudjin

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?

con·ven·ience - kənˈvinyəns – noun
1. the quality of being convenient;
2. anything that saves or simplifies work, adds to one's ease or comfort, etc;
3. a convenient situation or time;
4. advantage or accommodation;

Do feel free to describe a situation in which a woman's life or long term health is not in danger that doesn't fit nicely within the definition of convenience.

By the way, the child you describe would be delivered via C-section.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qurmudjin

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?

The father should be sitting on death row awaiting his date with the executioner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qurmudjin

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."

Motivation, not circumstance. All arguments for killing that presume circumstance is more important than motive are flawed and invalid.

PaleRider · #**179** (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf_22

our laws aren't based on morality. morals vary person to person.
many people don't consider a fetus to be alive and we know they lack the abilty to feel and think in the first trimester.

And we are still waiting for you to provide even a bit of evidence that the ability to feel pain or think are what make you a human being. And those who consider an unborn to not be alive are no more than flat earthers who are lying to both themselves and anyone they repeat such foolishness to.

mulp · #**180** (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

And we are still waiting for you to provide even a bit of evidence that the ability to feel pain or think are what make you a human being. And those who consider an unborn to not be alive are no more than flat earthers who are lying to both themselves and anyone they repeat such foolishness to.

If the ability to communicate to another "I am human" doesn't define what a human is, what does?

So far, we haven't encountered anything that says "you arrogant human who think you are the only ones that can communicate yourself of unique identity, I am thankfully not human, and possess the superior ability to distinguish my own self awareness to others of my kind, but I can communicate with a species which is unaware of our self awareness."