Does a 2 year old?Originally Posted by SpankyNek
|
|
Does a 2 year old?
Yes.
link please
Well, I could fax you a copy of the legal paperwork ****ociated with my daughter's Coogan Trust....
Go look for yourself...it's not like I can trust you to be swayed by facts anyway.
The slavery comparison is apt: it involves a question of when personal rights conflict with those of others. The matter of slavery is a suitable analogue because it calls into question whether the individual right of someone, a slaveholder, is greater than that of another person. In both the slavery and abortion questions, the issue is whether one human being has the right to own or harm another human being, with the question hinging on whether the person being owned/harmed is actually a human being or not. Slavery was historically often justified on the basis of one particular type of human beings considered as either less human or less equal or not even human at all; in the case of the slavery systems of America and Europe that type of human being was generally blacks/Africans. Part of the justification for the Holocaust worked in a similar fashion. Likewise, elective abortion is often justified on the basis of one particular type of human being considered as either less human or less equal or not even human at all; in this case it's fetuses, embryos or zygotes. But science tells us that despite physical dissimilarities, blacks and fetuses are nonetheless fully human.
Again, although I might disagree with Peter Singer, he remains morally and logically consistent: any argument that seeks to disallow the humanity of the fetus serves equally well to disallow the humanity of newborns. Any justification for killing a fetus in the womb can be used to justify killing a newborn in a crib.
Whether fetuses have a right to property is not a discussion that has been widely considered until now AFAIK. Pro-life advocates aren't generally arguing for property rights for fetuses any more than they're arguing that fetuses be allowed to vote or drive a car or own a gun. Only the right to life is being promoted an an inalienable right that accrues to a human being as soon as that human being comes into existence. However, if a fetus can own property, even if there are tricky legal implications, is that a bad thing?
Last edited by VUGear; 01-18-2013 at 04:16 PM.
The following users like this post: KABOOKIE
Historically, inalienable rights are granted at birth. A fetus carries not the prerequisite. A slave has never required the slave owner for its existence like a fetus does.
This point in particular one day will be moot. When artificial wombs are perfected, and cloned human fetuses are kept in those wombs for longer than nine months, merely to grow body parts for other people, who will own those fetuses?
for the sake of world population I hope artificial wombs never exist ever...
They will probably be the property of whomever donated the DNA for the clone. Folks already own the stem cells in their umbilicus.
So human beings can own other human beings? Just like parents own their children?
Stem cells aren't human beings.
They are potential humans.
Well, not exactly. Humans don't come from stem cells; stem cells come from humans. A stem cell has the potential to turn into any particular type of somatic cell. And eventually tissue of that type. But at no point does it become an entire organism.
This illustrates why pro-lifers aren't necessarily against embryonic stem cell research per se, because they generally have no problem with the research once the stem cells are obtained. They're against the way in which embryonic stem cells are harvested, which unfortunately kills the embryo that supplies them. Which is why pro-lifers tend to support the development of methods that don't kill embryos, such as altered nuclear transfer or dedifferentiation. And the use of adult stem cells.
Again, embryos don't come from embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells come from embryos.
Thank you, it's a lot better than being in a though process of being against liberties like republicans and democrats are.
I saw an online ad for an artificial ****, can wombs be far behind?
It is theoretically possible to clone a stem cell into a blastocyst...not now, but certainly not impossible in the future.
Neither the pro-choice nor pro-life sides will ever really agree on this. And facts can be skewed to be with both sides. If you really believed a fetus wasn't a life form than it's okay for a mother to chain smoke and drink or even have someone just beat up here fetus all the time right? That's where the rights begin at birth argument holds no water. Fact is a baby at birth holds no rights according to that argument because a baby can't do much more than a fetus in reality. At the same time there's situations where I can understand abortion being right either financially or if health is in play. And if you made them completely illegal you would see people go out of country or in other states where it is legal, or go underground in facilities that would be harmful to the patients.
It's not whether its "alright" it's whether it should be prohibited.
Do you think pregnant smoking/drinking should be legally prohibited?
So anarchy leads to more liberty?
try killing a fetus while driving drunk and see what happens....
if YOU kill a fetus....it's murder......if a woman kills her fetus......it's not.....splain that....
The following users like this post: SoonerBounce
It can if we get rid of all of these laws at the national level and make it to where people have the right to choose on these things at the local level. Am I an anarchist? Yes especially when it comes to nationalized laws like we have with both parties.
So what exactly is the purpose of the legislative branch?
Because such statues are not prohibited by federal law.
What do I win?
That's about the same argument as driving with cell phones being illegal isn't it? But the way you argue it we shouldn't care about life till someone is old enough to know what rights are. A baby and even little kids don't really know what rights are. Even people on this message board still don't understand that concept.
a free abortion.....courtesy of your president
no. do you think that should be illegal too?
This has never been my argument. I have clearly stated it several times.But the way you argue it we shouldn't care about life till someone is old enough to know what rights are. A baby and even little kids don't really know what rights are. Even people on this message board still don't understand that concept.
What does this have to do with FDR?
??
Anarchy leads to totalitarianism. You're being utopian, and that's as unrealistic as realizing an effective socialist state.
The following users like this post: ThievingMagpie
You only believe that because modern communist and people that think capitalism is evil, say they are anarchist.
No I don't. I believe that b/c it's true. It has nothing to do w/anything that anyone says today. If you place a people in a state of anarchy, at some point the strongest will take what they want, continually, leading to totalitarianism.
While abortion isn't a fun topic, and I have moral issues with it, the government shouldn't be able to tell a woman what she can and can't do to her body. It absolutely should continue to be legal. There are already a ton of children being brought into horrible situations by single mothers, without a father figure, living in poverty and on government handouts, why would we want to force MORE of these situations on people? Studies have shown that the vast majority of violent criminals come from single parent homes (specifically single mother homes), outlawing abortion will simply exacerbate this problem.
Furthermore, you'd just be forcing abortion to the black market for those with the resources for medical ****istance, for others you'd be forcing them to go after their fetuses with coat hangers or throw themselves down flights of stairs.
I know it would be nice to think that all people that get pregnant love each other and have a desire to properly raise a child together, but this is naive and unrealistic. Likewise, it would also be wonderful if adoption and foster care services worked perfectly 100% of the time, but alas they do not even come close.
It is OK to be morally against abortion. It is OK to want better **** education including, but not limited to, abstinence training. It is not OK to favor the government outlawing it completely.
Lastly, it is asinine that issues like this and **** marriage are really allowed to occupy so much of the governments time when we are staring such a horrendous economy and record debts directly in the face. Lets get back in the ****ing black and focus on what is truly important.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Well here's the kicker. There is a living thing inside of that body that doesn't just belong to the mother.
This is the weakest pro abortion logic out there. The people that are against abortion realize this. But they also believe that it is morally wrong. Just because it may be convienant to say oh **** it, there are already ****ty parents out there, let's abort the baby doesn't make it right. It is still morally wrong.There are already a ton of children being brought into horrible situations by
single mothers, without a father figure, living in poverty and on government
handouts, why would we want to force MORE of these situations on people?
Studies have shown that the vast majority of violent criminals come from single
parent homes (specifically single mother homes), outlawing abortion will simply
exacerbate this problem.
SoFurthermore, you'd just be forcing abortion to the black market for those with
the resources for medical ****istance, for others you'd be forcing them to go
after their fetuses with coat hangers or throw themselves down flights of
stairs.
irreleventI know it would be nice to think that all people that get pregnant love each
other and have a desire to properly raise a child together, but this is naive
and unrealistic. Likewise, it would also be wonderful if adoption and foster
care services worked perfectly 100% of the time, but alas they do not even come
close.
This just doesn't make sense. THe only reason it would be considered morally wrong is because you believe it is ending a human life. You don't think ending a human life should be against the law?It is OK to be morally against abortion. It is OK to want better **** education
including, but not limited to, abstinence training. It is not OK to favor the
government outlawing it completely.
Agree with **** marriage, not with abortion. And I don't really think government is spending too much time on abortion.Lastly, it is asinine that issues like this and **** marriage are really allowed
to occupy so much of the governments time when we are staring such a horrendous
economy and record debts directly in the face. Lets get back in the ****ing
black and focus on what is truly important.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD[/QUOTE]
The following users like this post: 87sooner
I agree: the government shouldn't tell people what to do with their bodies... as long as another body isn't involved.
For women's rights, I tend to be vigorously pro-choice. I enthusiastically support a woman's right to choose her own career, to choose her own doctor and health care, to choose her own husband (or wife), to choose her own education, to choose her own religion, etc. But not all choices are the same. Choosing whether to kill another human being simply because she's small and defenseless and in the way is not the same kind of choice as deciding what to wear. Being temporarily domiciled within a mother's body doesn't make a fetus any less of an individual human being. A fetus is not just another growth like a tumor or a part like an appendix.
What if a pregnant woman is nauseated and can't stop vomiting, so she wants thalidomide to ease her symptoms? And even after hearing of the risk of birth defects from her physician, still decides to take it based on the idea that she can do whatever she wants to her body? So if the child doesn't develop limbs, it's okay, right? It seems to me that saying it's wrong to harm a child but it's okay to kill a child is a little odd. And yet this is the consequence of the beliefs of the pro-choice argument.
This isn't the best argument for legalizing abortion. Making abortion illegal no more forces a pregnant woman to obtain an abortion than making bank robbery illegal forces an unemployed man to attempt a bank robbery. Both have other options.
I think overall very few people really want to outlaw it completely. I think most people favor exceptions such as in the case of danger to the mother's life, **** or incest.
Last edited by VUGear; 01-22-2013 at 07:48 AM.
Unfortunately we do not live in this great world you all are imagining. While I don't like the idea of ending a human life, if it's done in accordance with current laws (in the first trimester) I believe it can, in some cases, be better than the alternatives.
Perhaps I should qualify my last sentence. I think it is asinine that candidates have to address this issue and elections are decided because of their opinions on it. Roe v. Wade isn't going to be overturned. It's unfortunate because the things I love about conservatism like fiscal responsibility get overshadowed by what I consider to be also-ran issues such as these. They truly don't have an affect on your or my lives (as the laws stand right now) whereas things like the budget, tax rates, foreign policy, etc. do, but they give people (women) a great big soapbox to stand on and decry us all as women haters and such.
Also, I agree with Zepp that the government shouldn't be funding planned parenthood or other abortion clinics.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
you're right....roe will never be overturned.....
i don't believe the govt funding will ever be stopped either....
it's a lost cause for those who know the truth and understand the consequences.....
it still amazes me the number of people who call themselves christians and believe abortion to be ok...
I don't know one self-proclaimed Christian that says, "Hey, I think abortion is A-OK!"
I do know Christians that are able to parse their personal religious convictions and how they think the government should behave.
Exactly. Federal prohibition of sin is a ridiculous expectation.
The following users like this post: Aurora
Murder is a sin. Thus the expectation is not ridiculous if you view an abortion as such.
The following users like this post: 87sooner
so you're saying this should be a state issue? i agree.......
The following users like this post: pbc2003
Roe v Wade: After 40 years, deep divide is legacy
There's been no such dramatic shift, in either direction, on abortion.
For example, a new Pew Research Center poll finds 63 percent of U.S. adults opposed to overturning Roe, compared to 60 percent in 1992. The latest Gallup poll on the topic shows 52 percent of Americans saying abortion should be legal under certain circumstances, 25 percent wanting it legal in all cases and 20 percent wanting it outlawed in all cases — roughly the same breakdown as in the 1970s.
"There's a large share of Americans for whom this is not a black-and-white issue," said Michael Dimock, the Pew center's director. "The circumstances matter to them."
Indeed, many conflicted respondents tell pollsters they support the right to legal abortion while considering it morally wrong. And a 2011 survey of 3,000 adults by the Public Religion Research Institute found many who classified themselves as both "pro-life" and "pro-choice."
how many have you asked?
polls show many "christians" who go to church are a-ok with abortion....
why would a christian be a-ok with murder?
why would a christian be a-ok with govt protected/sponsored murder?
not when that sin violates someone's "life.....liberty....and the pursuit of happiness"....
Too bad the forefathers gave us the constitution, I guess...
Should manslaughter be federal crime too?
How about domestic ****ault...you think that is an infringement upon happiness?
Kidnap pings that don't cross state lines?
Every crime violates one of these tenets.
what are you talking about?
what does "federal crime" have to do with anything?
I am talking about whether or not the federal government should outlaw abortion. I don't think they should.
Should the federal government mandate that it is legal?
I believe that they should mandate legality until viability. That's just me though.
I believe that there has to be some legal window of protection of the rights of the host mother to willfully carry to term beyond the act of intercourse.
I thought current laws didn't limit abortion to the first three months. Didn't Roe v. Wade allow abortion in the first six months? And didn't Doe v. Bolton essentially eliminate any restrictions in the final three months?
Not sure I understand. Is that what you meant to type?
I would just prefer that the federal government allow me and my doctor to make a decision. Especially when no government funds and typically no insurance cover abortion.
Looking at estimates for the amount of abortions performed, I can with out a doubt say that America is a better place today than it would be if we outlawed abortion.
Could you imagine supporting 50 million more people? Those people are likely minorities, and low income people as well.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
