Obamacide

[Black Power]

Matt Barber :: Townhall.com :: Obamacide

How to be a Democrat:

Kill unborn and newborn children. Don't kill convicted murderers and Islamic terrorists.

What a great bunch of people.

[IEATV8S]

Originally Posted by Black Power

Matt Barber :: Townhall.com :: Obamacide

How to be a Democrat:

Kill unborn and newborn children. Don't kill convicted murderers and Islamic terrorists.

What a great bunch of people.

BUT, But, but..... those unborn aren't living beings until they pop out of there mothers stomach, OR can be determined that they are PERFECT AND WANTED after being born!!!! Those murders and Islamic terrorists are PEOPLE, and we have the DUTY and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to TRY to rehabilitate these living beings to show them the correct way to live, and how to just get along with the rest of the world! Even if it takes us their LIFETIME of incarceration, and hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money!

[Black Power]

One of my employees was backing abortion in a conversation with me. She told me that aborting a fetus is ok because in the early stages they don't have a heart. No heart, no life.

I asked her if it would be ok for me to go outside and cut down a tree. She said no. I told her that trees don't have hearts, so they must not be alive either.

Then she switched tactics on me. She told me that it's the woman's right to decide because the baby couldn't survive without her. The food she eats feeds it, and her body keeps it alive. I then told her that an infant newborn could not survive without someone feeding it and taking care of it either. It would starve to death.

She didn't have a good argument, but she damn sure tried.
Typical "I think I'm smarter than you conservative hicks" liberal

[henschman]

like the supreme court said in Roe v. Wade, the issue of abortion basically boils down to two competing interests -- the interest of the mother in controlling her own body, and the interests of the state in protecting the child.

no matter their ideas when it comes to other political issues, pro-choice people suddenly become huge libertarians when it comes to this issue of a woman's right to control her own body, and since the fetus is in her body, therefore the right to control its body (since it is really nothing more than part of her, according to them). but all problems with that line of reasoning aside, my hangup is on the value pro choice people place on the woman's right to control her own body. You all know that I am a huge supporter of people controlling their own bodies and lives, but I also believe in people taking responsibility for their actions and their effects on others. that's all part of recognizing everybody else's rights, as well.

I doubt anyone on here will dispute that when parents choose to create a life, they assume the duty to care for it until it can care for itself, since it was their voluntary activity that caused this helpless creature to come into being. Otherwise, couples can knock the woman up all they want and then when the baby is born, just say "well, we have the right to live our lives as we please, and I don't feel like caring for you for 18 years... so good luck pal!" and leave the baby in the gutter. No... you caused the baby's helpless condition, so you are liable for remedying it until the condition doesn't exist anymore. just like how if you cause an injury to another person, you are responsible for compensating them to the extent that they were damaged. of course a baby's inability to care for itself isn't really an injury per se, but it is still a condition that you caused, so to my way of thinking, you assume responsibility for it when its the result of your free, voluntary action.

The way i see it, a woman waives the right to do what she wants with her own body the minute she voluntarily engages in an activity that is likely to produce a child inside her. she also waives the right to do as she pleases for the next 18 years, or however long it takes to raise the child to an acceptable level of maturity. so does the father, incidentally. i don't really care about any of the arbitrary criteria people use to determine when life begins -- whether or not it has a heart, or brain waves, or looks like a fish doesn't change the fact that it is a growing organism made of human DNA, and absent any interference, it will live out its full natural life cycle. its dependence on the mother; indeed, its very existance; is due to her voluntary action, so she and the father have a responsibility to care for it. end of story.

i believe that when it comes to pregnancies caused by rape, the woman didn't voluntarily waive her right over her body. the baby is a burden the other person placed on her without her consent, which is of course a violation of her rights. here, i think the woman's right to control her own body is still in effect, and i think she has a right to protect it if she wants through an abortion. in that case, the rapist should be held criminally responsible for the death of the baby since he caused the situation. If the woman keeps the baby, the rapist is solely responsible for its care and any of the costs thereof.

[Pronto]

Capital punishment is just retroactive abortion.

[IEATV8S]

Originally Posted by henschman

like the supreme court said in Roe v. Wade, the issue of abortion basically boils down to two competing interests -- the interest of the mother in controlling her own body, and the interests of the state in protecting the child.

no matter their ideas when it comes to other political issues, pro-choice people suddenly become huge libertarians when it comes to this issue of a woman's right to control her own body, and since the fetus is in her body, therefore the right to control its body (since it is really nothing more than part of her, according to them). but all problems with that line of reasoning aside, my hangup is on the value pro choice people place on the woman's right to control her own body. You all know that I am a huge supporter of people controlling their own bodies and lives, but I also believe in people taking responsibility for their actions and their effects on others. that's all part of recognizing everybody else's rights, as well.

I doubt anyone on here will dispute that when parents choose to create a life, they assume the duty to care for it until it can care for itself, since it was their voluntary activity that caused this helpless creature to come into being. Otherwise, couples can knock the woman up all they want and then when the baby is born, just say "well, we have the right to live our lives as we please, and I don't feel like caring for you for 18 years... so good luck pal!" and leave the baby in the gutter. No... you caused the baby's helpless condition, so you are liable for remedying it until the condition doesn't exist anymore. just like how if you cause an injury to another person, you are responsible for compensating them to the extent that they were damaged. of course a baby's inability to care for itself isn't really an injury per se, but it is still a condition that you caused, so to my way of thinking, you assume responsibility for it when its the result of your free, voluntary action.

The way i see it, a woman waives the right to do what she wants with her own body the minute she voluntarily engages in an activity that is likely to produce a child inside her. she also waives the right to do as she pleases for the next 18 years, or however long it takes to raise the child to an acceptable level of maturity. so does the father, incidentally. i don't really care about any of the arbitrary criteria people use to determine when life begins -- whether or not it has a heart, or brain waves, or looks like a fish doesn't change the fact that it is a growing organism made of human DNA, and absent any interference, it will live out its full natural life cycle. its dependence on the mother; indeed, its very existance; is due to her voluntary action, so she and the father have a responsibility to care for it. end of story.

i believe that when it comes to pregnancies caused by rape, the woman didn't voluntarily waive her right over her body. the baby is a burden the other person placed on her without her consent, which is of course a violation of her rights. here, i think the woman's right to control her own body is still in effect, and i think she has a right to protect it if she wants through an abortion. in that case, the rapist should be held criminally responsible for the death of the baby since he caused the situation. If the woman keeps the baby, the rapist is solely responsible for its care and any of the costs thereof.

You did very well until you came up with RAPE. Although I agree with you that it is NO FAULT of the mother, the LIVING HUMAN within her has as much right to live, as the mother has to abort! What do you do to remedy this situation? What would be a COMPROMISE in this situation where EVERYONE could go along with it? The mother would have to be INCONVIENCED for a period of time, the LIFE would grow up without THAT mothers love and nurturing!

Play GOD, even if you don't believe in a GOD, what is your remedy?????

[henschman]

there may be some other options, depending on how far along the pregnancy is... if the baby is well-developed enough that it can survive outside the womb, you could go ahead and deliver it, as long as that wouldn't be any more invasive than an abortion. the age of viability is getting pushed down all the time due to medical advances. if it is not very far into the pregnancy, you could also remove the embryo and freeze it until some surrogate mother decides to adopt it. that wouldn't be any more invasive than an abortion.

[IEATV8S]

Originally Posted by henschman

there may be some other options, depending on how far along the pregnancy is... if the baby is well-developed enough that it can survive outside the womb, you could go ahead and deliver it, as long as that wouldn't be any more invasive than an abortion. the age of viability is getting pushed down all the time due to medical advances. if it is not very far into the pregnancy, you could also remove the embryo and freeze it until some surrogate mother decides to adopt it. that wouldn't be any more invasive than an abortion.

Not bad! 2 possible answers that both sides possibly could agree on!

Perhaps young barrister, you do have a calling for law!

Being fetus's have been delivered at 17-18 weeks so far, and HEARTS are said to start, according to the Mayo Clinic, at 5 weeks those solutions seem to only INCONVIENCE the mother a little over 4 months, but could mean 80+ YEARS for that unborn! One never knows what that baby will grow up to be or do!