Another "Pro Lifer" kills...

[jem]

Quote from bigdavediode:

No, it's a perfectly reasonable statement. You keep your government out of my bedroom, and you keep your government out of personal moral decisions.



Great, then ban birth control, you know, to "save the citizens."



Exactly -- you see this debate isn't about abortion at all, but extremism. Any extremist can justify any action to prevent "murder."

Another leftist clown who does not understand constitutional law. But tries to argue rights.

I still can not believe you try to take the moral high ground away from the pro life people by calling them extremists.


What kind of of clown are you? Have you no shame? It's extreme to wish to save life? How sick are you?


Do you realize constitution rights are not absolute. Do you realize that many if not most supreme court cases involve the clash of two constitutional rights.


Do you think the right to privacy is unfettered?

Are you allowed to cut off animal heads in your bedroom?
Could you kill zzz in your bedroom?

do you support animal rights?

do you support human rights?


http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/late-term-abortion.htm


Late Term Abortion – The procedures
There are three general procedures of late-term abortions and partial birth abortions. The first and most popular is called D&E (Dilation and evacuation). Once the cervix is dilated, the fetus is removed by inserting forceps into the uterus. The Fetus is then separated into pieces. These “pieces” of your baby will be removed one at a time. Vacuum aspiration is then used to ensure no tissue remains in the uterus.

The second procedure is early induction of labor. This is very painful and intense for the woman and is rarely used as an abortion procedure.

The third procedure is called Intact D&X surgery. This procedure includes a 2-3 day process to gradually dilate the cervix using sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell. Once this process is finished, the doctor uses forceps and grasps the baby’s leg to turn it to breech position. The baby is then pulled out of the birth canal, leaving the head inside the canal. An incision is then made at the base of the baby’s skull and the brain tissue is removed, causing the skull to collapse. The entire baby is then removed.


Yeah pro life is the extreme position.

 

[ARealGannTrader]

Quote from stu:

yuk...honestly. ET should provide sick bags when you post.

I am very much uneasy about abortion in general and I feel 22 weeks is just too far anyway. I have an overwhelming sense that humans should treat life as if it were inviolable.

But constructing smarmy political speak, encouraging and excusing outrageous and misleading language or violence against those who do not share my views about it, calling it murder when it is not, linking it with arguments against homosexuals , playing the victim feigning lifers are being censored , expecting to be taken seriously by pleading a holy Christian self-righteousness on moral grounds for human life when at the same time you take the role of hypocritical religious apologist in condescending explanations why your Christian "Father" drowned all his own children, is never going help me crystallize my doubt to your way of thinking.
I’m sure many don't like the whole abortion question too and wish your stupid fucking God had never made it a problem in the first place so putting that religion crap forward yet again as if it can answer anything is no idea at all.

bigdavediode has given rational practical and reasonable argument for - in a strong defense of.
It's time lifers treated the audience in similar manner and came up with some responsible dialogue and meaningful justification.

This is a good post.

My way of dealing with this is to be socially pro-life. IOW I cannot date a woman who has ever had an abortion, if she is foolish enough to tell me. I know of few women who will admit to having had an abortion, because they know it is wrong on some level that transcends rhetoric.

Legally, however, I would maintain the right of a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. A serious read of the bible would invalidate the document based on it's contradictions. The alternatives to voluntary abortion for someone sufficiently desperate would be grisly, indeed. Suicides, long term abuse and abandonment are just a few.

If a woman really does not want her child, she should be allowed to terminate it, as it is considered to be an extension of her.

However, this would a clear indication of this woman's priorities. Mentally, right or wrong, I would put her in the escort, porn star, party favor category. She would be absolutely worthless as a companion of any length of time.

 

[ARealGannTrader]

Quote from bigdavediode:

It's a Teri Schiavo.

Fair enough. As long as u are consistent, I have no argument for u. U are in the majority, and a clear indication that our society will eventually tolerate, then condone, then advocate, and finally enforce, euthanasia for humans that "no longer meet the criteria" which will be based on some social paradigm as well as biological viability.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from ARealGannTrader:

Fair enough. As long as u are consistent, I have no argument for u. U are in the majority, and a clear indication that our society will eventually tolerate, then condone, then advocate, and finally enforce, euthanasia for humans that "no longer meet the criteria" which will be based on some social paradigm as well as biological viability.

I wish! I would have an endless list of people I'd sentence to death, starting with concrete guys who leave giant hunks of concrete on my property.

No, it's just none of your business what the family decides in these difficult situations. It really isn't. And those who use words like "murdering babies" do not leave a multitude of options open except violence against doctors -- after all, it's murdering babies.

 

[jem]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

You wrote:

"There is no more core value of a government than to protect its citizen's rights to exist."

A fetus is not a citizen, it is not a human being, so any comment that followed the above that had to do with a fetus would be moot.

That included any fetus that is not born...a fetus becomes a human being upon birth...not conception.

Maybe you forgot, application for citizenship includes on the form a place to put date of birth...

LOL!!!

An unborn fetus, is not a citizen, nor does it have any rights of citizenship...

Come on jem, face it, your entire position is based on your belief that human beings begin at conception, something that the law does not hold as true...

you are a fool... unborn children are protected from murder in many states. Try walking up to a pregnant women and punching her in the stomach. You learn pretty damn quickly about the protection of a fetus.

Where do you get your definitions. Look up human being tell me which dictionary definitions you read state that a human being must be a full term
baby.

Finally more strawman bullshit from you.

I am quite sure I know babies can live outside a mother at 22 weeks. Yet I am not arguing that with viability back to 22 weeks we should follow the argument or Roe v. Wade and ban abortion after 22 weeks.

Nor do I argue that abortion should be banned although that might be the most moral argument.

I argue that it should be left up to the states and majority rule.


so once again zzz you prove yourself to be the worlds worst psychologist.

a person can point out how barbaric killing babies is and still believe in majority rule.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from jem:

you are a fool... unborn children are protected from murder in many states. Try walking up to a pregnant women and punching her in the stomach. You learn pretty damn quickly about the protection of a fetus.

So the law is wrong about abortion, so the whether an action is moral clearly is not decided by law -- BUT because fetuses are protected by law in some places in this case whether an action is moral IS decided by the law.

When you went to law school did they introduce the fallacy "special pleading?"

As a an American an attorney and the husband to a women who works once or twice a month in neonatal intensive care units. I am quite sure I know babies can live outside a mother at 22 weeks. Yet I am not arguing that with viable back to 22 weeks we should follow the argument or Roe v. Wade and ban abortion after 22 weeks.

Nor do I argue that abortion should be banned although that what my church supports.

I argue that it should be left up to the states and majority rule.

Why? What is different about the women in Alabama versus Maine? I mean, other than the number of teeth?

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

As an aside to Bigdaves comment: Remember that it was Terri Schiavo's parents who sought to keep her alive and her husband-who'd just had a baby out of wedlock-who argued for terminating Schiavo's life.

Quote from ARealGannTrader:

Fair enough. As long as u are consistent, I have no argument for u. U are in the majority, and a clear indication that our society will eventually tolerate, then condone, then advocate, and finally enforce, euthanasia for humans that "no longer meet the criteria" which will be based on some social paradigm as well as biological viability.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

It should be left up to the states, eh?

So it would be cool with you if it were considered murder in one state, where the penalty for the abortionist was death, and the neighboring state to have abortion on demand with no penalty...

So it would be okay for someone in the abortion is "murder" state to cross the state line, get an abortion, and then go back home, right?

Or would they still be guilty even though they didn't do it in the "murder" state?

What about an abortionist visiting the "murder" state. Having done nothing wrong in that state, would they be arrested for so called "murders" in another state?

No, matters of "murder" are federal, not decided by the state what constitutes what is murder.

Quote from jem:

you are a fool... unborn children are protected from murder in many states. Try walking up to a pregnant women and punching her in the stomach. You learn pretty damn quickly about the protection of a fetus.

Where do you get your definitions. Look up human being tell me which dictionary definitions you read state that a human being must be a full term
baby.

Finally more strawman bullshit from you.

I am quite sure I know babies can live outside a mother at 22 weeks. Yet I am not arguing that with viability back to 22 weeks we should follow the argument or Roe v. Wade and ban abortion after 22 weeks.

Nor do I argue that abortion should be banned although that might be the most moral argument.

I argue that it should be left up to the states and majority rule.


so once again zzz you prove yourself to be the worlds worst psychologist.

a person can point out how barbaric killing babies is and still believe in majority rule.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Yes, it was the parents, who don't have the rights as the husband does...

The husband trumped the parents...that's the law.

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

As an aside to Bigdaves comment: Remember that it was Terri Schiavo's parents who sought to keep her alive and her husband-who'd just had a baby out of wedlock-who argued for terminating Schiavo's life.

 

[ARealGannTrader]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Yes, it was the parents, who don't have the rights as the husband does...

The husband trumped the parents...that's the law.

Yep, and another case where the spirit of the law was violated.

Husband had clear motive for pulling the plug.