Do you mean like this?
By the way, can you provide a citation for this 'playbook'? Where can I pick up a copy? Can you provide an ISBN so I can order it from Amazon? What page is your reference on?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
More Americans âPro-Lifeâ Than âPro-Choiceâ for First Time
- Thread starter drjekyllus
- Start date
Do you mean like this?
By the way, can you provide a citation for this 'playbook'? Where can I pick up a copy? Can you provide an ISBN so I can order it from Amazon? What page is your reference on?
Quote from IShopAtPublix:
There is no place for "conscientious objectors" in medicine.
I appreciate your reasoned responce.
If such a "life and death" endeavor such as war allows [at least western nations] for the catagory of "conscientious objectors" for those who cannot find it in themselves to take the life of the enemy..................then it would seem that abortion, for some, is the same "life and death" issue, and in my opinion it is rather heavy handed for Mr. Obama to take away [or propose too] the right for Physician choice.
Do you think there would be a public outcry if Mr. Obama reinstituted the draft and also made law that there will be no provisions for conscientious objectors ?
I doubt you will like this, but step back a moment from the emotionalism that generally is the foundation of the pro lifer position.
When it comes to war, is there anyone who holds the opinion that ending the life of a human being is not death of a human being?
No reasonable person. It is pretty well established what a living human being is. So conscientious objectors take a moral position that killing a human being is wrong.
Now it comes to abortion.
Where your argument fails is that a fetus is not determined to be a human being, so an abortion is not killing a human being.
This is where your outrage will rear its self righteous head.
You and others scream that abortion is indeed murder.
Does the law consider it murder?
No, so you have an opinion that abortion is murder, but legally it is not murder.
Dr. Kevorkian assisted terminal patients to end their own life. He went to jail. Why? It was considered murder. Even though those terminal patients had less potential for a long and happy life than a fetus, the difference is that the terminal patient is viewed by law as a human being...where a fetus is not considered a human being.
This central issue of "what constitutes a human being" has not been determined exactly by law. Late term abortions are being banned, simply because it is being decided that the fetus can be forced to birth, and survive...because technology has advanced to assist premature birth (either naturally, spontaneously, or induced by a doctor) to the point where an unborn fetus can be "born" with a high chance of survival.
Can we say the same thing about a 6 week old fetus?
No.
So, by law abortion before a certain time frame is not murder of a human being and the doctor has no ground to object to what is considered medically and scientifically (and legally) as simply a medical procedure, not murder.
Your argument thus fails because you made an error of false assumption that a fetus is a human being.
Until such time that your belief that a fetus is a human being can be established as a fact, it is unlikely that anything but a constitutional ban on abortion will change the equation...or some scientific fact that establishes that a human being exists at the moment of conception, one day after conception, one week, one month, etc.
I understand you don't like this, but this is due to your belief that an abortion is murder.
Is it really murder?
If it is, just prove that it is murder, and get enough people across the country to push forth a constitutional amendment to ban abortion.
Until that time, the doctor has no legal ground to object to doing his duty as a doctor, which is to serve the wishes of the patient to perform the medical procedure of abortion.
When it comes to war, is there anyone who holds the opinion that ending the life of a human being is not death of a human being?
No reasonable person. It is pretty well established what a living human being is. So conscientious objectors take a moral position that killing a human being is wrong.
Now it comes to abortion.
Where your argument fails is that a fetus is not determined to be a human being, so an abortion is not killing a human being.
This is where your outrage will rear its self righteous head.
You and others scream that abortion is indeed murder.
Does the law consider it murder?
No, so you have an opinion that abortion is murder, but legally it is not murder.
Dr. Kevorkian assisted terminal patients to end their own life. He went to jail. Why? It was considered murder. Even though those terminal patients had less potential for a long and happy life than a fetus, the difference is that the terminal patient is viewed by law as a human being...where a fetus is not considered a human being.
This central issue of "what constitutes a human being" has not been determined exactly by law. Late term abortions are being banned, simply because it is being decided that the fetus can be forced to birth, and survive...because technology has advanced to assist premature birth (either naturally, spontaneously, or induced by a doctor) to the point where an unborn fetus can be "born" with a high chance of survival.
Can we say the same thing about a 6 week old fetus?
No.
So, by law abortion before a certain time frame is not murder of a human being and the doctor has no ground to object to what is considered medically and scientifically (and legally) as simply a medical procedure, not murder.
Your argument thus fails because you made an error of false assumption that a fetus is a human being.
Until such time that your belief that a fetus is a human being can be established as a fact, it is unlikely that anything but a constitutional ban on abortion will change the equation...or some scientific fact that establishes that a human being exists at the moment of conception, one day after conception, one week, one month, etc.
I understand you don't like this, but this is due to your belief that an abortion is murder.
Is it really murder?
If it is, just prove that it is murder, and get enough people across the country to push forth a constitutional amendment to ban abortion.
Until that time, the doctor has no legal ground to object to doing his duty as a doctor, which is to serve the wishes of the patient to perform the medical procedure of abortion.
Quote from Barth Vader:
I appreciate your reasoned responce.
If such a "life and death" endeavor such as war allows [at least western nations] for the catagory of "conscientious objectors" for those who cannot find it in themselves to take the life of the enemy..................then it would seem that abortion, for some, is the same "life and death" issue, and in my opinion it is rather heavy handed for Mr. Obama to take away [or propose too] the right for Physician choice.
Do you think there would be a public outcry if Mr. Obama reinstituted the draft and also made law that there will be no provisions for conscientious objectors ?
Yeah I hammered the point about "non viability" several times but a rabid pro lifer will never accept this point.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
I doubt you will like this, but step back a moment from the emotionalism that generally is the foundation of the pro lifer position.
When it comes to war, is there anyone who holds the opinion that ending the life of a human being is not death of a human being?
No reasonable person. It is pretty well established what a living human being is. So conscientious objectors take a moral position that killing a human being is wrong.
Now it comes to abortion.
Where your argument fails is that a fetus is not determined to be a human being, so an abortion is not killing a human being.
This is where your outrage will rear its self righteous head.
You and others scream that abortion is indeed murder.
Does the law consider it murder?
No, so you have an opinion that abortion is murder, but legally it is not murder.
Dr. Kevorkian assisted terminal patients to end their own life. He went to jail. Why? It was considered murder. Even though those terminal patients had less potential for a long and happy life than a fetus, the difference is that the terminal patient is viewed by law as a human being...where a fetus is not considered a human being.
This central issue of "what constitutes a human being" has not been determined exactly by law. Late term abortions are being banned, simply because it is being decided that the fetus can be forced to birth, and survive...because technology has advanced to assist premature birth (either naturally, spontaneously, or induced by a doctor) to the point where an unborn fetus can be "born" with a high chance of survival.
Can we say the same thing about a 6 week old fetus?
No.
So, by law abortion before a certain time frame is not murder of a human being and the doctor has no ground to object to what is considered medically and scientifically (and legally) as simply a medical procedure, not murder.
Your argument thus fails because you made an error of false assumption that a fetus is a human being.
Until such time that your belief that a fetus is a human being can be established as a fact, it is unlikely that anything but a constitutional ban on abortion will change the equation...or some scientific fact that establishes that a human being exists at the moment of conception, one day after conception, one week, one month, etc.
I understand you don't like this, but this is due to your belief that an abortion is murder.
Is it really murder?
If it is, just prove that it is murder, and get enough people across the country to push forth a constitutional amendment to ban abortion.
Until that time, the doctor has no legal ground to object to doing his duty as a doctor, which is to serve the wishes of the patient to perform the medical procedure of abortion.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
You and others scream that abortion is indeed murder.
Does the law consider it murder?
No, so you have an opinion that abortion is murder, but legally it is not murder.
You are a fucking moron. Did you ever hear of Scott Peterson?
"Scott Peterson was charged with the murder of his pregnant wife Laci Denise Peterson and their unborn son Conner Peterson sometime between Dec. 23 and Dec. 24, 2002. The badly decomposed remains of Laci Peterson and the couple's fetus washed ashore in April 2003, not far from where Peterson said he went on a solo fishing trip the day she vanished. Peterson was arrested April 18, 2003 in San Diego."
Quote from IShopAtPublix:
Yeah I hammered the point about "non viability" several times but a rabid pro lifer will never accept this point.
You didn't hammer any point home, you idiot. You showed complete ignorance by not even understanding the Court's ruling. You also tried to claim that Gallup must have some problem with their poll because it didn't fit into your narrow view of the world.
"You are a fucking moron. Did you ever hear of Scott Peterson?"
The emotionalism is duly noted.
Here are some facts that you did not include in your post:
Becoming pregnant took longer than expected, and on the verge of scheduling fertility tests, Laci and Scott Peterson conceived naturally in May 2002. It was later reported that Scott said, when asked how he felt about the pregnancy, that he had "hoped for infertility." Sharon Rocha stated in her book that she did not think Laci knew about this. The baby was due on February 10, 2003, and the couple planned to name their son Conner Latham Peterson.
Apart from her husband, the last people known to have spoken to Laci before she disappeared were her half-sister, Amy Rocha, who cut Scott's hair and showed Laci how to style her hair on the evening of December 23, 2002 at Salon Salon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laci_Peterson
Now, count on your toes how far along in months of her pregnancy Laci was given the facts stated above...
The emotionalism is duly noted.
Here are some facts that you did not include in your post:
Becoming pregnant took longer than expected, and on the verge of scheduling fertility tests, Laci and Scott Peterson conceived naturally in May 2002. It was later reported that Scott said, when asked how he felt about the pregnancy, that he had "hoped for infertility." Sharon Rocha stated in her book that she did not think Laci knew about this. The baby was due on February 10, 2003, and the couple planned to name their son Conner Latham Peterson.
Apart from her husband, the last people known to have spoken to Laci before she disappeared were her half-sister, Amy Rocha, who cut Scott's hair and showed Laci how to style her hair on the evening of December 23, 2002 at Salon Salon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laci_Peterson
Now, count on your toes how far along in months of her pregnancy Laci was given the facts stated above...
Quote from drjekyllus:
You are a fucking moron. Did you ever hear of Scott Peterson?
"Scott Peterson was charged with the murder of his pregnant wife Laci Denise Peterson and their unborn son Conner Peterson sometime between Dec. 23 and Dec. 24, 2002. The badly decomposed remains of Laci Peterson and the couple's fetus washed ashore in April 2003, not far from where Peterson said he went on a solo fishing trip the day she vanished. Peterson was arrested April 18, 2003 in San Diego."
The poll is wrong.They collected or input info incorrectly.To have this poll sway so much in 1 year is almost impossible.Especially since the country has become more liberal and less conservative in the last 2 years.
Personally i am pro choice but i dont think abortion should be allowed past 3 or 4 months.At that point youve got a real person in there.If the anti abortion idiots would stop trying to oppose birth control,sex ed and stop trying to shove their idiotic useless anti sex crusade in everybodys face they might actually convince sensible people.Instead they say contraception is anti life,that stems cells must be protected.What next,saliva?There is no comprimise with the anti abortion nuts.
Personally i am pro choice but i dont think abortion should be allowed past 3 or 4 months.At that point youve got a real person in there.If the anti abortion idiots would stop trying to oppose birth control,sex ed and stop trying to shove their idiotic useless anti sex crusade in everybodys face they might actually convince sensible people.Instead they say contraception is anti life,that stems cells must be protected.What next,saliva?There is no comprimise with the anti abortion nuts.