Pre-born infants
- Thread starter BloodTrader
- Start date
I didn't particularly like your posts as "trefoil", and I don't like this one under your new handle either. (I don't think others did either, seeing as how your posts were deleted, they were so offensive.)
Since you seem to have it in for the best means of therapy, which is the bible, I would suggest that you at least go for second best, and see a psychiatrist. You are about an inch from the precipice and some type of intervention is necessary. Hopefully, you'll wise up one day, because the end is near for you, bro.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as roger daltrey said, meet the new handle, same as the old handle....i'm allll wasted!!!
trefoil ? sorry to disappoint, 'bro' it's not i. if anything, how about quatrefoil, favorite leitmotif of the continental baroque? apprapos in religious context, gotta love it.
the way some look at harry potter stories as an analogue to the holocaust, a method to teach children, i'll accept the bible as a form of therapy or teaching tool fer sure.... as the transcription of god's spoken word? not so much.
maybe it's you who should seek psychiatric help with your affinity for foxes and threats of phantom precipices. i will admit i'm a little worried that now i might have one of those falling dreams. i, with a mind devoid of punctuation, have a hard enough time sleeping -thanks for nothing.
1. Birth is a reasonable determiner because birth is the rite of passage by which one enters society; it is a definition that all can agree with. After birth, an infant has the protections that the rest of us do; in this country, an infant born here is given citizenship.
In this country, murder is illegal and morally wrong. Mothers who murder their born children are subject to the laws of this society.
What is legal is not necessarily moral, and some actions that would be considered immoral are nevertheless legal.
2. What is a "soul"? Can one prove that it exists? If not, then how do we KNOW that it exists?
Borrowed one from Descrates on this one. Short answer: you cannot prove it exists, and you have no certain way of knowing that it does.
You may believe in a soul, but belief alone does not make it so.
3. My wife would not choose to have an abortion without my consent. She would not have an abortion period, because we believe abortion is wrong.
uhmmm...if you read the post right above yours....I did...don't be so eager to argue for the sake of arguing...i put my ANSWER in cap's in your text....and for the record...Im a right to lifer ..always have been , always will be....but that doesn;t mean I can't be wlling to compromise or call things like i see them...for the record: You keep talking about abortions at 8 or 9 monhts....please name ONE state where that is legal in the US??
Quote from TM_Direct:
uhmmm...if you read the post right above yours....
I cannot account for your hiccup causing 2 replies. I read the first, obviously
I did...don't be so eager to argue for the sake of arguing...
That was obviously not the purpose. The pro-death camp likes to paint anyone who is a pro-lifer as some kind of rights-depriving goon, as in the OP " That's what the anti-abortion whackos are calling even the earliest stage embryos now. They'll extend it to eggs soon I guess. Then we can start punishing menstruating women. If you have a miscarriage, it's the death penalty for you...
whilst themselves painting over the baby as basically a lump of tissue. When directly challenged on this, they do little more than throw mud, use names, and whine that we are denying the woman their rights.
thingks i put my ANSWER in cap's in your text....and for the record...Im a right to lifer ..always have been , always will be....but that doesn;t mean I can't be wlling to compromise or call things like i see them...for the record: You keep talking about abortions at 8 or 9 monhts....please name ONE state where that is legal in the US??
This is the wikipedia take on US Law:
The United States Supreme Court decisions on abortion, including Roe v. Wade, allow states to impose more restrictions on post-viability abortions than during the earlier stages of pregnancy.
As of April 2007, 36 states had bans on late-term abortions that were not facially unconstitutional (i.e. banning all abortions) or enjoined by court order. In addition, the Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart ruled that Congress may ban certain late-term abortion techniques, "both previability and postviability".
Some of the 36 state bans are believed by pro-choice organizations to be unconstituational. The Supreme Court has held that bans must include exceptions for threats to the woman's life, physical health, and mental health, but four states allow late-term abortions only when the woman's life is at risk; four allow them when the woman's life or physical health is at risk, but use a definition of health that pro-choice organizations believe is impermissibly narrow. Assuming that one of these state bans is constitutionally flawed, then that does not necessarily mean that the entire ban would be struck down: "invalidating the statute entirely is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief."
Also, 13 states prohibit abortion after a certain number of weeks' gestation (usually 24 weeks). The U.S. Supreme Court held in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services that a statute may create "a presumption of viability" after a certain number of weeks, in which case the physician must be given an opportunity to rebut the presumption by performing tests. Therefore, those 13 states must provide that opportunity. Because this provision is not explicitly written into these 13 laws, as it was in the Missouri law examined in Webster, pro-choice organizations believe that such a state law is unconstitutional, but only "to the extent that it prohibits pre-viability abortions".
Ten states require a second physician to approve. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a requirement of "confirmation by two other physicians" (rather than one other physician) because "acquiescence by co-practitioners has no rational connection with a patient's needs and unduly infringes on the physician's right to practice". Pro-choice organizations such as the Guttmacher Institute therefore interpret some of these state laws to be unconstitutional, based on these and other Supreme Court rulings, at least to the extent that these state laws require approval of a second or third physician.
uhmmm...if you read the post right above yours....
I cannot account for your hiccup causing 2 replies. I read the first, obviously
I did...don't be so eager to argue for the sake of arguing...
That was obviously not the purpose. The pro-death camp likes to paint anyone who is a pro-lifer as some kind of rights-depriving goon, as in the OP " That's what the anti-abortion whackos are calling even the earliest stage embryos now. They'll extend it to eggs soon I guess. Then we can start punishing menstruating women. If you have a miscarriage, it's the death penalty for you...
whilst themselves painting over the baby as basically a lump of tissue. When directly challenged on this, they do little more than throw mud, use names, and whine that we are denying the woman their rights.
thingks i put my ANSWER in cap's in your text....and for the record...Im a right to lifer ..always have been , always will be....but that doesn;t mean I can't be wlling to compromise or call things like i see them...for the record: You keep talking about abortions at 8 or 9 monhts....please name ONE state where that is legal in the US??
This is the wikipedia take on US Law:
The United States Supreme Court decisions on abortion, including Roe v. Wade, allow states to impose more restrictions on post-viability abortions than during the earlier stages of pregnancy.
As of April 2007, 36 states had bans on late-term abortions that were not facially unconstitutional (i.e. banning all abortions) or enjoined by court order. In addition, the Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart ruled that Congress may ban certain late-term abortion techniques, "both previability and postviability".
Some of the 36 state bans are believed by pro-choice organizations to be unconstituational. The Supreme Court has held that bans must include exceptions for threats to the woman's life, physical health, and mental health, but four states allow late-term abortions only when the woman's life is at risk; four allow them when the woman's life or physical health is at risk, but use a definition of health that pro-choice organizations believe is impermissibly narrow. Assuming that one of these state bans is constitutionally flawed, then that does not necessarily mean that the entire ban would be struck down: "invalidating the statute entirely is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief."
Also, 13 states prohibit abortion after a certain number of weeks' gestation (usually 24 weeks). The U.S. Supreme Court held in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services that a statute may create "a presumption of viability" after a certain number of weeks, in which case the physician must be given an opportunity to rebut the presumption by performing tests. Therefore, those 13 states must provide that opportunity. Because this provision is not explicitly written into these 13 laws, as it was in the Missouri law examined in Webster, pro-choice organizations believe that such a state law is unconstitutional, but only "to the extent that it prohibits pre-viability abortions".
Ten states require a second physician to approve. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a requirement of "confirmation by two other physicians" (rather than one other physician) because "acquiescence by co-practitioners has no rational connection with a patient's needs and unduly infringes on the physician's right to practice". Pro-choice organizations such as the Guttmacher Institute therefore interpret some of these state laws to be unconstitutional, based on these and other Supreme Court rulings, at least to the extent that these state laws require approval of a second or third physician.
your quoting wikpedia to prove your point???? oy vey......
I think sometimes people like you do more HARM then good for the right to life crowd...your going to huge extremes instead of being a little more reasonable...thus, we get called right wing wackos just like when the far left's of this world carry on they get dismissed as left wing radicals...
question: your sister is 15...she's in love and she gets pregnant by accident......a month into the pregnancy she wants to get it terminated....this is a much more reasonable and EVERYDAY scenario that needs to be debated openly , honestly because this is happening everyday..Abortions at 8 or 9 months are not...
I think sometimes people like you do more HARM then good for the right to life crowd...your going to huge extremes instead of being a little more reasonable...thus, we get called right wing wackos just like when the far left's of this world carry on they get dismissed as left wing radicals...
question: your sister is 15...she's in love and she gets pregnant by accident......a month into the pregnancy she wants to get it terminated....this is a much more reasonable and EVERYDAY scenario that needs to be debated openly , honestly because this is happening everyday..Abortions at 8 or 9 months are not...
Everyone here knows that I don't very often agree with rcanfiel, but I do wish that people would quit acting like Wikipedia is any less accurate than other sources.
Especially on important topics, wiki is very scrutinized and quit to fix errors. In my certain areas of expertise I've found more errors in textbooks used at major universities than on Wikipedia. Wiki is becoming (if not already) one of the most reliable sources for quick reference available today.