dayman Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 And this is equally morally vacant. If you wish to remain logically consistant, you must also support the drowning of unwanted children. Life has rights, or it doesn't. Choose. I must support the drowning of a born, unwanted child who is unquestionably living outside of a mom on it's own if I support a woman's right to abort an early pregnancy regardless of if someone considers it a "person" or not? I don't see how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Are you speaking litterally about a microscopic cluster of cells, or are you figuratively alluding to a botched 3'rd trimester abortion? I am talking about killing babies and Tom wants to argue about a mass of cells being a person or not. My stance is it's murder. Tom is correct it may or may not become a person, but at what point do you and Tom and thebigcat feel that this mass of cells should be protected from their own mother and her desire to kill it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 I must support the drowning of a born, unwanted child who is unquestionably living outside of a mom on it's own if I support a woman's right to abort an early pregnancy regardless of if someone considers it a "person" or not? I don't see how. If someone is deemed to be scientifically "alive" (which we currently have no bright line indicators for), they are human being and have the rights ascribed to other human beings. Those central rights include the right to life. The rights of the mother end at the rights of the child in the same way that my right to travel ends at your doorstep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Because I'm not willing to legislate away the rights of someone who is a recognizable human being when there is no conclusive science to back the legislation, distasteful as I may personally find it. . Life has rights, or it doesn't. Choose. So you don't want to set legislation but tel him to choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 I am talking about killing babies and Tom wants to argue about a mass of cells being a person or not. My stance is it's murder. Tom is correct it may or may not become a person, but at what point do you and Tom and thebigcat feel that this mass of cells should be protected from their own mother and her desire to kill it? How bout once it's out of the womb--once its existence no longer depends on its host. Say a woman unknowingly kills the "baby' inside her--either she doesn't know she's pregnant, or she has an accident, takes a medication, something, and the "baby" is killed, that does that mean she should be brought up on manslaughter charges?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 If someone is deemed to be scientifically "alive" (which we currently have no bright line indicators for), they are human being and have the rights ascribed to other human beings. Those central rights include the right to life. The rights of the mother end at the rights of the child in the same way that my right to travel ends at your doorstep. So you are waiting or someone else to define life for you. That's weak How bout once it's out of the womb--once its existence no longer depends on its host. Really your mom gave birth to you and you could cook and eat a cheese burger that day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 While all of you girls trip over something that has no bearing on the upcoming election, permit me to interject something rumbling in the background: there is talk that Akin will switch his candidacy for the Senate seat with Ann Wagner, who is currently running for Akin's old congressional seat. There is apparently a loophole that permits this switch at the state level. It may just be rumblings, but it would put a strong candidate in Wagner against a useless Obamabot like McCaskill, and let Akin placate his ego by running for his own seat, which he should presumably win pretty easily. You may now carry on with the riveting abortion discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 If someone is deemed to be scientifically "alive" (which we currently have no bright line indicators for), they are human being and have the rights ascribed to other human beings. Those central rights include the right to life. The rights of the mother end at the rights of the child in the same way that my right to travel ends at your doorstep. This is all good and well except for ya know the whole...living inside the mother and needing the mother to carry them. No matter how you slice it a mother gives birth to people...it's not the same. You can't splice it up and insert law into this situation...it just can't be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Is Akin being paid by the DNC? Takes it to a place he shouldn't have with his comments, flips the bird at Ryan when Ryan calls asking him to drop out making ryan look weak, and the longer he's in the spotlight the more associations they're digging up between him and Ryan, like cosponsored anti abortion bills. All this perfectly timed to offset momentum from the Ryan pick, at a time when romney needs to start defining his platform in a more centrist way. DNC would have paid tens of millions for negative ads this effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 I am talking about killing babies and Tom wants to argue about a mass of cells being a person or not. My stance is it's murder. Then your stance has no rational basis. Tom is correct it may or may not become a person, but at what point do you and Tom and thebigcat feel that this mass of cells should be protected from their own mother and her desire to kill it?When it is no longer the potential for human life, but is actual human life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Do you know how many rapes go unreported each year? Over 54%. Uhhmm. Ahhh. How do you know it's not 3.5? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Is Akin being paid by the DNC? Takes it to a place he shouldn't have with his comments, flips the bird at Ryan when Ryan calls asking him to drop out making ryan look weak, and the longer he's in the spotlight the more associations they're digging up between him and Ryan, like cosponsored anti abortion bills. All this perfectly timed to offset momentum from the Ryan pick, at a time when romney needs to start defining his platform in a more centrist way. DNC would have paid tens of millions for negative ads this effective. They really would have...all right before the damn convention too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 This is all good and well except for ya know the whole...living inside the mother and needing the mother to carry them. No matter how you slice it a mother gives birth to people...it's not the same. You can't splice it up and insert law into this situation...it just can't be done. At what point does the fetus need the mother to carry them. It's sooner than 9 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 So you are waiting or someone else to define life for you. That's weak Really your mom gave birth to you and you could cook and eat a cheese burger that day? There's a very very very shortlist of people who can subsist a "baby" when it's growing inside it's mother. That list grows infinitely once it pops out. At that point, others actually have the option to help keep it alive. Before then it's mom, all mom and only mom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 At what point does the fetus need the mother to carry them. It's sooner than 9 months. For the sake of argument the fetus always needs the mother to give birth to them whether or not they can survive after the birth. In any event I'm not outraged at reasonable limitations on abortion. You have the opportunity to have one for a quite a while if it gets too late then you chose to carry it past the point of no return (or you are somehow one of those people who doesn't know they're pregnant which i will never understand) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted August 22, 2012 Author Share Posted August 22, 2012 The way I see it is if it has a heart beat, the baby is alive. I don't think I could be involved in the decision to go through with exterminating any "human" life that has a heart beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Is Akin being paid by the DNC? Takes it to a place he shouldn't have with his comments, flips the bird at Ryan when Ryan calls asking him to drop out making ryan look weak, and the longer he's in the spotlight the more associations they're digging up between him and Ryan, like cosponsored anti abortion bills. All this perfectly timed to offset momentum from the Ryan pick, at a time when romney needs to start defining his platform in a more centrist way. DNC would have paid tens of millions for negative ads this effective. It's the economy ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) This is all good and well except for ya know the whole...living inside the mother and needing the mother to carry them. No matter how you slice it a mother gives birth to people...it's not the same. You can't splice it up and insert law into this situation...it just can't be done. If you're an idiot, sure. The mother made the choice to involve herself in an activity for which the main side effect is human reproduction. Scientifically, the areas she used are called the "human reproductive system", not the "human !@#$ing for pleasure system". In the instance of rape, the waters are muddy, but if a woman is raped and decides to carry the pregnancy to the point where it has become a human, she has made her choice. Her first choice (not in the instance of rape) was to be involved in an activity which creates the potential for life. Her second choice was to steward that potential life until it distinctively life. There is no third choice. Once it is life, it has it's own rights. Edited August 22, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 There's a very very very shortlist of people who can subsist a "baby" when it's growing inside it's mother. That list grows infinitely once it pops out. At that point, others actually have the option to help keep it alive. Before then it's mom, all mom and only mom. So when a partial birth abortion fails that baby should be left to die? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081001172243AApXO7Y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 So when a partial birth abortion fails that baby should be left to die? http://answers.yahoo...01172243AApXO7Y Step one: collect underpants. Step three: profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts