Arondale Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 Have you actually read Roe? It is not a parable, it is a legal document. Questions of Constitutional law are based on "rights", not on this thing you call "matter of life" whatever that is. The unborn and the woman are not separate entities. You can't grant a right to one without taking away from the right of the other. To do that, you have to have grounds for the government to take the privacy right at issue away from the woman involved. The fact that they are doing so by the vehicle of granting some sort of right to the unborn doesn't change the fact that you are taking away her rights. For that to happen you have to take what is now the constitutionally protected rights of that woman and elimenate them so that the government may intervene. That grants to government a power it currently does not have. The fact that it is exercising it to protect a fetus is pretty much an "ends justifies the means" argument. You can't get around the fact that for the government to accomplish that end, it has to subjugate the rights of the woman to its own rights, rights it will exercise for the benefit of the fetus. That is the means. Even using the logic of your argument, it simply doesn't work out to be a situation where simply equal rights are co-existing side by side. A woman's right to have an abortion simply can't co-exist side by side with her fetus's right to life, one must be ascendant. You have to take her privacy rights away inorder to honor the right to life you claim for the fetus. The only way to do that is to give the government the power to control her body or more specifically, her womb. That opens the door to government intereference in the most private realm of our lives. As for your example of double murder statutes when a pregnant woman is killed, there is really nothing all that puzzling once you apply some critical thought. The right to terminate a pregnancy is the right posessed by the woman who is pregnant. You are not violating a constitutionally protected right of the killer by calling this double murder. There is no constitutional violation. It is called a double murder by the legislators who passed these criminal statutes. Those statues are valid law unless they are unconstitutional as applied to those prosecuted under those statutes. Since there is no constitutional right to not be charged with double murder when you kill a pregnant woman, there is no constitutional violation. By the same token, in states that do not have such statutes, prosecutors and victims families would not be able to claim that their constitutional rights were violated because they can't prosecute for double murder. Remember that the Constitution governs the relationship between individuals and the government. It does not govern the relationship between citizens, one to the other. 110418[/snapback] I'm not going to argue Constitutional law, especially since I do not consider myself to be an expert on it. That was not my point in the previous post. Let me ask you something. If Roe is ever overturned and abortion is made illegal, would you not agree that it would be on the basis of the unborn baby's right to life? Take partial birth abortion. If the laws making that illegal are upheld, it is because it was determined that the baby is a living, human being with rights. The issue of choice by the mother is not a factor. The pro-life side is not called anti-choice for a reason. We do not believe this is an issue of choice or of privacy, it is an issue of life. That is the perspective I am coming from. I put bold on two remarks you made for a reason - they represent fundamental differences in how we are approaching this issue. In your first comment you state that the mother and child are not separate entities and therefore you can't "grant a right to one without taking away from the right of the other". This may be currently how the issue is viewed and how you view the issue, but my point is that if Roe is overturned, this will not be the case. If Roe is overturned, the baby and the mother will rightly be viewed as separate and equal human beings. If we have separate and equal human beings, they both have equal rights and are governed by the law. Therefore, the mother won't have a right to kill the baby because that is not a legal right under the law. It would be the same as an adult murdering another adult. I have a major problem with the pro-choice side that use this argument through the whole pregnancy. While I am certain that, regardless of the stage of pregnancy, the baby has a right to life, I will respect those that have difficulty agreeing with that in the early stages of pregnancy. However, how can you say that a 28 week old baby is not a separate entity from its mother? How is it that as soon as that baby is delivered it now is a separate entity, but minutes earlier when it was in the womb it was not and did not have any rights? I believe babies have survived that are as early as 24 weeks, perhaps earlier. What sense does it make to determine the value of a baby based on its location? It is the same exact being at 24 weeks whether it is inside the womb or outside the womb. Your second comment is similar. If Roe is overturned, the baby will have the same right to life as the mother. The mother's privacy right will not be trumped by the right of the baby, because under current law the right to privacy is forfeited in regards to the right to life. The law does not state that you can murder someone in the privacy of your own home. I understand what you are arguing, but you are doing so from the current legal perspective of Roe v. Wade. I am merely trying to point out that for abortion to be declared illegal, the current argument of Roe will not be valid. It will become an issue of the right to life. The baby will have the same right to life as the mother. As for your argument of double murder. You are arguing from a purely pragmatic, legal standpoint while I was asking you or anyone to justify that standpoint. You stated that "the right to terminate a pregnancy is the right posessed by the woman who is pregnant". I am merely asking how the government can say that with a straight face and then go on to say that murdering a pregnant woman is equivalent to murdering two human beings? Step back from the legal jargon and look at the issues. If it is double murder to kill a pregnant woman that means the government is stating that two human beings are killed. If two human beings are killed, that means the government is calling the unborn child a human being. If this argument is an absolute argument and has no exceptions, how then can an abortion not be considered killing a human being? You can't pick and choose when an unborn child is a human being and when it isn't. The motive and circumstances behind the termination of a pregnancy should not change whether or not the unborn child is a human being.
KD in CA Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 Have you actually read Roe? It is not a parable, it is a legal document. Questions of Constitutional law are based on "rights", not on this thing you call "matter of life" whatever that is. The unborn and the woman are not separate entities. You can't grant a right to one without taking away from the right of the other. To do that, you have to have grounds for the government to take the privacy right at issue away from the woman involved. The fact that they are doing so by the vehicle of granting some sort of right to the unborn doesn't change the fact that you are taking away her rights. For that to happen you have to take what is now the constitutionally protected rights of that woman and elimenate them so that the government may intervene. That grants to government a power it currently does not have. The fact that it is exercising it to protect a fetus is pretty much an "ends justifies the means" argument. You can't get around the fact that for the government to accomplish that end, it has to subjugate the rights of the woman to its own rights, rights it will exercise for the benefit of the fetus. That is the means. It is the government that will jail the doctor who performs an abortion if abortion is outlawed. It is the government that will jail the women who have an aboriton if it is outlawed. The fetus can't act on its own and do these things to protect itself, it will have to be the government that actually does that. It is the government who will monitor doctor-patient relationships and and review private medical records to be sure that there are no abortifacient contraceptives being given. No matter how you want to frame it as a noble effort to protect fetuses, the practical and legal effect is to provide a potentially unlimited grant of new powers to the government. How you can grant them that kind of power on this issue and not in a broad array of other privacy related matters is a mystery. Even using the logic of your argument, it simply doesn't work out to be a situation where simply equal rights are co-existing side by side. A woman's right to have an abortion simply can't co-exist side by side with her fetus's right to life, one must be ascendant. You have to take her privacy rights away inorder to honor the right to life you claim for the fetus. The only way to do that is to give the government the power to control her body or more specifically, her womb. That opens the door to government intereference in the most private realm of our lives. As for your example of double murder statutes when a pregnant woman is killed, there is really nothing all that puzzling once you apply some critical thought. The right to terminate a pregnancy is the right posessed by the woman who is pregnant. You are not violating a constitutionally protected right of the killer by calling this double murder. There is no constitutional violation. It is called a double murder by the legislators who passed these criminal statutes. Those statues are valid law unless they are unconstitutional as applied to those prosecuted under those statutes. Since there is no constitutional right to not be charged with double murder when you kill a pregnant woman, there is no constitutional violation. By the same token, in states that do not have such statutes, prosecutors and victims families would not be able to claim that their constitutional rights were violated because they can't prosecute for double murder. Remember that the Constitution governs the relationship between individuals and the government. It does not govern the relationship between citizens, one to the other. 110418[/snapback] I have to say, that is a the best argument in favor of abortion rights that I have ever read. Well done! You should do this law stuff for a living!
CoachChuckDickerson Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 GET ON THE PILL OR GET SNIPPED. That way you can f*ck around all you want and not worry about babies. 110985[/snapback] Once again, you are telling women what they should do with their bodies. Why don't you start with controlling yourself. Do you realize that every time you "punch the clown" you are releasing and KILLING MILLIONS of little Joe Six Packs.
Alaska Darin Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 Once again, you are telling women what they should do with their bodies. Why don't you start with controlling yourself. Do you realize that every time you "punch the clown" you are releasing and KILLING MILLIONS of little Joe Six Packs. 111576[/snapback] You might want to take a biology class. Apparently it takes more than just sperm to make babies.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 Once again, you are telling women what they should do with their bodies. Why don't you start with controlling yourself. Do you realize that every time you "punch the clown" you are releasing and KILLING MILLIONS of little Joe Six Packs. 111576[/snapback] Is it legal for woman to shoot heroin? Ever hear of laws that make it criminal for shooting heroin while pregnant? Oh dear, must be the big bad government telling women what they should do with their bodies.
aussiew Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 GET ON THE PILL OR GET SNIPPED. That way you can f*ck around all you want and not worry about babies. Getting snipped isn't a solution if you eventually want children. And the pill? I'd love to introduce you to my beautiful twin daughters who were conveived while I was on the pill. It's not that simple JSP
Alaska Darin Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 Getting snipped isn't a solution if you eventually want children. And the pill? I'd love to introduce you to my beautiful twin daughters who were conveived while I was on the pill. It's not that simple JSP 111636[/snapback] You sure you want to introduce your daughters to Joe?
aussiew Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 You sure you want to introduce your daughters to Joe? Good point AD. One of them is single.
Mickey Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 I'm not going to argue Constitutional law, especially since I do not consider myself to be an expert on it. That was not my point in the previous post. Let me ask you something. If Roe is ever overturned and abortion is made illegal, would you not agree that it would be on the basis of the unborn baby's right to life? Take partial birth abortion. If the laws making that illegal are upheld, it is because it was determined that the baby is a living, human being with rights. The issue of choice by the mother is not a factor. The pro-life side is not called anti-choice for a reason. We do not believe this is an issue of choice or of privacy, it is an issue of life. That is the perspective I am coming from. I put bold on two remarks you made for a reason - they represent fundamental differences in how we are approaching this issue. In your first comment you state that the mother and child are not separate entities and therefore you can't "grant a right to one without taking away from the right of the other". This may be currently how the issue is viewed and how you view the issue, but my point is that if Roe is overturned, this will not be the case. If Roe is overturned, the baby and the mother will rightly be viewed as separate and equal human beings. If we have separate and equal human beings, they both have equal rights and are governed by the law. Therefore, the mother won't have a right to kill the baby because that is not a legal right under the law. It would be the same as an adult murdering another adult. I have a major problem with the pro-choice side that use this argument through the whole pregnancy. While I am certain that, regardless of the stage of pregnancy, the baby has a right to life, I will respect those that have difficulty agreeing with that in the early stages of pregnancy. However, how can you say that a 28 week old baby is not a separate entity from its mother? How is it that as soon as that baby is delivered it now is a separate entity, but minutes earlier when it was in the womb it was not and did not have any rights? I believe babies have survived that are as early as 24 weeks, perhaps earlier. What sense does it make to determine the value of a baby based on its location? It is the same exact being at 24 weeks whether it is inside the womb or outside the womb. Your second comment is similar. If Roe is overturned, the baby will have the same right to life as the mother. The mother's privacy right will not be trumped by the right of the baby, because under current law the right to privacy is forfeited in regards to the right to life. The law does not state that you can murder someone in the privacy of your own home. I understand what you are arguing, but you are doing so from the current legal perspective of Roe v. Wade. I am merely trying to point out that for abortion to be declared illegal, the current argument of Roe will not be valid. It will become an issue of the right to life. The baby will have the same right to life as the mother. As for your argument of double murder. You are arguing from a purely pragmatic, legal standpoint while I was asking you or anyone to justify that standpoint. You stated that "the right to terminate a pregnancy is the right posessed by the woman who is pregnant". I am merely asking how the government can say that with a straight face and then go on to say that murdering a pregnant woman is equivalent to murdering two human beings? Step back from the legal jargon and look at the issues. If it is double murder to kill a pregnant woman that means the government is stating that two human beings are killed. If two human beings are killed, that means the government is calling the unborn child a human being. If this argument is an absolute argument and has no exceptions, how then can an abortion not be considered killing a human being? You can't pick and choose when an unborn child is a human being and when it isn't. The motive and circumstances behind the termination of a pregnancy should not change whether or not the unborn child is a human being. 111060[/snapback] Apart from abstract concepts of life, pre-life and cognition, I would argue that the two are not separate by virtue of the simple fact of the umbilical cord. You can't legislate it away. That being the case, I reiterate the points I already made: Even if I agreed with you that there are two lives here, they are tied together, literally, physically such that you have to make the rights of one or the other ascendant. They can't co-exist. If the court overturns Roe, I don't think they will do it by a judicial declaration of when life begins. It wouldn't be necessary for them to do so and the Court has almost never taken it unto itself to make those kinds of metaphysical decisions. They leave those to priests, preachers and philosophers. Politicians of course have joinded the show to harness the passions thus aroused and turn them into votes. The Court would simply rule that the States Right, its compelling interest, in protecting a fetus, regardless of whether it is "alive" or not, is sufficient to allow it to prohibit abortion because the right to privacy inherent in the 14th Amendment is not broad enough to encompass abortion. Since abortion would be stripped of its constitutional protection, the states could then step in and make whatever laws they wanted with regard to abortion. The federal government could do the same. My prediction would be that many states, though not all, would quickly ban virtually all abortions. Others would add more and more layers of restrictions so that a legal abortion would still be possible in theory but not very likely. That would be done in a variety of ways, anything from notification and consent of the father to parental approval (not simply notification) requirements. In some states, mostly the blue ones no doubt, abortion would remain legal but only for a time. Having nothing else to do, the pro-lifers would necessarily focus their energy in getting a federal law passed preventing abortion in all states. The Republican majorities in the House and Senate would certainly pass such a law and that would be it. It would simply be another example of the right disregarding states rights and endorsing rampant federalism as long as it favors their political view. As for the double murder thing, I would again invite you to read Roe. They never hold that a fetus isn't a human being. The question is whether under our laws, a fetus is a "person" as that term is used in the Constitution. You also sort of lump all "government" into one big ball and then identify two opposing views held by this blob and call it hypocrisy. The laws you refer to are enacted by states as they are in charge of determining the criminal law within their borders. I see no hypocrisy in say, the government of the State of Oaklahoma disagreeing with the Supreme Court's Roe decision and enacting this statue. In that sense you are dealing with two governmental entities holding different opinions, that is not hypocrisy, that is an argument. As I explained, such statutes do not implicate the contitution because the criminal has no constitutional rights at stake. Therefore, the government of the State of Oaklahoma can't be prevented from doing what it did by any other governmental entity including the US Supreme Court. There is no hypocrisy here because you do not have one entity holding conflicting views. These laws were pushed by the right to lifers for the very purpose of trying to create some sort of legal foundation for the notion that a fetus is a legal "person". Their legal and political advisors astutely pointed out that Roe could not prevent a state from adopting such a statute and it would be politically popular as any opponent would be labeled as one who sympathizes with the killers of pregnant women. Having passed these laws in several states, they now use them, as you do, as part of their argument to overturn Roe. Its like playing poker where you get to make your own chips.
Mickey Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 You might want to take a biology class. Apparently it takes more than just sperm to make babies. 111580[/snapback] It also takes more than just a sperm and an egg, it takes an umbilical cord, a womb and a woman attached to it. It often also takes a little Jack Daniels but that is another discussion.
Arondale Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 Apart from abstract concepts of life, pre-life and cognition, I would argue that the two are not separate by virtue of the simple fact of the umbilical cord. You can't legislate it away. That being the case, I reiterate the points I already made: Even if I agreed with you that there are two lives here, they are tied together, literally, physically such that you have to make the rights of one or the other ascendant. They can't co-exist.111808[/snapback] Let's look at a simple scenario. Say a woman delivers a healthy baby at 40 weeks. The baby is delivered, completely outside the mother yet still attached by the umbilical cord. This mother is heartbroken to discover the baby has several abnormalities and it is obvious it will not be a normal child. Under your theory, as long as the baby is still attached by the umbilical cord, it is not a separate entity from the mother. Therefore, under your theory the mother would have every right to simply order the baby killed. Under your theory, the right to life of the baby can't co-exist with the mother's rights because they are still attached. This theory would create chaos - mother's would tell the doctor not to cut the umbilical cord until the baby was thoroughly examined and considered healthy. As you can see, there is a pretty big hole in this line of thinking. Do you want to advocate the murder of children just because they are still attached by an umbilical cord? If the court overturns Roe, I don't think they will do it by a judicial declaration of when life begins. It wouldn't be necessary for them to do so and the Court has almost never taken it unto itself to make those kinds of metaphysical decisions. They leave those to priests, preachers and philosophers. Politicians of course have joinded the show to harness the passions thus aroused and turn them into votes. The Court would simply rule that the States Right, its compelling interest, in protecting a fetus, regardless of whether it is "alive" or not, is sufficient to allow it to prohibit abortion because the right to privacy inherent in the 14th Amendment is not broad enough to encompass abortion. Since abortion would be stripped of its constitutional protection, the states could then step in and make whatever laws they wanted with regard to abortion. The federal government could do the same.111808[/snapback] That is very interesting, thank you for that insight. My only comment would be that in cases such as partial birth abortion it is not an issue for priests and such to declare when life begins. Science supports the fact that partial birth abortion kills viable babies. In this case I think the courts could and should declare partial birth abortion murder due to the destruction of a living human being that is a person and has rights under the Constitution. As for the double murder thing, I would again invite you to read Roe. They never hold that a fetus isn't a human being. The question is whether under our laws, a fetus is a "person" as that term is used in the Constitution. You also sort of lump all "government" into one big ball and then identify two opposing views held by this blob and call it hypocrisy. The laws you refer to are enacted by states as they are in charge of determining the criminal law within their borders. I see no hypocrisy in say, the government of the State of Oaklahoma disagreeing with the Supreme Court's Roe decision and enacting this statue. In that sense you are dealing with two governmental entities holding different opinions, that is not hypocrisy, that is an argument. As I explained, such statutes do not implicate the contitution because the criminal has no constitutional rights at stake. Therefore, the government of the State of Oaklahoma can't be prevented from doing what it did by any other governmental entity including the US Supreme Court. There is no hypocrisy here because you do not have one entity holding conflicting views.111808[/snapback] First of all, I forget the actual title of the law, but GW signed legislation declaring the murder of a pregnant women to be double murder. Now, I do believe that it is very limited in nature, only to certain types of murder or something, nonetheless it is federal law. Second, I realize I refered to government, but my intent was to cast suspicion on the population as a whole as well. California is one of the states with the double murder law, yet the population definitely leans towards pro-choice over pro-life. You continue to speak in terms of the law and the constitution, but I am asking you to look at the issues. I think most people support the double murder law, yet a lot of those same people are pro-choice. I'm simply pointing out that it is impossible to support abortion and support the double murder law - for those that do, they can't back up their argument. These laws were pushed by the right to lifers for the very purpose of trying to create some sort of legal foundation for the notion that a fetus is a legal "person". Their legal and political advisors astutely pointed out that Roe could not prevent a state from adopting such a statute and it would be politically popular as any opponent would be labeled as one who sympathizes with the killers of pregnant women. Having passed these laws in several states, they now use them, as you do, as part of their argument to overturn Roe. Its like playing poker where you get to make your own chips.111808[/snapback] If you notice, I never once used the double murder issue as an argument to overturn Roe. I brought up the double murder separately simply to point out that people can't have it both ways. People want to protect the baby in one case and not in the other. I don't use it as an argument to overturn Roe, I use it as an argument to show people they can't have it both ways. You can have your opinion on the reason for these laws, but don't assume my reasons are the same.
Fan in San Diego Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 The sheer ignorance of some of the lefties on this board amazes me. Really it shouldn't, but it does. 110996[/snapback] There are so many threads within threads on this thread that I'm not sure if your refering to my reply or someone else's?
Fan in San Diego Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 This has to be one of the best threads I have read here in a while. Classic stuff. 1. I especially enjoy the holy rollers who think sex should only be done for the purpose of procreation, with the lights off, under the covers, missionary, on your birthday or christmas ONLY with your wife or husband. I truely feel bad for you. 2. I am not a woman. This is a WOMEN'S RIGHT issue. I love how men feel it is the OBLIGATION of women to carry out a pregnancy. It is a WOMEN'S RIGHT issue. Nothing like a bunch of guys telling us how the world should be. 109900[/snapback] I agree with the underlying sentiment here. This question is a womans right to choose. If some people dont agree, they have their right to an opinion.
Fan in San Diego Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 Gee, whenever I suggest that the pro-life position is really just a subtext for a government seizure the womb, I am told I am over reacting. Here it is, clear as an unmuddied lake. Forced sterilization. O brave new world. You seem to assume that pregnant teenagers are the only ones having abortions. That is certainly not the case. You also assume that all pregnant teenagers are from broken homes which is also certainly not the case. You also assume that all pregnant teenagers are unable to care for themselves or their children which, unless being wealthy is a perfect form of birth control, is also certainly not the case. Would pregnant teenagers from wealthy backgrounds who can care for themselves without help from the government be excluded from your program of forced sterilization? Would a mother who is pregnant in her thirties with a child she can ill afford to raise be eligible for forced sterilization as well? How do you determine when it is that a mother "can't afford" a child? What is the income level that would spare her entry into the forced sterilization program? What if a mother gets laid off from her job during her pregnancy, would she then be sent for a, how did you so gently put it, "snip-snip"? If a woman sentenced to forced sterilization refuses, can we jail her? Physically force her in to the stirrups? If someone helps her avoid arrest, can we arrest them for aiding and abetting a fugitive? If a doctor refuses to do the state's bidding, will he lose his license to practice medicine? Since it really is money that you are focusing on, why not just automatically sterilize anyone making less than "X" amount of money? Even better, just sterilize everyone with a reversible procedure. Have them apply to the state when they reach a certain age and can afford the license, the price for which could be set so that only those who really can "afford" a child would be able to buy the license. We could check to make sure that the home is not a "broken" one and that the parenst are not likely to get divorced anytime soon. We could make whatever other rules seem like a good idea and save even more tax dollars. Then we would just reverse the sterilization procedure and off they go. To the far left is socialism and to the right of that, liberals and to the right of them, conservatives and to the right of them, fascists. Since you are not a socialist or liberal, the line you have crossed is the last one, from conservative to fascist. 108247[/snapback] No reason to be so drastic. There is a another solution along those lines. I think women in Cal. on welfare are mandatorily given an implant that is like the pill. If you go off welfare then the implant would be removed. I'm not 100% sure of this in every case but did know a family where this was the case. There were other circumstances in this family that may have been the real reason and not welfare alone. So if I am incorrect please dont flame me. But it does touch on the solution mentioned above without being so drastic.
ofiba Posted November 10, 2004 Author Posted November 10, 2004 I'll take a shot at answering your question becuase in my mind this is how it shakes out. 1) I dont think a collection of cells at around 8 weeks is really a baby. 2) Who are you to force a woman to have a child she does not want. 3) You'll be the same person bitching about a welfare mom that cant support a child. Maybe dont force her to have a child in the first place. 4) Abortions if abolished will go underground where many woman will die and be harmed from underground abortion clinics. Think about this, if your daughter became pregnant before mentally and financially ready to handle it, would you prefer she had a real choice with real doctors in a safe environment? I know I would, and saying dont get pregnant first off is not a solution. Its sticking your head in the sand. I have taught my daughter to wait for marriage. But just in case. 110925[/snapback] 2. Who is she to kill a child? 3. She should have thought about that before she had sex. Nobody forced her to do anything. Forcing her to have a child would be forcing her to get pregnant. 4. No one is forcing them to get underground abortions. If they decide to do that and they are harmed, that is their choice. Like Arndale said, if they want to choose to break the law, they have to accept the responsibilites. I guess we should feel bad for the people who get killed during drug deals. If we made drug deals legal, they could all be made in a civilized manner. Right? Face it, for the most part, abortions are simply an easy way out for people who want to be careless and not wait to have sex until they are ready to have a baby. If they want to have sex before, it is their problem to raise the kid when they get pregnant. If a mother of 4 is having trouble raising her kids, is it ok to kill one of them because she can't handle them all?
Campy Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 To demonstrate my overwhelming grasp of the obvious, I'll simply add that this thread is a perfect example of why this issue will most likely be debated and discussed for years and years to come - regardless of how the (soon-to-be-new) Sup Ct should view Roe v Wade. Many valid points both pro and con and a minimal amount of sniping. This thread is a good read. That's all. Carry on...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 2. Who is she to kill a child? 3. She should have thought about that before she had sex. Nobody forced her to do anything. Forcing her to have a child would be forcing her to get pregnant. 4. No one is forcing them to get underground abortions. If they decide to do that and they are harmed, that is their choice. Like Arndale said, if they want to choose to break the law, they have to accept the responsibilites. I guess we should feel bad for the people who get killed during drug deals. If we made drug deals legal, they could all be made in a civilized manner. Right? Face it, for the most part, abortions are simply an easy way out for people who want to be careless and not wait to have sex until they are ready to have a baby. If they want to have sex before, it is their problem to raise the kid when they get pregnant. If a mother of 4 is having trouble raising her kids, is it ok to kill one of them because she can't handle them all? 112147[/snapback] 2. how is a group of cells dependent on another living organism considered a child..to me a child is a person between infancy and youth 3. who in the history of human race ever thought before sex 4. everything you say is true...but thank god in this country it is still a choice. or would you prefer female genitalia sterilization as done around the world
ofiba Posted November 11, 2004 Author Posted November 11, 2004 2. how is a group of cells dependent on another living organism considered a child..to me a child is a person between infancy and youth3. who in the history of human race ever thought before sex 4. everything you say is true...but thank god in this country it is still a choice. or would you prefer female genitalia sterilization as done around the world 112236[/snapback] 2. I can't argue because it is all personal opinion. 3. That is the worst argument I have ever heard. You could say the same thing about anything, even crimes. "Well your honor, my client simply didn't think before he killed him, so it's not really his responsibilty". By the way, there are plenty of people who think before having sex and decide it would be better to wait. 4. that is not necessary because woman can keep themselves from becoming pregnant by not having sex.
DC Tom Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 There are so many threads within threads on this thread that I'm not sure if your refering to my reply or someone else's? 112049[/snapback] It's JSP. He's pretty much referring to everyone who disagrees with him.
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 2. I can't argue because it is all personal opinion.3. That is the worst argument I have ever heard. You could say the same thing about anything, even crimes. "Well your honor, my client simply didn't think before he killed him, so it's not really his responsibilty". By the way, there are plenty of people who think before having sex and decide it would be better to wait. 4. that is not necessary because woman can keep themselves from becoming pregnant by not having sex. 112241[/snapback] 3. i was being sarcastic 4. you know what...its not your choice if she has sex....bible thumpers don't get that...you can tell us your interpretation of the bible...many of us don't want to hear scripture quoted
Recommended Posts