No abortion in cases of rape or incest

[BDBoop]

Calling out Romney for vague stance on abortion in cases of rape and incest - Video on NBCNews.com

Romney claims to be 'outraged' that Obama is saying Romney is against abortion even if rape or incest is involved. However, as the video proves, Romney HAS stated that he is in favor of overturning Roe v Wade, would sign it if it crossed his desk, and he does in fact feel that a pregnancy should never be terminated, regardless.

This is a HUGE part of why I will not be voting for the man. Not just that that is his stance, but that he called Obama a liar for speaking the truth.

That is a conflation of finding fault with and/or wanting to overturn Roe and wanting no abortion for rape or incest.

It is a logical fallacy.

It is also false dilemma, also a logical fallacy.

Thus, you have NO - ZERO - point.







Damn, I love real debate.

My bolded bit above seems to have gone by the wayside.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Most people agree that you have the right to end a human life only when your own life is under a clear, present and immediate threat.

Apply that to abortion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why? No one can prove that a fetus is a person.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why? No one can prove that a fetus is a person.

Read my post - maybe twice more if you have to.
Then, consider why your post is irrelevant to what I said.

 

[Steelplate]

Can I just say this? IMO, no one is going to be fully happy or even satisfied in a discussion on abortion. Rational adults talk and compromise...but hard line pro-lifers are not going to get their way, and hard line pro- choice people aren't going to be satisfied either.

That's what compromise is....in the other abortion thread, many people agreed that 20 weeks in general and longer for tape/incest/danger to mother.....that seems to be the general mood with a fading number of folks on either side of those in general agreement. Me? I think 20 weeks is a little long....My thoughts were always within the first trimester.....but....

A. I am not a woman....
B. If I was, abortion would not be a choice for ME(note that I used the words "choice" and "me")

like I said....I've always felt that 2-3 months(depending on when one discovers that they are actually indeed, pregnant) was long enough to make a decision....but as my compromise, going to 20 weeks would'nt be a deal breaker for me...I'd like to compromise that down to 16 weeks(four months)....but I can live with 20.

Where I do take great exception, is the late term/partial birth abortions. I stand firm that they should only be used if the mother's life is in jeopardy, or in the case of rape or incest...Why do I add the rape/incest? Because I know enough about psychology(been in the mental health/retardation field for over 20 years) to know that when significant trauma happens to a person's Psyche, they don't always make rational or timely decisions regarding the ordeal. It should remain their choice up until birth....but I would certainly hope that if it got to that point, the choice would be to have the child and put it up for adoption.

I know... I probably pissed a few people off from either side. and for that, I apologize... but compromise is the only way to resolve issues like this.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Edited.

That is the point that escapes you.

Why? No one can prove that a fetus is a person.

Read my post - maybe twice more if you have to.
Then, consider why your post is irrelevant to what I said.

 

[NLT]

Hmm, I wonder what Romney would think of the nine year old Brazilian girl who had an abortion because her body couldn't handle being pregnant with twins. Her step father impregnated her.

Well, we've seen what the Catholic Church Hierarchy thinks of that, haven't we?

Bodey you

Edited. Not Acceptable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Shooter,

On the contrary - it is quite clear in the position it stakes out, and asks for a rebuttal.
Edited. Stop wit the put downs in this Forum.

 

[Alan Stallion]

For what crime(s) is the pre-born child guilty of that would allow it's termination via the death penalty?

Is it right to kill somebody for the sins of a parent or both parents?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, it doesn't.

No one can prove the foetus is a person.

People can have plenty of opinions, but we don't have to rebut opinions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

False terminology. Child is post birth, foetus is pre-birth.

For what crime(s) is the pre-born child guilty of that would allow it's termination via the death penalty?

Is it right to kill somebody for the sins of a parent or both parents?

 

[Alan Stallion]

False terminology. Child is post birth, foetus is pre-birth.

For what crime(s) is the pre-born child guilty of that would allow it's termination via the death penalty?

Is it right to kill somebody for the sins of a parent or both parents?

If you don't want to answer with my terminology, then let's apply your terminology...

For what crime(s) is the foetus guilty of that would allow it's termination via the death penalty?

Is it right to kill a foetus for the sins of a parent or both parents?

 

[Sky Dancer]

The morning after pill should be permitted in cases of rape or incest.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Legalized abortion is not a crime, which undercuts your entire foundation.

Abortion is not murder and it is not execution.

Words have particular meanings and usage.

 

[Indofred]

Legalized abortion is not a crime, which undercuts your entire foundation.

Abortion is not murder and it is not execution.

Words have particular meanings and usage.

When you abort, you destroy a life.
However, in some cases, you destroy a life, maybe two, if you don't.

Each case is individual.
Each case should be decided by the woman concerned, not some politician deciding for every case.
Land of the free? (unless you've been raped)

 

[Alan Stallion]

Legalized abortion is not a crime, which undercuts your entire foundation.

Abortion is not murder and it is not execution.

Words have particular meanings and usage.

Words indeed have particular meanings and usage. Slavery was legal and folk of African origins were deprived of their freedom and property, they were considered property, to be sold and traded, and executed, without governmental protections. That did not make it morally right then, as legalized abortion does not make it right now.

It's easy to deprive people of their rights at the whims of government, and especially under and oligarchy of judges who can say who does not deserve protections under our constitutional republic, judges whose opinions trumps constitutional law, and that is beyond powers that are allowed to them. They are as much bound to and under the U.S. Constitution as any other citizen (and as an American citizen, I'll argue from that jurisdiction for purposes of this posting).

Abortion cannot rationally be considered legal under Amendments V and XIV in the U.S. Constitution, unless they redefine what a human being is, which is always the basis for human atrocities in human history.

Whether or not lynching blacks was considered legal under U.S. laws, whether or not slaughtering Jews in Nazi Germany was considered legal under their laws, I will always consider those circumstances unjustified murder, as I do today with so-called legal abortion.

Pre-born babies (or fetuses) are human and alive, until natural death or until their life is taken from them by force, without them being charged or convicted of any crime.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, it doesn't.
No one can prove the foetus is a person.
People can have plenty of opinions, but we don't have to rebut opinions.

Tell you what:

You point out where I talked about aborting a "person" and I'll concede the point.
Fail to do so, and then you'll concede mine.

Edited

 

[Alan Stallion]

No one can prove the foetus is a person.

Define "person"

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, the burden of affirmation is yours, not mine. Here, this will help.

Premise. You make a thesis.

Evidence. You give stats, facts, analysis, etc., the more objective the better.

Conclusion. This should be the empahsis (the 'umph') of why anyone should read what you have written.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You guys have the burden of proof. Go for it. Look immediately above for guidance.

No, it doesn't.
No one can prove the foetus is a person.
People can have plenty of opinions, but we don't have to rebut opinions.

Tell you what:

You point out where I talked about aborting a "person" and I'll concede the point.
Fail to do so, and then you'll concede mine.

I happily await your diversionary response.