CDZ Abortion

[Flopper]

The idea that a woman has a "right" to abort her child is a belief, therefore under your analogy it is overridden.

And it also the law

It is the law because seven unelected Supreme Court justices say so.

And 80% of American believe it should be legal and 1/3 of the states have already passed laws that would keep abortion legal in unlikely event Rowe v Wade were overturned.

 

[Flopper]

Your rational for this depends on the rational that the fetus is not yet valued as a person. Would it be responsible for the mother to sacrifice one of her children so that she can use her resources to better take care of the remaining child?

The answer is yes. Although you won't admit it.

Mmmmm.......Okay. For clarification, which question did you answer? I hope it wasn't the last one I posed.

It's obvious is.

So you think it is okay for a mother of two to sacrifice (kill) one of her children to better use her resources to provide for the other.

If it was necessary for the others to survive.

It would never be okay for a mother of two to sacrifice (kill) one of her children to better use her resources to provide for the other, however we're not discussing a child. We're discussing a fetus.

 

[Coyote]

It is not murder until it's viable. Until then, it's part of it's mother and her rights supercede the fetus'.

Biologically, it is a separate genetic entity from the mother, and not "her body".

You don't get to override her constitutional rights with your belief system.

A human being (even in the earliest of stages) has just as many rights as a human being walking around. If not more so, because it has the inability to defend itself.

How so? What gives it any rights?

Umm... the fact that it is a human life

And that means what exactly? Until it's born, or viable - it's a potential human life.

Frankly, when I see some of the atrocities committed by "human life" I question the value placed on it.

 

[Coyote]

Human beings didn't exist billions of years ago, don't try to implement your talmudic logic here.

Life begins for a human at conception, when it is a unique biological entity with 46 chromosomes

If we can impose any limit, than I impose it at conception, when the human life starts. A woman does not have the right to murder another human being in her womb.

Right, you impose your definition. Impose it, then, on yourself and leave freedom to others.
'Talmudic' has nothing to do with it outside your imposition.
What right does government have to execute anyone? What gives you the right to pay taxes to have people killed at your behest all around the world?
Impose anything and everything you want or can. Others are not obliged to accept your ideas. This issue has been decided by society and the law. Fortunately, it is not up to you to change it.

Sorry buddy, I don't support anarchy. By your logic, I shouldn't murder and but leave murder to others, after all it isn't my business. How absurd. Biologically, life begins at conception when a separate genetic entity is created with 46 chromosomes, and taking human life is murder and should be illegal across the board.

Talmudic, because you sound like a jew trying to employ some kind of logic trap. Don't lie, you have a sader dinner later tonight

Biology has nothing to do with the law. Countless millions of spontaneous abortions occur biologically every year. You don't get to charge those women with murder.

If you mean spontaneous as a miscarriage? obviously that is nature, not someone making a choice to end a life. but making a decision to end a human life, that's murder.

There are different degrees of murder. A spontaneous miscarriage would fit the definition of murder in the 3rd degree, AKA manslaughter, since you are applying a murder statute to abortion. Either way the woman is responsible for "ending the life of the unborn".

So how many millions of women are you planning on imprisoning for manslaughter each year? They should each have to serve a minimum of 20 years, right?

How do you expect to get this past the electorate given that women make up a majority of voters?

And what if she doesn't know she is pregnant but takes the morning after pill just in case?

 

[Coyote]

I can understand that a woman has a right to control her own body; however, there is also an issue of responsibility. If a woman were to choose not to use her body to feed her new born baby and allow the baby to simply to starve to death she would most likely be charged with murder based on neglect. The woman is expected to use that body of her's (not necessarily breastfeeding ) and take care of that baby or find someone else that will.

So... bottle feeding is illegal?

The woman would still have to use her body to prepare the bottle and feed the baby. It doesn't happen by magic.

Could someone else use their body to do this?

Yes. You might want to reread my original post because this is the second thing you missed.

"The woman is expected to use that body of her's (not necessarily breastfeeding ) and take care of that baby or find someone else that will."

Not necessarily breastfeeding -- Use of her body can mean other things than breastfeeding. Holding a bottle, changing diapers, keeping the baby warm are examples.

Or find someone that will -- This responsibility can be transfer to someone else such as another relative. In some states, the parents may drop a newborn baby off at a police department, fire department, or hospital and give up a baby without being arrested for neglect. That being said, if an infant is in the custody of a woman (the mother), she is expected to use her body to care for that baby. She can't simply leave the infant to fend for itself and use the right to control her own body and her right to privacy to justify allowing the baby to die.

Once the baby is born - she can choose to take care of it or give it up.

 

[Coyote]

How about when a woman who is already a mother to a couple of small children who is having health and/or financial problems discovers that she is pregnant again?

Is her responsibility towards those children who are already dependent upon her limited health and/or financial resources or should she jeopardize their future by bringing yet another child into the mix that drain her already limited resources even further?

Do you recall what happened with Andrea Yates?

Sometimes the responsible action is to have an abortion.

Your rational for this depends on the rational that the fetus is not yet valued as a person. Would it be responsible for the mother to sacrifice one of her children so that she can use her resources to better take care of the remaining child?

The answer is yes. Although you won't admit it.

Mmmmm.......Okay. For clarification, which question did you answer? I hope it wasn't the last one I posed.

It's obvious is.

So you think it is okay for a mother of two to sacrifice (kill) one of her children to better use her resources to provide for the other.

That is a situation that is unthinkable to us in a country with so many safety nets. But in a country where famine and instability are the norm - while it's not "ok" it might be the only choice.

 

[Coyote]

Your rational for this depends on the rational that the fetus is not yet valued as a person. Would it be responsible for the mother to sacrifice one of her children so that she can use her resources to better take care of the remaining child?

The answer is yes. Although you won't admit it.

Mmmmm.......Okay. For clarification, which question did you answer? I hope it wasn't the last one I posed.

It's obvious is.

So you think it is okay for a mother of two to sacrifice (kill) one of her children to better use her resources to provide for the other.

If it was necessary for the others to survive.

Ironically we make those choices. When you have conjoined twins and surgery is the only answer for long term survival - it's not always possible to save them both.

 

[jillian]

The idea that a woman has a "right" to abort her child is a belief, therefore under your analogy it is overridden.

She has a right to control any and all decisions regarding her body.

Where is the rights for the other body inside her?

those rights take a back seat to mom's rights.... at least til later in the pregnancy... as set forth in Roe v Wade.

if you have a problem with that, then exercise your right to not avail yourself of the right.

other than that, it's not government's place to butt in... or yours

 

[Bonzi]

The idea that a woman has a "right" to abort her child is a belief, therefore under your analogy it is overridden.

She has a right to control any and all decisions regarding her body.

Where is the rights for the other body inside her?

those rights take a back seat to mom's rights.... at least til later in the pregnancy... as set forth in Roe v Wade.

if you have a problem with that, then exercise your right to not avail yourself of the right.

other than that, it's not government's place to butt in... or yours

I'm not trying to change laws.

I just want people to admit that at 5 weeks (or after), when a baby (or fetus) has is developing a heart, organs, features etc. that if you willingly get an abortion, it's murder. That is a living human being inside you.

 

[Votto]

It is not murder until it's viable. Until then, it's part of it's mother and her rights supercede the fetus'.

Nope, it's not murder until the Birth Fairy waves her magic wand over the fetus once it passes out of the birth canal.

 

[Valerie]

no, murder is a legal term and abortion does not qualify as such. words mean things.

 

[Bonzi]

no, murder is a legal term and abortion does not qualify as such. words mean things.

well admit it's killing a human being then... or taking a human life .. whatever term you want (legal or not) - people need to admit they are doing it

 

[Valerie]

no, murder is a legal term and abortion does not qualify as such. words mean things.

well admit it's killing a human being then... or taking a human life .. whatever term you want (legal or not) - people need to admit they are doing it

what did you think was being aborted? a hippopotamus?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Right, you impose your definition. Impose it, then, on yourself and leave freedom to others.
'Talmudic' has nothing to do with it outside your imposition.
What right does government have to execute anyone? What gives you the right to pay taxes to have people killed at your behest all around the world?
Impose anything and everything you want or can. Others are not obliged to accept your ideas. This issue has been decided by society and the law. Fortunately, it is not up to you to change it.

Sorry buddy, I don't support anarchy. By your logic, I shouldn't murder and but leave murder to others, after all it isn't my business. How absurd. Biologically, life begins at conception when a separate genetic entity is created with 46 chromosomes, and taking human life is murder and should be illegal across the board.

Talmudic, because you sound like a jew trying to employ some kind of logic trap. Don't lie, you have a sader dinner later tonight

Biology has nothing to do with the law. Countless millions of spontaneous abortions occur biologically every year. You don't get to charge those women with murder.

If you mean spontaneous as a miscarriage? obviously that is nature, not someone making a choice to end a life. but making a decision to end a human life, that's murder.

There are different degrees of murder. A spontaneous miscarriage would fit the definition of murder in the 3rd degree, AKA manslaughter, since you are applying a murder statute to abortion. Either way the woman is responsible for "ending the life of the unborn".

So how many millions of women are you planning on imprisoning for manslaughter each year? They should each have to serve a minimum of 20 years, right?

How do you expect to get this past the electorate given that women make up a majority of voters?

And what if she doesn't know she is pregnant but takes the morning after pill just in case?

Good point!

 

[Bonzi]

no, murder is a legal term and abortion does not qualify as such. words mean things.

well admit it's killing a human being then... or taking a human life .. whatever term you want (legal or not) - people need to admit they are doing it

what did you think was being aborted? a hippopotamus?

Um, no, But many people like to stick their head in the sand and convince themselves they are not taking a human life.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The idea that a woman has a "right" to abort her child is a belief, therefore under your analogy it is overridden.

She has a right to control any and all decisions regarding her body.

Where is the rights for the other body inside her?

those rights take a back seat to mom's rights.... at least til later in the pregnancy... as set forth in Roe v Wade.

if you have a problem with that, then exercise your right to not avail yourself of the right.

other than that, it's not government's place to butt in... or yours

I'm not trying to change laws.

I just want people to admit that at 5 weeks (or after), when a baby (or fetus) has is developing a heart, organs, features etc. that if you willingly get an abortion, it's murder. That is a living human being inside you.

No, it is a potential human being. There is no guarantee that you will have a successful pregnancy.

 

[Valerie]

Um, no, But many people like to stick their head in the sand and convince themselves they are not taking a human life.

you must know a lot of idiots.

 

[Bonzi]

Right, you impose your definition. Impose it, then, on yourself and leave freedom to others.
'Talmudic' has nothing to do with it outside your imposition.
What right does government have to execute anyone? What gives you the right to pay taxes to have people killed at your behest all around the world?
Impose anything and everything you want or can. Others are not obliged to accept your ideas. This issue has been decided by society and the law. Fortunately, it is not up to you to change it.

Sorry buddy, I don't support anarchy. By your logic, I shouldn't murder and but leave murder to others, after all it isn't my business. How absurd. Biologically, life begins at conception when a separate genetic entity is created with 46 chromosomes, and taking human life is murder and should be illegal across the board.

Talmudic, because you sound like a jew trying to employ some kind of logic trap. Don't lie, you have a sader dinner later tonight

Biology has nothing to do with the law. Countless millions of spontaneous abortions occur biologically every year. You don't get to charge those women with murder.

If you mean spontaneous as a miscarriage? obviously that is nature, not someone making a choice to end a life. but making a decision to end a human life, that's murder.

There are different degrees of murder. A spontaneous miscarriage would fit the definition of murder in the 3rd degree, AKA manslaughter, since you are applying a murder statute to abortion. Either way the woman is responsible for "ending the life of the unborn".

So how many millions of women are you planning on imprisoning for manslaughter each year? They should each have to serve a minimum of 20 years, right?

How do you expect to get this past the electorate given that women make up a majority of voters?

And what if she doesn't know she is pregnant but takes the morning after pill just in case?

That's intent. If you are trying to PREVENT the pregnancy and this happens, you are not intentionally and willfully taking a human life.

 

[Derideo_Te]

no, murder is a legal term and abortion does not qualify as such. words mean things.

well admit it's killing a human being then... or taking a human life .. whatever term you want (legal or not) - people need to admit they are doing it

what did you think was being aborted? a hippopotamus?

Um, no, But many people like to stick their head in the sand and convince themselves they are not taking a human life.

"Many people"?

Who are these "many people" that you are talking about?

 

[Bonzi]

The idea that a woman has a "right" to abort her child is a belief, therefore under your analogy it is overridden.

She has a right to control any and all decisions regarding her body.

Where is the rights for the other body inside her?

those rights take a back seat to mom's rights.... at least til later in the pregnancy... as set forth in Roe v Wade.

if you have a problem with that, then exercise your right to not avail yourself of the right.

other than that, it's not government's place to butt in... or yours

I'm not trying to change laws.

I just want people to admit that at 5 weeks (or after), when a baby (or fetus) has is developing a heart, organs, features etc. that if you willingly get an abortion, it's murder. That is a living human being inside you.

No, it is a potential human being. There is no guarantee that you will have a successful pregnancy.

Human is human. Whether in the mother or outside the mother. When you were a sperm and egg, you were just as human as you are now, just in a different form.