Are you a living being if you have a movie credit?

[dmp]

Look I get the point, the fetus grows into a human. Fine. Using a movie credit to prove the point? Really?

You missed the point.

His point is: Either a baby is a 'person', or they are 'not'. He was suggesting it's pretty fucked up there isn't a 'standard' by which the value of human life is measured against.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Dogs get put down every day. If a dog is found wandering around without a home, it's killed.

Look I get the point, the fetus grows into a human. Fine. Using a movie credit to prove the point? Really?

I don't know how the animal shelter works where you live, but it is far different here.

I just found the movie credit interesting. It is another case of a double standard when it comes to unborn babies. An unborn is real enough to get a movie credit, it is real enough to charge Scott Peterson with double murder, it is real enough in every way, shape, and form... unless the mother decides to kill it. Then, suddenly, it isn't real anymore.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Yeah, the other thread. Thanks for linking... I think I see the connection....I think...

Goody for you.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

You guys don't get it, dictating personal choices about people's bodies is totalitarian. That's the argument here. And it's a perfectly good one.

Nobody has the right to dictate a personal choice that a woman makes about her body except her.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

You guys don't get it, dictating personal choices about people's bodies is totalitarian. That's the argument here. And it's a perfectly good one.

Nobody has the right to dictate a personal choice that a woman makes about her body except her.

No, it is not a perfectly good argument and it never has been. If a woman wants to go out and mutilate her own body, go right ahead. Whatever sick, twisted thing the woman is into is none of my business. When a woman gets an abortion, it isn't making a choice about her body, it is making a choice about the body and the life of the baby. It isn't her body, she should leave it alone.

 

[no1tovote4]

You guys don't get it, dictating personal choices about people's bodies is totalitarian. That's the argument here. And it's a perfectly good one.

However dictating how another person is treated by their parent whom they depen on is not? This is tripe and you know it. This isn't just their own body, we are talking about a totally different person. This also shows you didn't even read my post above at all and likely are reading none of the previous posts. (go back and read my pro-life/pro-choice solution to the issue.)

Nobody has the right to dictate a personal choice that a woman makes about her body except her.

However the government has the right to protect an individual that is dependant on the mother. In this case entirely dependant, but the mother has no right to make the choice that deems that life worthless.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I don't know how the animal shelter works where you live, but it is far different here.

I just found the movie credit interesting. It is another case of a double standard when it comes to unborn babies. An unborn is real enough to get a movie credit, it is real enough to charge Scott Peterson with double murder, it is real enough in every way, shape, and form... unless the mother decides to kill it. Then, suddenly, it isn't real anymore.

Fair enough. Apologies for harping on you about it.

 

[dmp]

I don't know how the animal shelter works where you live, but it is far different here.

I just found the movie credit interesting. It is another case of a double standard when it comes to unborn babies. An unborn is real enough to get a movie credit, it is real enough to charge Scott Peterson with double murder, it is real enough in every way, shape, and form... unless the mother decides to kill it. Then, suddenly, it isn't real anymore.

Don't forget, babies are real enough to send their father to jail when their mother ASKS HIM to help her beat her stomach hard enough for her to miscary.



Should she have asked a 'doctor' to help her end the pregnancy, nobody would have said a thing.


edit - story seems to have dropped off google...here are a few writings:

BARBARISM IN TEXAS....This story is almost too horrible for words. The details are a little thin, but here's the outline.

In 2003, Texas passed an anti-abortion law that instituted a 24-hour waiting period; required doctors to show women pictures of fetuses, tell them about adoption procedures, and warn them that an abortion could lead to breast cancer; and forced abortion providers to keep the identities of all their patients in their records. Plus one more thing, as the Fort Worth Weekly reported at the time:

The bill as passed also includes another requirement that managed to escape the floodlights of controversy and debate: Abortions from 16 weeks onward now can be performed only in hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers.

The clause is a major Catch-22. Very few Texas hospitals perform elective abortions, and the few that do charge extremely high fees and require that the patients go through complicated ethics reviews. And of the state's hundreds of surgical centers, none performs abortions.

So, with no place to get an abortion after 16 weeks, what does a panicky, 17-year-old girl do if she's four months pregnant? Erica Basoria decided to try to induce a miscarriage. When that didn't work, she asked her boyfriend to step on her stomach. A week later she miscarried.

This is all bad enough, but what comes next is fantastically worse: Texas also has a shiny new law criminalizing "fetal murder," and the fact that Basoria wanted a miscarriage in this case doesn't matter. Her boyfriend, Gerardo Flores of Lufkin, has been sentenced to 40 years in prison for his part in this tragic comic opera:

Flores' mother, Norma Flores, stood in stunned silence, surrounded by family members for several minutes after her son was led away by Sheriff Kent Henson.

Under state law, a woman cannot be charged for causing the deaths of her own fetuses for any reason.

....[Prosecutor Art] Bauereiss told jurors he was focused on Flores. He couldn't help that Basoria was outside the reach of the law, he said. If the babies had been killed after being born, it wouldn't have been so controversial, he said. "Think what a horrible crime this would be,” he said. "We wouldn't hesitate to label it for what it is."

....Prosecutors chose not to pursue the death penalty against Flores, meaning he received an automatic life sentence with parole possible after 40 years.

Gerardo Flores was accused of causing the miscarriage by stepping on his girlfriend’s stomach. He was prosecuted under the state’s new fetal protection law….Erica Basoria acknowledged asking Flores to help end her pregnancy. But the 17-year-old can’t be prosecuted because of her legal right to abortion.

When you reject moral absolutes, which apply to us all, in favor of satanic “relativism,” this is the result. An unborn baby is human only if his mother wants him or if the father kills him. He commits murder; she commits “choice.”

If the father wants to save his baby’s life but the mother elects to have the unwanted foreign growth scraped from her womb, he’s out of luck. That’s the unsustainable, contradictory, insane, incomprehensible rationale behind legalize abortion.

May they all get what they deserve.

The tension is the result of conservatives trying to protect unborn life and liberals determined to protect “choice.” How will it be resolved? Just short of making all fetal killings illegal, I don’t know.

Update (6/8): Now that I think about it, godless leftism no longer embraces moral relativism (the view that my moral values are just as good as yours; moral equivalency), as irrational as the concept is. They downright demonize conservative Christians and everything we believe. We’re targets of mockery and scorn and dismissed as intolerant kooks, although they have no logically consistent worldview of their own. You’d see aliens landing on the Mall before you hear a leftist say that Christians’ moral values should be respected.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

In this case entirely dependant, but the mother has no right to make the choice that deems that life worthless.

Why not? She and a male created that life, why can't she abort it before it begins, especially if she doesn't want it?

Yours is a moral/religious argument that can't be dictated upon everyone, because everyone doesn't share your moral beliefs. No one here is denying that abortion is a disgusting, but you can't seriously believe that the government should be able to dictate a decision like this for someone!

For you, does life begin as soon as the sperm enters the egg?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Why not? She and a male created that life, why can't she abort it before it begins, especially if she doesn't want it?

Yours is a moral/religious argument that can't be dictated upon everyone, because everyone doesn't share your moral beliefs. No one here is denying that abortion is a disgusting, but you can't seriously believe that the government should be able to dictate a decision like this for someone!

For you, does life begin as soon as the sperm enters the egg?

My parents created me, do they get to kill me when it pleases them? Faulty logic. EDIT: Well, not entirely, but close.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

How dare these people make decisions like that, especially when the girl wanted it? It's fascism!

 

[Hagbard Celine]

My parents created me, do they get to kill me when it pleases them? Faulty logic.

You've ignored the part where I said, "before it begins." It's totally different from your parents killing you now and you know it.

 

[no1tovote4]

Why not? She and a male created that life, why can't she abort it before it begins, especially if she doesn't want it?

The only way to abort that life before it begins is to not have sex or to use protection while having sex. Don't be dense and attempt to argue a fetus is not alive or that the fetus is part of a different lifeform. If she doesn't want it she can go on to the solution that I provided above that you clearly still have not read at all. At least read the posts before you assume my opinions or you end up looking like an idiot.


Like you did right here:

Yours is a moral/religious argument that can't be dictated upon everyone, because everyone doesn't share your moral beliefs. No one here is denying that abortion is a disgusting, but you can't seriously believe that the government should be able to dictate a decision like this for someone!

Mine is not a moral/religious argument and to even suggest such is simply disingenuous. Just like they can dictate how you treat an infant they can dictate how you treat an unborn infant/fetus/child/whatever label you want to give.

For you, does life begin as soon as the sperm enters the egg?

For me the creation of a separate life does begin then. That is also the scientific time a new life is created with separate DNA. Now you may argue that they are not yet a "person" (which is a philosophical or religious opinion) but attempting to say it isn't alive is ignoring the actual definition of life and attempting to argue that it is simply part of another life is ignoring DNA evidence to the contrary, it is a separate being.

 

[insein]

You guys don't get it, dictating personal choices about people's bodies is totalitarian. That's the argument here. And it's a perfectly good one.

Nobody has the right to dictate a personal choice that a woman makes about her body except her.

I agree. But using people's money through taxes is immoral when it is used for something that goes against their beliefs. Abortion is opposed by many religions. Many people are part of religions. Many people are opposed to abortions. Yet many people PAY for abortions through their taxes.

If they simply stop government funding for these abortion clinics, i guarantee that everyone except the "right to lifers" wouldnt care about some poor mother killing her child to save a buck or 2. Quite frankly there are way too many people in this world already. If these people feel its their right to kill their child, thats fine with me. They will face their maker later to decide if that was the right decision. In the meantime, it means one less mouth the state has to feed later on.

 

[insein]

You've ignored the part where I said, "before it begins." It's totally different from your parents killing you now and you know it.

Life begins at conception. So they can kill the child if they like. They will simply answer to their maker later.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

You've ignored the part where I said, "before it begins." It's totally different from your parents killing you now and you know it.

Hag, I'd like to agree with you more often, but I feel I need to address a huge reason why you seldom garner much respect from your opinions.

You're correct, I missed the part about "before it begins." My mistake. But to end your post by saying something likek "and you know it" is so condescending. Every other post you make has some sort of "get bent" or "you can't be serious" or whatever kind of statement. There's just no need for it, and it hurts your arguments even before people can consider them.

As for your argument, is there a difference for you between 1 hour before birth and one hour after birth for a child? For most people on this board, there is not. You're arguing semantics, not logic.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I agree. But using people's money through taxes is immoral when it is used for something that goes against their beliefs. Abortion is opposed by many religions. Many people are part of religions. Many people are opposed to abortions. Yet many people PAY for abortions through their taxes.

If they simply stop government funding for these abortion clinics, i guarantee that everyone except the "right to lifers" wouldnt care about some poor mother killing her child to save a buck or 2. Quite frankly there are way too many people in this world already. If these people feel its their right to kill their child, thats fine with me. They will face their maker later to decide if that was the right decision. In the meantime, it means one less mouth the state has to feed later on.

If the government only used taxes to fund things that do not go against any citizen's beliefs, there would be nothing to fund.

You're right about there being too many people on this planet, though.

 

[Nuc]

I agree. But using people's money through taxes is immoral when it is used for something that goes against their beliefs. .

This is one of the silliest arguments in politics nowadays. Of course our taxes are ALWAYS used for things we don't believe in. Anti-war activists taxes are used for the war, neo-Nazis taxes are used for affirmative action, people who couldn't care less about sports see their money used to build stadiums, environmentalists taxes used to clear cut old growth forests. And on and on.

You always hear this argument in relation to abortion, stem cell research and (idiotically) arts funding. Why? It is so obviously wrong. So wrong that it can be considered an eternal verity. Maybe they should change the saying to:

"Only three things are certain, death, taxes, and that your taxes will be used for something that's against your beliefs."

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Yeah, No1tovote4, if it makes you feel any better, I read your post about the hypothetical situation in which doctors should be required to try and save the fetuses outside the womb. I get it. It sounds like a great problem solver.

Now I got a question. Where's the money going to come from to sustain these testtube babies and who's going to raise them?

Ok, to the guy saying it's wrong to have free abortion clinics. Obviously, these are for people who can't afford to go to real clinics plus some teens also mostly poor. Would you rather they spend a minute bit of the state's money to get an abortion and be done with it? Or have the baby and spend a ton of the state's money either raising the kid on welfare or having the state raise it in foster homes, also probably on welfare?

To the other guy saying it's the state's right to dictate what goes on in a woman's reproductive system, I still think you're wrong and the law agrees with me.

Keep 'em coming, I've got a million of 'em.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Life begins at conception. So they can kill the child if they like. They will simply answer to their maker later.

Exactly. Although, I don't know if zygotes can count yet. I think they have to be fetuses to actually count.