Is it ever ok to have an Abortion?

[Bob Blaylock]

So, the prochoice folks, who believe that the government has no right to control our own bodies, makes us equivalent to NAZI's. Got it.

Will you please spare us further repetitions of the outrageous lie that this is at all about anyone controlling her own body? If it was about the woman controlling her own body, when she gets an abortion, then she would be the one who died from it, and not her innocent child.

What makes your side like Nazis is your defense of the murder of innocent human beings, and your denial of the very humanity of your victims.

And even if it was based on any truth, your response isn't relevant to the statement to which you were responding, anyway.

I was talking about the eugenic aspect, of trying to purify the human race of certain genetic defects, by murdering those who have these defects.

Now, what party, in early 20th century history, was notorious for trying to improve humanity, by mass-murdering those that it deemed to be genetically inferior?

If the shoe fits…

 

[Rigby5]

So, the prochoice folks, who believe that the government has no right to control our own bodies, makes us equivalent to NAZI's. Got it.

Will you please spare us further repetitions of the outrageous lie that this is at all about anyone controlling her own body? If it was about the woman controlling her own body, when she gets an abortion, then she would be the one who died from it, and not her innocent child.

What makes your side like Nazis is your defense of the murder of innocent human beings, and your denial of the very humanity of your victims.

And even if it was based on any truth, your response isn't relevant to the statement to which you were responding, anyway.

I was talking about the eugenic aspect, of trying to purify the human race of certain genetic defects, by murdering those who have these defects.

Now, what party, in early 20th century history, was notorious for trying to improve humanity, by mass-murdering those that it deemed to be genetically inferior?

If the shoe fits…

Wrong.
If someone needs an organ, blood transfusion, etc., from you or they will die, then you can choose to let them die. No one, including a fetus, has the right to demand anything from you.

But clearly if you do NOT remove genetic defects from the human race, then you are the worst criminal of all, because you harm the entire species.
There is nothing at all with eugenics as long as you do not violate ethical rules by harming those who have already been born, and as long as your criteria are unbiased and accurate.

 

[Vandalshandle]

So, the prochoice folks, who believe that the government has no right to control our own bodies, makes us equivalent to NAZI's. Got it.

Will you please spare us further repetitions of the outrageous lie that this is at all about anyone controlling her own body? If it was about the woman controlling her own body, when she gets an abortion, then she would be the one who died from it, and not her innocent child.

What makes your side like Nazis is your defense of the murder of innocent human beings, and your denial of the very humanity of your victims.

And even if it was based on any truth, your response isn't relevant to the statement to which you were responding, anyway.

I was talking about the eugenic aspect, of trying to purify the human race of certain genetic defects, by murdering those who have these defects.

Now, what party, in early 20th century history, was notorious for trying to improve humanity, by mass-murdering those that it deemed to be genetically inferior?

If the shoe fits…

The shoe fits only in your mind, Bob. In reality, it is an impossible stretch to equate pro-choice to NAZI's. . And, no, I will not cease telling the world that it is our own bodies. We have the right to control our own bodies, until the fetus is viable outside of it, not before. And finally, no, you can not control my wife and daughter's bodies. It simply is not going to happen. Get over it.

 

[JoeB131]

Will you please spare us further repetitions of the outrageous lie that this is at all about anyone controlling her own body? If it was about the woman controlling her own body, when she gets an abortion, then she would be the one who died from it, and not her innocent child.

Fetuses still aren't children.

We don't recognize people as legally existing until they are born. Not before.

I was talking about the eugenic aspect, of trying to purify the human race of certain genetic defects, by murdering those who have these defects.

So by your logic, it's better to bring them into the world with horrible deformities, to live a lifetime of pain and diminished quality of life? Really, Bob?

 

[MarcATL]

sorry but everyone on death row was proven guilty by a jury,,,

So you agree with the 90s OJ Simpson verdict?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Fetuses still aren't children.

Repeating a lie does not make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it, no matter how many people you can convince of it, and no matter how many laws you can get passed based on it.

So by your logic, it's better to bring them into the world with horrible deformities, to live a lifetime of pain and diminished quality of life? Really, Bob?

When I saw this, I immediately thought of Steven Hawking. On doing some reading up on him, he's not really quite the perfect example I thought, but still good for a point. he wasn't born handicapped, and certainly his handicap couldn't have been predicted before his birth.

His handicap began in his adulthood, and it turns out, that his genius really started to emerge about then as well. Up until that point, he was really rather unremarkable.

I think an important point is that you really cannot predict what sort of life someone will end up having, before he has the chance to live it. Certainly, the overwhelming vast majority of people who live, even with major handicaps, given a choice, continue to live. I see no justification at all for your premise that anyone has any place deciding, on someone else's behalf, before that person even has a chance to have any of his life play out, that he is doomed to live a miserable, unworthy life, and that it is better to kill him before he has the chance to suffer.

The Nazis started down that exact same path, exterminating in relatively small numbers compared to their later endeavors, those that they deemed inferior, or less likely to lead worthy lives, or likely to end up being burdens on other people or on society. We all know where they went from there.

You cannot devalue any innocent human life, without ultimately devaluing all human life.

 

[TNHarley]

Its always ok to have an abortion.
That being said, I understand the other side of it too. Some people see it as murder. Others, such as me, dont. Which is understandable.
I pick liberty over govt forced gestation and subjective opinions.

 

[there4eyeM]

Does a fetus have a "soul"?

 

[JoeB131]

Repeating a lie does not make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it, no matter how many people you can convince of it, and no matter how many laws you can get passed based on it.

But then you have to wonder WHY we got laws passed on it to start with. The thing was, even when abortion was illegal, women weren't arrested for having them. Doctors were only prosecuted for performing them if they fucked up and the woman was maimed. The reason why we got laws passed on that was that the laws against them were impractical. It's why Republicans voted to overturn these laws (5 of the justices who voted for it were Nixon/Ike appointees) and why Republican appointees ever since have upheld it.

When I saw this, I immediately thought of Steven Hawking. On doing some reading up on him, he's not really quite the perfect example I thought, but still good for a point. he wasn't born handicapped, and certainly his handicap couldn't have been predicted before his birth.

His handicap began in his adulthood, and it turns out, that his genius really started to emerge about then as well. Up until that point, he was really rather unremarkable.

Except he acquired his skills when he was fully abled, but never mind that. Had he been born a cripple or a retard, he'd have been spending his wonder years in the back of the class, or in his time period, just warehoused in an institution.

When I was growing up in the 1970's, we didn't have short buses. We had long buses because there were so many of these stupid Catholic Women who were still having babies in their 40's giving birth to various defects, and they took them all off to a special school so the rest of us wouldn't have to deal with them.

I think an important point is that you really cannot predict what sort of life someone will end up having, before he has the chance to live it. Certainly, the overwhelming vast majority of people who live, even with major handicaps, given a choice, continue to live. I see no justification at all for your premise that anyone has any place deciding, on someone else's behalf, before that person even has a chance to have any of his life play out, that he is doomed to live a miserable, unworthy life, and that it is better to kill him before he has the chance to suffer.

But we do that all the time, don't we? How about people who get gentically screened for Tay-sachs, for instance. Or Cystic Fibrosis? That if a couple determines that they are both carriers, they don't get married or don't have kids. Would you call them "Nazis"? (Keep in mind, Mormon Bob has no problem taking the ACTUAL children of illegals an putting them in real concentration camps.)

The Nazis started down that exact same path, exterminating in relatively small numbers compared to their later endeavors, those that they deemed inferior, or less likely to lead worthy lives, or likely to end up being burdens on other people or on society. We all know where they went from there.

You cannot devalue any innocent human life, without ultimately devaluing all human life.

Again, Bob, given the RACIST SHIT you spew about undocumented immigrants, this is laughable. If the State was the one demanding these fetuses be terminated, I'd be out there in the trenches with you. Asking a woman to bring a child into the world only to watch it suffer? Only a sociopath would think that was a good idea.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Again, Bob, given the RACIST SHIT you spew about undocumented immigrants, this is laughable.

Not being a treasonous subhuman piece of shit who openly takes the side of invading foreign criminals against that of his own country and his own countrymen does not make someone a “racist”; except in the left wrong-wing sense that defines “racist” as anyone to whom a LIbEral is hopelessly losing an argument.

And a traitorous piece of shit such as you has no place casting any aspersions on my moral character, nor anyone else's.

Asking a woman to bring a child into the world only to watch it suffer? Only a sociopath would think that was a good idea.

We all suffer. Some of us more than others. Using that as an excuse for murdering innocent people, without even giving them any chance to experience life and suffering and make their own choice as to whether to continue to live with it, is the position that is truly sociopathic.

Perhaps unusual for someone who otherwise believes as I do, I am not completely opposed to euthanasia. But the decision to end someone's life to avoid suffering, absolutely must be made by the one whose life is in question, and not by anyone else, nor under any pressure from anyone else. If there is any choice at all, more than any other, which each person must be allowed to make for himself, and which nobody should ever be allowed to make on someone else's behalf, then that would surely be it.

 

[JoeB131]

Not being a treasonous subhuman piece of @shit who openly takes the side of invading foreign criminals against that of his own country and his own countrymen does not make someone a “racist”; except in the left wrong-wing sense that defines “racist” as anyone to whom a LIbEral is hopelessly losing an argument.

And a traitorous piece of @shit such as you has no place casting any aspersions on my moral character, nor anyone else's.

The point is, you are all for saving "The Children", unless they happen to be brown and don't have the right paperwork, then you are for throwing them into filthy concentration camps.

We all suffer. Some of us more than others. Using that as an excuse for murdering innocent people, without even giving them any chance to experience life and suffering and make their own choice as to whether to continue to live with it, is the position that is truly sociopathic.

Perhaps unusual for someone who otherwise believes as I do, I am not completely opposed to euthanasia. But the decision to end someone's life to avoid suffering, absolutely must be made by the one whose life is in question, and not by anyone else, nor under any pressure from anyone else. If there is any choice at all, more than any other, which each person must be allowed to make for himself, and which nobody should ever be allowed to make on someone else's behalf, then that would surely be it.

So by your logic, when a parent decides to not continue painful treatments that only delay the inevitable, the state needs to step in and take those children away from them? That's... you know, sociopathic. Even for a Mormon, a whole religion of sociopaths.

Fetuses aren't people under the eyes of the law. We aren't counting fetuses on the census. We only recognizes the person's begining of life as their birth day, not their conception date.

The thing is, you guys never gave a shit about the babies, this is always about putting women in their place.

 

[there4eyeM]

Does a fetus have a "soul"?

No answer for this question?

 

[Chuz Life]

Does a fetus have a "soul"?

Does anybody?

Also.

Show me where the Constitution says "only persons with souls have a right to the protections of our laws."

Can you do that?

 

[JoeB131]

Show me where the Constitution says "only persons with souls have a right to the protections of our laws."

Can you do that?

Show me where fetuses are mentioned in the constitution. Thanks.

Oh, that's right, you can't.

 

[there4eyeM]

Does a fetus have a "soul"?

Does anybody?

Also.

Show me where the Constitution says "only persons with souls have a right to the protections of our laws."

Can you do that?

So, you understand where your honest answer would put you.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The point is, you are all for saving "The Children", unless they happen to be brown and don't have the right paperwork, then you are for throwing them into filthy concentration camps.

As is always the case when you bring up race, you're the only one who thinks that race has anything to do with it.

As always, you're trying to accuse me of racism, knowing damn well that you have no honest or rational basis for doing so, and in doing so, you only expose your own racism.

And really, your representation of my positions is, in almost every other possible way, wrong as well.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So by your logic, when a parent decides to not continue painful treatments that only delay the inevitable, the state needs to step in and take those children away from them?

No, that is not my position at all, nor is it one that any rational, honest person would extrapolate from the positions that I have expressed; nor is it even particularly relevant to the current discussion.

In my view, there is a very, very, very big difference between actively causing someone's death, and declining to take extraordinary measures to prevent a death that is inevitable.

That's... you know, sociopathic. Even for a Mormon, a whole religion of sociopaths.

You are the last person that should be accusing anyone else of sociopathy. Take the beam out of your own eye before you fuss about the mote that you think you see in anyone else's. I do not know that I've ever encountered any other alleged human being ever, in any context, that is more morally- and ethically vacuous than you are. I can think of few who even come close.

Fetuses aren't people under the eyes of the law. We aren't counting fetuses on the census. We only recognizes the person's begining [sic] of life as their birth day, not their conception date.

A lie does not become true, no matter how many times you repeat it. A human being does not become non-human, simply because you deny his humanity. Even if you can get others to believe you, and even if you can get government to enact laws and policies based on a lie, it remains just as much a lie as before. The black people that our ancestors abducted from Africa and brought over here to be used as farm animals were every bit as human as we are. So were the Jews and other untermenschen in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s. And so are every other group of people, throughout history, who were oppressed, abused, and murdered by others who denied their humanity.

You are no better than those oppressors. I dare say that many of them were probably better people than you are.

The thing is, you guys never gave a shit about the babies, this is always about putting women in their place.

That's a flat-out lie, and you know it. And again, it will remain so no matter how often you repeat it.

 

[Chuz Life]

Show me where the Constitution says "only persons with souls have a right to the protections of our laws."

Can you do that?

Show me where fetuses are mentioned in the constitution. Thanks.

Oh, that's right, you can't.

The Constitution says "all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws. "

That is about as inclusive a statement as one can make.

It is the very sentiment that lead to the fall of slavery, the fall of discriminatory laws against women (voting) and other covil rights violations.etc.

You can claim that the Constitution does not include persons (natural human beings) who are in the fetal stage of their life. However, your denials are going to eventually fail just as all the other denials failed too.

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws are a big part of that process.

We anxiously await your fucktarded attempts to challenge those laws.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

Does a fetus have a "soul"?

I know you weren't asking me but in my personal opinion yes a fetus has a soul. God knew us before we were born and so even at life's earliest stage that life was started by Him. The soul is not a science based or medically determined part of life. We all have a soul and we had that soul even before conception in my opinion.

 

[Chuz Life]

Does a fetus have a "soul"?

Does anybody?

Also.

Show me where the Constitution says "only persons with souls have a right to the protections of our laws."

Can you do that?

So, you understand where your honest answer would put you.

That is my honest answer.

There is no requirement for any person to have or to be able to prove they have a soul, for them to be recognized as a "person." This is evidenced by "persons" who in a prolonged vegetative state with severe brain injuries. (Still human beings and as such, still persons. )

So, all the pap about souls is nothing more than a red herring attempt to muddy the waters of the debate.