The Top Three Reasons Why Liberals Hate Conservatives

[Rikurzhen]

Conservatives aren't telling people who they can marry. Homosexuals have always had the same right to marry as heterosexuals Rock Hudson was married , so too was Dr. Sally Ride. No one stopped them from marrying.

That is telling them who they can marry. "You can marry anyone you like...just so long as we approve"

No one had to give Rock Hudson approval to get married. No one had to give Dr. Sally Ride approval to get married.

You have no idea what I'm talking about? Well, here lemme help you out:

How Republicans Quietly Mandate Transvaginal Probes When They Think No One’s Paying Attention

Why are you linking to a hate site? Can you link me to a manufacturer's catalog so that I can see what a transviaginal probe looks like? I'm also curious about legislation mandateing all women be probed.

The second presumes that every man who has sex "decides to become a father".

You really should refrain from putting quotes around fabricated statements and then arguing against the strawman you've erected. It's offensive to people to have quotations attributed to them that they didn't make. Here's what I wrote:

Once men have sex, then they must accept the consequences which arise from their choice, so if the woman becomes pregnant, then the man will be a father.​

Here's the quote you fabricated and attributed to me:

"decides to become a father"​

There is a world of difference between deciding to have sex equating to deciding to be a father and deciding to have sex and accepting the risk that one will become a father. You understand this elementary logic, don't you? I'm talking about a decision that comes with possible consequences, not assured consequences.

Men and women face the same risk at the time they decide to have sex. They could conceive a child and they both know this when they decide to have sex. The man is bound by the outcome, he doesn't get a do-over. Are women children that they can't be held to equal standards when it comes to adult decisions to have sex?

Republicans fight for treating women equally and as adults.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Would you like to try again?

I don't need to try again. There are people today sitting on death row for murder because they murdered a fetus. Murder cannot be committed against a rock, nor a tree, nor a fish, nor earwax, nor a clump of tumor cells extracted from your arm, murder can only be committed against a person.

This means that we have a paradox which needs explaining. The personhood of a fetus doesn't change depending on who is murdering it, so in order to allow for murderers to be tried for their crime we have to engage in legal fiction such that murder committed by a mother and an abortion physician is not treated as murder while murder committed by Scott Peterson is treated as murder.

If Laci Peterson had had an abortion earlier on that day, the fetus would still be just as dead as when Scott Peterson had murdered it, so clearly nothing about the status of the fetus had changed, so if the fetus' status has not changed then the law is what has changed, pretending that abortion is not murder when the mother decides but is murder when the father decides.

I agree. We do have a paradox that needs correcting, which is why I am fully in favor of repealing every one of those stupid "unborn victims laws". they never should have been passed in the first place. They were simply back-door ways to try and give personhood to something that was never a person, in the name of giving "added protection" to pregnant women.

The laws were stupid when they were passed; and they remain stupid to this day.

So when then does a fetus become a person?

 

[JoeB131]

[

So when then does a fetus become a person?

Legally- when a birth certificate is issued.

 

[80zephyr]

You might have a point if these were true,but they are not,the only truth hear is the fact that the left will say anything to personally smear what they see as a threat,and anyone different is a threat.They do NOT practice what they preach.

Easy....convince people otherwise

Republicans are not a "white mans party" show why 90% white is not a white mans party. Explain why only six blacks have been elected to higher office by Republicans in the last 100 years

MONTGOMERY, Alabama --- The Alabama Republican Party says 11 black candidates are running in the GOP primary on June 3, and officials say that shows the party is making strides with African Americans.

State Republican Party Chairman Bill Armistead, who hired a full-time minority outreach director last year, said he thinks the GOP can build on the number.

“It’s by far the largest we’ve ever had,” Armistead said. “Is it where we want to be? No. We will have more in the future.”

Republicans hold every statewide office in Alabama and a majority in the Legislature, but none of those seats are held by black Republicans.

Joe Reed, longtime leader of the Alabama Democratic Conference, said blacks won’t move to the Republican Party on any significant scale because of GOP opposition to programs such as Obamacare, raising the minimum wage, extending long-term unemployment benefits and other “bread and butter” issues that Reed said help working families.
There are five black Republican candidates for the state House of Representatives, one for the Public Service Commission, two for sheriff, two for seats on county commissions and one for a county school board seat, according to Troy Towns, minority outreach director for the state GOP. Another black Republican is running in a special election to fill a vacant House seat in Birmingham to complete a current term..

Towns said there was only one black Republican in the 2010 primary and one in 2012. He thinks this year’s number is not a fluke, but a sign of things to come.

Eleven blacks on the ballot as Republicans in Alabama s June primary AL.com

But some experts say the small number of black Republicans in office could also emerge as major candidates. Unlike black Democrats, black Republicans tend to get elected in majority-white areas, meaning they often have a broader coalition of voters who have already supported them when they seek a higher office.

Obama aside blacks struggle to win major offices theGrio

I ask about blacks elected to higher office and you come back with state legislature

Higher office: Congressman, Senator, Governor, President

Republicans have elected SIX in the last 100 years and five have been Congressmen

And how many have white Democrats elected? Because of gerrymandering, I figure all the Dem blacks elected have been elected by other blacks.

Do you know of any mainly white areas that have elected black representation?

Mark

Who ever said black areas cannot elect a republican?

Nobody. What I want to know is that how can any liberal talk about including blacks, if they are not doing it in their own lives and districts?

If white liberals neither nominate or elect blacks where they live, I think that they are using the blacks to simply garner votes, and not to effect any real change.

Mark

 

[Rikurzhen]

[

So when then does a fetus become a person?

Legally- when a birth certificate is issued.

Fine. We can issue birth certificates at the end of the first month or when the test comes backs positive.

 

[JoeB131]

[

So when then does a fetus become a person?

Legally- when a birth certificate is issued.

Fine. We can issue birth certificates at the end of the first month or when the test comes backs positive.

Why should we do that?

How about this. The person who has the fetus inside of her is best positioned to determine whether to continue.

That actualy sounds- Reasonable.

 

[Rikurzhen]

[

So when then does a fetus become a person?

Legally- when a birth certificate is issued.

Fine. We can issue birth certificates at the end of the first month or when the test comes backs positive.

Why should we do that?

How about this. The person who has the fetus inside of her is best positioned to determine whether to continue.

That actualy sounds- Reasonable.

Why not instead go to the person who is paying to support the child gets to decide whether to kill it or not?

 

[Czernobog]

Conservatives aren't telling people who they can marry. Homosexuals have always had the same right to marry as heterosexuals Rock Hudson was married , so too was Dr. Sally Ride. No one stopped them from marrying.

That is telling them who they can marry. "You can marry anyone you like...just so long as we approve"

No one had to give Rock Hudson approval to get married. No one had to give Dr. Sally Ride approval to get married.

Sure they did. The approval was implicit. That's why as soon as homosexuals started marrying homosexuals, you totalitarians who think you have a right to tell people who they can, and can't marry ran off to your respective state houses as fast as your gay-hating legs would carry you, and rushed through changes to the marriage laws to include the phrase "between one man and one woman", because you couldn't stand that men, and women were marrying people that you didn't approve of.

You have no idea what I'm talking about? Well, here lemme help you out:

How Republicans Quietly Mandate Transvaginal Probes When They Think No One’s Paying Attention

Why are you linking to a hate site? Can you link me to a manufacturer's catalog so that I can see what a transviaginal probe looks like? I'm also curious about legislation mandateing all women be probed.

So, are you suggesting that the story was wrong? That what the story talked about didn't happen? If so, then by all means, offer the evidence refuting the story.

The second presumes that every man who has sex "decides to become a father".

You really should refrain from putting quotes around fabricated statements and then arguing against the strawman you've erected. It's offensive to people to have quotations attributed to them that they didn't make. Here's what I wrote:

Once men have sex, then they must accept the consequences which arise from their choice, so if the woman becomes pregnant, then the man will be a father.​

Here's the quote you fabricated and attributed to me:

"decides to become a father"​

​

Actually, I wasn't attributing the direct quote to you; I was attributing the attitude to you, and placed it in quotes to indicate that the attitude was not mine.

There is a world of difference between deciding to have sex equating to deciding to be a father and deciding to have sex and accepting the risk that one will become a father. You understand this elementary logic, don't you?

No, there really isn't. And, even if there were, your premise is still wrong. Most men, and women too, do not "accept the risk" of unwanted parenthood just because they have sex (yes, that one was a direct quote of yours). Not only do they not accept that risk, most people don't even consider it. I don't know anyone that goes out to dinner, and has the following conversation:

Man: Hey. I think you're hot.

Woman: hey. I think you're hot, too. Would you like to go home, and take the chance of an unwanted pregnancy, and risk spending the next 20 years raising a kid you never wanted?

Man: Why, yes. Yes I do. Let's go to your place, and try making babies all night long!​

I'm pretty sure that just doesn't happen. In fact, people use all forms of birth control to see that exactly that doesn't happen.

I'm talking about a decision that comes with possible consequences, not assured consequences.

But, you see, that's just it. Pregnancy is a possible consequence. Parenthood would only be a possible consequence if you fanatics were successful in stopping women from doing what they want with their own bodies.

Men and women face the same risk at the time they decide to have sex. They could conceive a child and they both know this when they decide to have sex. The man is bound by the outcome, he doesn't get a do-over. Are women children that they can't be held to equal standards when it comes to adult decisions to have sex?

No they don't. It's not the men that have to spend the next nine months turning into blimps, dealing with massive water retention, having their entire hormonal system go haywire, dealing with morning sickness, and all of the other side effects of pregnancy. It's not the man that has to force a 10 lb, foot-and-a-half ball of fury through a 26-inch hole for 2 to 8 hours. Hell, the man doesn't even have to stick around five minutes after he finds out the woman is pregnant. So, please do not insult our intelligence by suggesting that "Men and women face the same risk at the time they decide to have sex." Because they don't. Not even close.

 

[Czernobog]

Would you like to try again?

I don't need to try again. There are people today sitting on death row for murder because they murdered a fetus. Murder cannot be committed against a rock, nor a tree, nor a fish, nor earwax, nor a clump of tumor cells extracted from your arm, murder can only be committed against a person.

This means that we have a paradox which needs explaining. The personhood of a fetus doesn't change depending on who is murdering it, so in order to allow for murderers to be tried for their crime we have to engage in legal fiction such that murder committed by a mother and an abortion physician is not treated as murder while murder committed by Scott Peterson is treated as murder.

If Laci Peterson had had an abortion earlier on that day, the fetus would still be just as dead as when Scott Peterson had murdered it, so clearly nothing about the status of the fetus had changed, so if the fetus' status has not changed then the law is what has changed, pretending that abortion is not murder when the mother decides but is murder when the father decides.

I agree. We do have a paradox that needs correcting, which is why I am fully in favor of repealing every one of those stupid "unborn victims laws". they never should have been passed in the first place. They were simply back-door ways to try and give personhood to something that was never a person, in the name of giving "added protection" to pregnant women.

The laws were stupid when they were passed; and they remain stupid to this day.

So when then does a fetus become a person?

Well, since the definition of a person is "a human being regarded as an individual", which, in turn, is defined as "a single organism capable of independent existence", then a fetus becomes a person when the fetus is independently viable - between 21 to 28 weeks. This is also why even most reasonable Pro-Choice advocates, like myself, are not in favor of so-called "late term abortions", except in cases of health risk to the mother, rape, or incest.

 

[Czernobog]

[

So when then does a fetus become a person?

Legally- when a birth certificate is issued.

Fine. We can issue birth certificates at the end of the first month or when the test comes backs positive.

Not to my knowledge they can't, not that I actually agree with the whole "birth certificate" argument, as I already made clear. Care to cite a source to support that claim?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Sure they did. The approval was implicit. That's why as soon as homosexuals started marrying homosexuals

Rock Hudson was not denied the right to get married due to his status as a homosexual. There was no right for a heterosexual man to "marry" a man either.

Whatever is taking place between two men in such a ceremony is not marriage. Homosexuals weren't fighting for the right to get married, they've always had that right, what they were fighting for was to corrupt the meaning of marriage.

and rushed through changes to the marriage laws to include the phrase "between one man and one woman", because you couldn't stand that men, and women were marrying people that you didn't approve of.

No one needs to define what everyone understands. When a law defines a nation's border as running on the East side of a river which separates two countries, there is no need to define what constitutes a river. Later some liberals get it in their head that a river means a treeline and now normal people shake their head and go back to the legislation and define what constitutes a river.

So, are you suggesting that the story was wrong? That what the story talked about didn't happen? If so, then by all means, offer the evidence refuting the story.

I asked you if you could find a normal source because my skin crawls when I go to those hate-sites and have to read the mad ramblings of nutcases. Just find me a liberal mainstream media source and I can muster up the willpower to read that. No more hate-sites please.

Actually, I wasn't attributing the direct quote to you; I was attributing the attitude to you, and placed it in quotes to indicate that the attitude was not mine.

So you can't be man enough to admit that you're arguing against a strawman of your own creation, you need to come back with a second dose of justifying why you created a strawman. Why the fuck would I care about your motivations for creating a strawman argument in our discussion? Really, why would I care? I gave you my position, you ignored it, you made up a position and then you argued it. Why would you believe that I'd be interested in reading or responding to something you conjured up out of thin air and a vivid imagination?

No, there really isn't. And, even if there were, your premise is still wrong. Most men, and women too, do not "accept the risk" of unwanted parenthood just because they have sex (yes, that one was a direct quote of yours). Not only do they not accept that risk, most people don't even consider it.

Are you a woman by chance? I ask because every man KNOWS that if he gets a woman pregnant and he doesn't want to be a father but she wants to have the baby, that he has NO CHOICE but to be a father. Every man knows that if he seeks a pity party about his plight EVERYONE will tell him that he should have thought about this before he had sex, that that was the time to decide. Once he had sex, he was committed to living with the outcome that resulted.

The moment of decision happens when a man consents to sex.

[So, please do not insult our intelligence by suggesting that "Men and women face the same risk at the time they decide to have sex." Because they don't. Not even close.

I see that you have trouble with reading comprehension. The risk being referred to is the risk of conception. It's a binary choice - pregnant or not. The risk you're referring to is associated with pregnancy, not conception. The man doesn't face any risk from pregnancy because he can't get pregnant. With the risk of conception, the man is either a father at the moment of conception or he's not a father because no conception took place, and same with the woman, she is either a mother at the moment of conception or not a mother because no conception took place. Both men and women face the same risk when they decide to have sex.

To help you understand, let's look at this dynamic expressed in a different form. You and I are gambling. We gamble on the outcome of a flipped coin. We both face the same risk of losing a bet, 50% with a fair coin. We bet $100,000 on the outcome. I'm a billionaire and you're a 7-11 clerk. Your argument is that the risk is now changed because I have an easier time dealing with losing than you would dealing with losing. You see how this is irrelevant. We both made a decision to flip the coin while gambling on the outcome. Our risk is equal.

What you are talking about is the decision on whether to gamble. The woman has a tougher outcome if she loses. Most sensible people would say that poor people shouldn't gamble with billionaires and women should be more selective about who they sleep with because they have more to lose if they lose the bet.

What you're arguing for is to treat women like children, to give them a do-over, like when the billionaire wants to collect his debt and the kids says "Hey, I'm only 16 and I'm not responsible for my decisions, so the debt I voluntarily took on is now wiped away by my do-over."

 

[Rikurzhen]

[

So when then does a fetus become a person?

Legally- when a birth certificate is issued.

Fine. We can issue birth certificates at the end of the first month or when the test comes backs positive.

Not to my knowledge they can't, not that I actually agree with the whole "birth certificate" argument, as I already made clear. Care to cite a source to support that claim?

I don't need a source, I just made that definition up. It's a legal fiction, just like the legal fiction that Scott Peterson killing the fetus is murder but if Laci killed the fetus it wouldn't be murder.

Law can be used to make fictional things real.

 

[Ernie S.]

The OP seems to cover almost all the reasons Republicans are hated

But rather than trying to mitigate the damage, they just deny that it is true. More Republicans living in a fantasy bubble where everyone loves them

You might have a point if these were true,but they are not,the only truth hear is the fact that the left will say anything to personally smear what they see as a threat,and anyone different is a threat.They do NOT practice what they preach.

Easy....convince people otherwise

Republicans are not a "white mans party" show why 90% white is not a white mans party. Explain why only six blacks have been elected to higher office by Republicans in the last 100 years

MONTGOMERY, Alabama --- The Alabama Republican Party says 11 black candidates are running in the GOP primary on June 3, and officials say that shows the party is making strides with African Americans.

State Republican Party Chairman Bill Armistead, who hired a full-time minority outreach director last year, said he thinks the GOP can build on the number.

“It’s by far the largest we’ve ever had,” Armistead said. “Is it where we want to be? No. We will have more in the future.”

Republicans hold every statewide office in Alabama and a majority in the Legislature, but none of those seats are held by black Republicans.

Joe Reed, longtime leader of the Alabama Democratic Conference, said blacks won’t move to the Republican Party on any significant scale because of GOP opposition to programs such as Obamacare, raising the minimum wage, extending long-term unemployment benefits and other “bread and butter” issues that Reed said help working families.
There are five black Republican candidates for the state House of Representatives, one for the Public Service Commission, two for sheriff, two for seats on county commissions and one for a county school board seat, according to Troy Towns, minority outreach director for the state GOP. Another black Republican is running in a special election to fill a vacant House seat in Birmingham to complete a current term..

Towns said there was only one black Republican in the 2010 primary and one in 2012. He thinks this year’s number is not a fluke, but a sign of things to come.

Eleven blacks on the ballot as Republicans in Alabama s June primary AL.com

But some experts say the small number of black Republicans in office could also emerge as major candidates. Unlike black Democrats, black Republicans tend to get elected in majority-white areas, meaning they often have a broader coalition of voters who have already supported them when they seek a higher office.

Obama aside blacks struggle to win major offices theGrio

I ask about blacks elected to higher office and you come back with state legislature

Higher office: Congressman, Senator, Governor, President

Republicans have elected SIX in the last 100 years and five have been Congressmen

And the second quoted article explains why blacks as a rule. go no further than Congressman.

You really expect the GOP to nominate blacks just because they're black?

Hey guy! When 95% of blacks are Democrats, we don't have quite the bench you have.

BUT I'm happy to say that none of our few blacks think Guam is in danger of capsizing.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Would you like to try again?

I don't need to try again. There are people today sitting on death row for murder because they murdered a fetus. Murder cannot be committed against a rock, nor a tree, nor a fish, nor earwax, nor a clump of tumor cells extracted from your arm, murder can only be committed against a person.

This means that we have a paradox which needs explaining. The personhood of a fetus doesn't change depending on who is murdering it, so in order to allow for murderers to be tried for their crime we have to engage in legal fiction such that murder committed by a mother and an abortion physician is not treated as murder while murder committed by Scott Peterson is treated as murder.

If Laci Peterson had had an abortion earlier on that day, the fetus would still be just as dead as when Scott Peterson had murdered it, so clearly nothing about the status of the fetus had changed, so if the fetus' status has not changed then the law is what has changed, pretending that abortion is not murder when the mother decides but is murder when the father decides.

I agree. We do have a paradox that needs correcting, which is why I am fully in favor of repealing every one of those stupid "unborn victims laws". they never should have been passed in the first place. They were simply back-door ways to try and give personhood to something that was never a person, in the name of giving "added protection" to pregnant women.

The laws were stupid when they were passed; and they remain stupid to this day.

So when then does a fetus become a person?

Well, since the definition of a person is "a human being regarded as an individual", which, in turn, is defined as "a single organism capable of independent existence", then a fetus becomes a person when the fetus is independently viable - between 21 to 28 weeks. This is also why even most reasonable Pro-Choice advocates, like myself, are not in favor of so-called "late term abortions", except in cases of health risk to the mother, rape, or incest.

That's not a definition, that's one definition. Another definition is that a person arises at the moment of conception.

The problem for your definition is the one which comes from advancing neonatal technology. Viability is being pushed ever closer to conception. Eventually the two shall meet. Work is being done on artificial uterii, so at some point the debate is going to shift from abortion to fetal extraction. The women doesn't want to face the health issues related with pregnancy and so the fetus is extracted from her womb and she is therefore free of facing the health issues. Now she will be equal to the father, once the fetus has completed gestation in the artificial uterus it can be "birthed" and the woman will be responsible for her child, just like men are responsible for the children they conceive. It becomes much more difficult to justify killing the child simply because a woman doesn't want to be a mother. Men who don't want to be fathers have their reproductive freedom taken away from them - they're forced to be fathers against their will if that is the choice of the mother. Now women can be equal to men.

 

[Ernie S.]

Hey Our doors are open but those racist blacks choose to stay on the plantation. A 90% white party in a 74% white country is proof (according to you) that Republicans are racist, but you refuse to consider that blacks who voted 95% for barack obama might be racist.

Dismissed!

Yes.....and all those plantation analogies are sure to have blacks flocking to your party. Like a typical Republican, you blame blacks for not buying into your message without asking.......What is wrong with our message?

If they were any smarter than you, they would see the plantation analogy as valid.
Pre Civil War, blacks worked for their masters in return for meager food and shelter. 150 years later, they vote for the same people in return for SNAP and Section 8.
As long as they have full bellies and a roof over their head and maybe a free cell phone, they have no incentive to work hard at school and a career and remain happily at the plantation.

I LOVE it....Go with that

Tell blacks that they have it as bad as slaves did 150 years ago. That one always causes blacks to flock to the Republican Party

After you convince them they are in slavery, then you can tell them about all the great things Republicans have planned to make their lives better

We want them to go to work. We want them to self identify as Americans without the hyphen. We want them to prosper and be successful. We want them to be just as outraged by the government rewarding sloth as we are.

That's the plan. What's yours?

Give them free shit so they'll stay on the farm, right?

I told you I love your plan.......but they are not stupid
You will have to tell them about all the employment opportunities you will bring to their communities

Reminds me of the old saying
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day
Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime

Now, the problem with your plan is there are no fish in those neighborhoods

Graduate high school, stay out of trouble with the law and your job opportunities are endless. If there are no jobs in your neighborhood, it's likely that the businesses all moved away because of high crime, high taxes and a meager qualified labor pool. Make your neighborhoods attractive to business and businesses will come, but if I want to open a factory, I'm going to put it where I can get employees to come to work without fear of being mugged, where I won't be broken into every week and where I won't get burnt out when cops have to shoot a "gentle giant".

It's not my responsibility to fix your families. It's not my job to educate you. I don't force you to sell drugs or steal cars. Grow the fuck up and take responsibility for your actions and get the hell out of my wallet.

 

[Ernie S.]

The majority were and still are against the new Affordable Health Care Act
Majority of Americans Still Disapprove of Healthcare Law

The decline of the conservative Democrat - The Washington Post
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law

There is plenty of Data that supports the claim.
Conservative and moderate representation is declining in the Democrat party.

The problem is that all your link to the "Obamacare" stories demonstrate is that Republicans have done a better job of marketing their attacks, than Democrats have their defense. You see, you're right. Most Americans oppose health law but like provisions. When polled generically , without the name attached, the majority of Americans approve of the majority of the provisions within Obamacare. Just as an example, most Americans approved of the provision that provided for the expansion of medicare:

And this has proven true across the board. The one glaring exception being the Individual mandate. So, really, all these "Everyone hates Obamacare" polls demonstrate is how good the Republicans were at making the Affordable Care act all about that single provision, while getting the American Public to ignore every other provision in the act that they actually love.

Or maybe it is because of their own individual experiences with the new program and the 6 million who have lost their health care insurance that was very good for them as individuals.
Don't ignore the fact that Conservative Dems and moderates are on the decline within the parties representation.
The Dems are representing the Libs just like the Repubs are representing the conservatives. Both have gone too far left and too far right.

I would challenge that claim. The problem isn't that "Conservative" Dems are on the decline, the problem is that the Conservative Right has moved so far to the right, that those who were once considered "Conservative, and Moderate Democrats" are now perceived, from the current vantage point of the Right, as "extreme liberalism".

Just so we can see where you are coming from, name a couple conservative Democrats.

Jennifer Garrison of Ohio, Gwen Graham of Florida, and James Lee Witt of Arkansas, just to name a few

Now, on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being extreme left, rate obama, hillary clinton, John McCain, Allen West and yourself.

Obama: 3
Hillary: 5
McCain: -3
West: -10
Myself: 4

Thanks I did a bit of reading on Gwen Graham.

As to your ratings for the 5 I mentioned, Could you please re read my scale? Where did you get the -3 and -10 for McCain and West?

My ratings for the 4 and myself would be obama 2, hillary clinton 3 John McCain 5, my friend,Allen West 8 and me 9.

 

[2aguy]

This means that we have a paradox which needs explaining. The personhood of a fetus doesn't change depending on who is murdering it, so in order to allow for murderers to be tried for their crime we have to engage in legal fiction such that murder committed by a mother and an abortion physician is not treated as murder while murder committed by Scott Peterson is treated as murder.

Excellent point...

 

[rdean]

Would you like to try again?

I don't need to try again. There are people today sitting on death row for murder because they murdered a fetus. Murder cannot be committed against a rock, nor a tree, nor a fish, nor earwax, nor a clump of tumor cells extracted from your arm, murder can only be committed against a person.

This means that we have a paradox which needs explaining. The personhood of a fetus doesn't change depending on who is murdering it, so in order to allow for murderers to be tried for their crime we have to engage in legal fiction such that murder committed by a mother and an abortion physician is not treated as murder while murder committed by Scott Peterson is treated as murder.

If Laci Peterson had had an abortion earlier on that day, the fetus would still be just as dead as when Scott Peterson had murdered it, so clearly nothing about the status of the fetus had changed, so if the fetus' status has not changed then the law is what has changed, pretending that abortion is not murder when the mother decides but is murder when the father decides.

I agree. We do have a paradox that needs correcting, which is why I am fully in favor of repealing every one of those stupid "unborn victims laws". they never should have been passed in the first place. They were simply back-door ways to try and give personhood to something that was never a person, in the name of giving "added protection" to pregnant women.

The laws were stupid when they were passed; and they remain stupid to this day.

So when then does a fetus become a person?

I think when it becomes a "corporation".

 

[percysunshine]

.

A fetus becomes a person when it becomes a corporation?

Probably only in Delaware rdean.

.

 

[JoeB131]

[

So when then does a fetus become a person?

Legally- when a birth certificate is issued.

Fine. We can issue birth certificates at the end of the first month or when the test comes backs positive.

Why should we do that?

How about this. The person who has the fetus inside of her is best positioned to determine whether to continue.

That actualy sounds- Reasonable.

Why not instead go to the person who is paying to support the child gets to decide whether to kill it or not?

When it's growing in his body, he can have all the abortions he wants.