When is Pro-Life pro-life?

[Chuz Life]

If I were to connect your body to mine in such a way that you will DIE if that connection was broke before say, nine months....

Would you or would you not have a right to the use of my body for that time?

Depends, do YOU die if the connection is broken?

Would you or would you not have a right to maintain the connection, to keep yourself alive?

It's a simple yes or no answer.

No. Now answer my question: how would you enforce your sig law?

I already answered your question. Same way as all other rights are already being enforced today.

Good to know that you don't think you would have a right to the use of my body.... if I were to attach you in such a way that you will DIE if the connection was broken!

Hope you can appreciate how lawyers and judges would likely disagree with you on that, never the less.

It's a stupid premise that two adults would be tied together like that. Got anything realistic?

So are you saying that a woman who has an abortion under your sig law would be charged with murder?

Allegories are used to make a point. There is no requirement that an allegory must meet everyone's approval for the points to be made.

Try focusing more on the point being made and a little less on HOW it is made.

To answer your question about charging women who abort with MURDER?

I can't rule it out.

After all, if a total stranger can be charged with MURDER for killing her prenatal child (even accidentally) during a criminal act.... why should a woman who kills that same child intentionally be charged with anything less?

 

[Mudda]

Depends, do YOU die if the connection is broken?

Would you or would you not have a right to maintain the connection, to keep yourself alive?

It's a simple yes or no answer.

No. Now answer my question: how would you enforce your sig law?

I already answered your question. Same way as all other rights are already being enforced today.

Good to know that you don't think you would have a right to the use of my body.... if I were to attach you in such a way that you will DIE if the connection was broken!

Hope you can appreciate how lawyers and judges would likely disagree with you on that, never the less.

It's a stupid premise that two adults would be tied together like that. Got anything realistic?

So are you saying that a woman who has an abortion under your sig law would be charged with murder?

Allegories are used to make a point. There is no requirement that an allegory must meet everyone's approval for the points to be made.

Try focusing more on the point being made and a little less on HOW it is made.

To answer your question about charging women who abort with MURDER?

I can't rule it out.

After all, if a total stranger can be charged with MURDER for killing her prenatal child (even accidentally) during a criminal act.... why should a woman who kills that same child intentionally be charged with anything less?

The point being made is completely unrealistic, and suffers an EPIC FAIL!

As for charging women who have an abortion with murder, well, first of all, that's ridiculous, but also most women don't show that they're pregnant, so going to a doctor to have an abortion is covered under the doctor patient privilege, so nobody will ever find out. And even those who are showing, what happens between doctor and patient is private. So since that won't work, got anything else that will?

 

[Chuz Life]

The point being made is completely unrealistic, and suffers an EPIC FAIL!

In your idiotic opinion, that is.

I am an electronics technician, myself - and while it would be a crime to actually build such a device and try to use it to prove this point - I am completely confident that I could do so.

All it would take would be a locking mechanism, a timer set for nine months and mechanism that would kill the attached innocent person if or when anyone tries to break the connection before nine months.

All of the components to do something like that already exist.

As for charging women who have an abortion with murder, well, first of all, that's ridiculous, but also most women don't show that they're pregnant, so going to a doctor to have an abortion is covered under the doctor patient privilege, so nobody will ever find out. And even those who are showing, what happens between doctor and patient is private. So since that won't work, got anything else that will?

When personhood is established for children in the womb, elective abortions will be criminalized and any doctors who perform them illegally will be charged with MURDER.

This is consistent with our already existing fetal homicide laws. Those laws, for now, are making exceptions to keep abortions legal.

Remove that exception and what will you have left?

 

[Mudda]

The point being made is completely unrealistic, and suffers an EPIC FAIL!

In your idiotic opinion, that is.

I am an electronics technician an while it would be a crime to actually build such a device and try to use it to prove this point, I am completely confident that I could do so. All it would take would be a locking mechanism, a timer set for nine months and mechanism that would kill the attached innocent person if or when anyone tries to break the connection before nine months. All of the components to do something like that already exist.

As for charging women who have an abortion with murder, well, first of all, that's ridiculous, but also most women don't show that they're pregnant, so going to a doctor to have an abortion is covered under the doctor patient privilege, so nobody will ever find out. And even those who are showing, what happens between doctor and patient is private. So since that won't work, got anything else that will?

When personhood is established for children in the womb, elective abortions will be criminalized and any doctors who perform them illegally will be charged with MURDER.

This is consistent with our already existing fetal homicide laws. Those laws, for now, are making exceptions to keep abortions legal.

Remove that exception and what will you have left?

Your premise is still nonsense.

As for criminalizing abortion, there will always be doctors against that and who will keep their oath of doctor confidentiality. And rich people will always be able to go to Canada... so if anything, you'd be stuck with a bunch of poor babies that the mothers didn't want. Can they all stay at your house? Or do you just want to tell people how to live but don't want to help?

 

[Coyote]

If an unborn child is a person from conception you can not argue it's any less of a person or has fewer rights under some circumstances.

There is no need to do that.

You can not make an exception for anything but self defense if the mothers life is in danger. Yet you have said you support exceptions for rape and incest.

Again, all pregnancies present a threat to a woman's life. Did you miss that?

I'm not sure if you are deliberately obfuscating or not or we're just not understanding each other.

You can make an exception for the mother's life because every person is entitled to defend their own life. But you made a point of stating that people mistakenly assume pro-lifers don't make exceptions for rape and incest, and I therefore assumed you DO make that exception. Am I wrong?

Do you really think lawmakers will have a hard time seeing the differences between na risk like that which is "assumed" in a consensual act and one which is forced on an individual in a criminal act?

What did the person growing inside her do to deserve execution? Where are his Constitutional rights in this?

You argue from a standpoint of Constitutional rights, that is not going to allow for those exceptions.

Removing that body will kill it, without due process or any crime having been committed by it.

You already said it yourself. It all comes down to what is and what is not an act of self defense and reasonable belief.

A raped woman can reasonaonly believe that her life, health and well being is put in jeopardy by a pregnancy that is forced on her in a criminal act.

A woman who consents to and assumes those risks can not.

Lawmakers will eventually see that.

Mark my words.

So you are saying a person's Constitutional right to life can be taken away by a belief? Not by a medical determination of fact?

Where is due process in all this?

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

The topic of the thread is can you be pro-Life as in against abortion and also be pro-Death Penalty.

The topic of the thread has nothing to do with the Multiculturalism Tolerance or you're a Bigot Memo you're pushing:

"I gave-up expecting even the language of tolerance, love, and support for minorities"

The topic of the thread is how the term "Pro Life" might be confusing, for example, being Pro Birth and also Pro Death penalty.
I clarified the matter by pointing-out that Pro Birth people are usually concerned to stop women from getting an abortion and after the birth these fanatics are not heard of as they carry-on to harass other women and medical physicians.

All of that is a crock of shit of course.

Not to mention how pathetic it is to use the unfortunate conditions of one set of children to deny rights to others.... you are simply wrong. Because, we support all the same laws and protections for born children that we do those who you are now in denial of.

Your post tells me that you only see what you want to see. No matter though. We will keep pushing on despite you.

I simply find it appalling that religious fanatics would force a child in the Bible Belt to continue with a pregnancy after being raped by her father. Such laws are primitive.

There are a large number of people who do not support abortion who are not religious fanatics, some of them are atheists. So you ought to climb off that idiotic meme, the discussion should center around the extent to which we value life irregardless of religion. I am not entirely sure a child is in a position to make the best decision for herself vis-a-vis aborting her baby. Certainly it's not the baby's fault, the circumstances of the conception is not sufficient reason to arbitrarily decide to end the baby's life. There are women who had an abortion done and regret it later in life, so it shouldn't be that cut and dried. Either way it's a tough call, especially if the baby has passed the 24 week point where he/she may already be a viable person.

Forcing a woman who is the victim of rape to carry the rapists fetus to term is quite shocking.

"Forcing a woman who is the victim of rape to carry the rapists fetus to term is quite shocking."

The majority of people who are anti-Abortion do not support the extreme of in your words "forcing" a woman to carry a rapists baby to term and give birth to it.

I realise that you obviously have this strange obsession with thinking that the majority of people who are anti-Abortion make no exceptions.

I'll repeat it once again then.

I'm anti-Abortion with the exceptions of rape, incest and where the life of the Mother is concerned, I don't support abortion being used as a means of contraception that is murdering a child because it's an inconvenience.

Abortion on demand, getting pregnant and then saying you want an abortion because a baby isn't convenient and will mess up your career or lifestyle, that's using abortion as contraception.

If a woman doesn't want to become pregnant it's simple, use contraception, there are a variety of contraceptives that can be used, either use the contraception or keep her legs closed.

In the cases of rape, women who have been raped have a right not to suffer psychological damage and scarring by being forced to carry a rapists child for nine months and then give birth to it.

This is a very complex issue, that involves both physical trauma but more devastatingly enduring psychological trauma that could last for the rest of the womans life and also lead to suicidal tendency, so to avoid all of that it's imperative that if a woman is raped she is allowed the right for her own psychological well-being to have an abortion if she wishes to.

In the cases of incest, many of the same reasons as with rape, but also with the added complications of Inbreeding and the problems, specifically health issues with regard to the immune system that Interbred children suffer from.

In the cases where the life of the Mother is concerned, I fail to see how it's moral to allow a woman to die in order to save the foetus, sometimes the decision has to be to save the life of the Mother and most women can go on to have healthy pregnancies and thus more children, allowing the woman to die also doesn't allow that possibility of course.