Quantcast
Live in Indiana? Give the gift of Abortion!

Forums - General Discussion - Live in Indiana? Give the gift of Abortion!

akuma587 said:
MrBubbles said:
Jackson50 said:

I see Akuma has provided some quality answers, so I will keep it concise. 

A woman is not guaranteed that right because a fetus is property. She is guaranteed that right because her right to privacy, which the court decided guaranteed a right to an abortion, supercedes a fetus' right to life up until a certain point. Also, simply because a fetus is viable does not mean it has an automatic right to life. It only means the state can restrict a woman's right to an abortion so long as her health is not threatened.  

That was poorly worded. What I meant is that the court ruled that a restriction on abortion violates a woman's right to privacy and, therefore, she has a right to terminate the pregnancy. A man's right to privacy is not violated by a restriction on abortion. Which right is violated? I cannot think of one. 

Science has disproven what? A baby is a baby? That makes no sense. I know science postulates that a fetus cannot feel pain until it is born. From what I can gather, the jolt that birth provides to a fetus is what truly marks its inclusion into the human species. 

 

no it doesnt...

MrBubbles, the expert neurophysiologist of VGChartz!

Hey MrBubbles, my uncle still has tactile perception on the left half of his body but he can't feel any sensation of warmth or cold on the left side of his body.  What is wrong with him?  What part of his nervous system has suffered an occlusion which has caused this loss of sensation?

 

aids

 



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Around the Network
akuma587 said:
appolose said:

This is a misrepresentation of the anti-abortionist's view.  We are not telling a woman how to control her body, we're claiming another body is involved; therefore, for us, abortion is an violation of the rights of another person.  Just as we think the government should prevent murders, so do we (in the supposition of fetus=full-rights human being) think abortion should be prevented.  The goverment is the moral referee in quite a few cases; if a fetus is indeed fully human, then the government certainly is obligated to intervene, just as it would do in "regular" instances of murder.

The crux of the argument is whether or not a fetus has the full rights as the rest of us, not over what control a woman has over her body.

 

Absolutely, you have pointed out the crux of the argument.  But you can't answer that question unless you answer the question of what rights a woman has over her body. 

Should a woman be prosecuted if she drinks alcohol while she is pregnant?  That injures the baby, but telling her she can't drink alchohol would violate one of her rights.  What if we found out carrots make babies much smarter if women eats them?  She is potentially injuring the baby by not eating carrots, so should she be prosecuted for that?  What if we found out that eating McDonald's all the time injures a baby?  Should we force pregnant women to not eat at McDonald's?

What if we find out that living in a polluted area injures an unborn child?  Should we prosecute a woman if she has a miscarriage because she lived in a polluted area? 

What if she knew that living in a polluted area would cause her to have a miscarriage but she never took any affirmative steps besides living in the same city she had always lived in that was already polluted?  Is that a crime?  How is that any different from voluntarily getting an abortion?  What if she moved to a polluted city because she knew it would cause a miscarriage?

What if we found out that grape juice causes spontaneous abortions?  What if a woman really likes grape juice and drank it on accident?  What if she drank the grape juice on purpose?  Is she a criminal?

The abortion issue can't be viewed in isolation of what are the child's rights, because it matters just as much what the woman's rights are in determining what the law recognizes

 

Would these situations apply any differently between two persons?  I mean, switching out "unborn child" with "another person" should make it clear when a woman's choices infringe upon another person's rights.  It certainly wouldn't be my right to blow other people up just because I like doing it, as might well apply with drinking duirng pregnancy (you like doing, but it is massively harming another person, thus you can't do it).

What if we found out that grape juice causes spontaneous abortions?  What if a woman really likes grape juice and drank it on accident?  What if she drank the grape juice on purpose?  Is she a criminal?

As would apply in any other situation, if accidental (and not negligent), she's not a criminal.  You can't drive drunk down the road because you might mow someone down.

 



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
akuma587 said:
Comrade Tovya said:

 

According to Roe v Wade, a woman is guaranteed the right to an abortion because the fetus is considered by that ruling to be property of the woman.

As for your assertion that the "state has a compelling interest to give precedence to the woman's right to privacy (which guarantees abortion) until the fetus is viable", there is no prior precedence that provides that right.  Never in the history of the courts prior to RvW was there ever a precedent that even remotely implied that a fetus was property of the woman nor has any prior ruling ever stated that the right to privacy and the right to an abortion were in anyway connected.

The RvW ruling stated that the definition of "viable" was the date at which a fetus has the ability to survive outside of the womb... in Miami back in Feb. 2007, a 19-week old baby was delivered and SURVIVED, which is far younger than Roe v Wade had originally stipulated as the earliest ability for a fetus to survive outside of the womb (they estimated it to be 28-weeks).

 

Now as for your comment that "A fetus does not violate a man's constitutional right"... what exactly does that mean?

If a woman chooses to keep the kid, and the father doesn't want to keep it... can he make the choice to abort the baby?  No.

But when it comes time to take financial responsibility for the child, is he forced under threat of jail time and/or wage garnishment to pay for the child he didn't want?

Yes.

If a woman chooses to abort the child, and the father wants to keep it... can he make the choice to raise the child himself?

No.

The woman can throw him the finger and drive down to the Planned Parenthood and have an abortion, no questions asked.

Therefore, a man's constitutional rights ARE violated, beacause although he by law is considered 50/50 in the raising of the child, he gets absolutely no say in whether or not the child lives or dies.

So here is how the Roe v Wade interpretation of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness":

A woman can choose what makes her happy, but a father and his child's fate are up to the mother to decide...?  And don't start that crap about a baby not being baby until it is born, because science has already disproven this long ago.  Liberals only care about science when it's convenient for their beliefs... but if it disproves them, screw you, they don't care.

So surviving because a machine keeps you alive counts as viable these days?  I think viable is better standard when we look at it as when a baby can survive outside the womb without any kind of medical intervention.

And as for your precedent argument, there are thousands of decisions that the Supreme Court and other courts make for which there are no true precedents.  Does that mean the courts should just say, "Aww hell, we give up, there is no precedent for that one." No!  That is the job of the courts, to solve tough legal problems.

And even if there are precedents, it doesn't mean they are GOOD precedents.  Plessy v. Fergusson which created the separate but equal doctrine was a precedent.  You still support that one?  Dred Scott v. Sandford says that the law recognizes that black people are property and not actual people.  You still support that one?

 

 

Hey just like old people in their 80s that just WON'T DIE!



Comrade Tovya said:
akuma587 said:

So surviving because a machine keeps you alive counts as viable these days?  I think viable is better standard when we look at it as when a baby can survive outside the womb without any kind of medical intervention.

And as for your precedent argument, there are thousands of decisions that the Supreme Court and other courts make for which there are no true precedents.  Does that mean the courts should just say, "Aww hell, we give up, there is no precedent for that one." No!  That is the job of the courts, to solve tough legal problems.

And even if there are precedents, it doesn't mean they are GOOD precedents.  Plessy v. Fergusson which created the separate but equal doctrine was a precedent.  You still support that one?  Dred Scott v. Sandford says that the law recognizes that black people are property and not actual people.  You still support that one?

 

 

Okay, I know you didn't think before you stated that, but what the hell, I'll entertain your statement...

When I was 6 years old, I came down with Reye's Syndrome... to say the least, it's a really nasty disease that to this day, doctors still don't know what causes it or how to heal someone who comes down with it.  It's pretty much the roll of a dice as to whether you live or die.

Anyway, here I am in 1984, dying in Cooks Children's Hospital.  No cure for the disease, and they honestly don't know what the hell to do with me.  Unfortunately for me, Reye's quickly progresses and before I know it, I am diagnosed with stage 5 Reye's Syndrome.  I slip into a comma, and my head gets the size of a watermelon (because my brain has swelled severly) and my liver has stopped funcitioning.

Long story short, the docs tell my parents that I'm as good as dead... they have me hooked up to all these breathing machines, etc etc, to keep me alive.

By medical definition, I'm only barely hanging onto life because of the machines I am hooked up to, and it's only a matter of time before my brain collapses.  Yeah, ugly picture.

1) Therefore, by your definition, since I was only "being kept alive by machines", I wasn't actually a living being?   I mean, that is what you said after all.

I can tell you right now, the entire time these machines were keeping me alive, I felt the pain of the pressure on my brain as it tried to expand beyond the limits of my skull... the pains in my midsection because my liver was not functioning properly were quite real.  The pain from every organ in my body trying to die didn't go away simply because I was connected to machines to live...

To this very day, my kidneys and liver don't work as well as I would like, but I am quite, uh, "VIABLE" as you would say.  Alive and kicking, and certainly a living being.

2) And let's not even dive into "do black people have rights?"  If you've even read half of what I've written thus far, I've made it quite clear that I am an equal right activist, even if it requires my fist to ensure those rights.  Besides, I'm 1/4 Native American, so you can be damn sure I'm all about civil rights.

3) The constitution does guarantee my rights as a native American, the rights of my African immigrant neighbors, my Mexican neighbors, and just as importantly, the 20 week unborn child that sits in my wife's womb as we speak.  That's what the consitution guarantees.. not the right for a woman to have sex, get pregnant and then abandon her responsibility to her child because it's inconvenient for her.

1) This is an easy one.  You were viable before you had the disease.  What I was talking about has nothing to do with the example you gave, since you were already able to fully survive outside the womb.  My argument was simply about where we draw the line.  What if in 100 years we can keep a baby alive and have it grow into a healthy human being after it has been out of a mother's womb for one day (which is theoretically possible since all the genetic information required for development is already there)?  Is it viable at one day old?  That's a bad standard, since it is based on medical technology (which can change over time).

2) I never claimed you were racist, and I never suggested you were anything but the most socially responsible and conscious human being in the world.  I was simply pointing out that your argument about precedents becomes ludicrious when taken to an extreme.

3) No, actually the Constitution by itself doesn't guarantee a lot of your rights, or at least not in a way that benefits you in any tangible way.  If someone discriminates against you and you want to sue them about it, the Constitution isn't going to do you a damn bit of good without some kind of statute on the books that gives you a cause of action (like the Fair Housing Act).  The Constitution may protect those rights, but without a statute to back it up in most cases that right is meaningless.  Someone can kill my entire family, but if there isn't a criminal statute on the books that says it is illegal, the Constitution isn't going to do me a damn bit of good.  Well, maybe unless I gave them some wicked papercuts with a copy of the Constitution!

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

appolose said:
akuma587 said:
appolose said:

This is a misrepresentation of the anti-abortionist's view.  We are not telling a woman how to control her body, we're claiming another body is involved; therefore, for us, abortion is an violation of the rights of another person.  Just as we think the government should prevent murders, so do we (in the supposition of fetus=full-rights human being) think abortion should be prevented.  The goverment is the moral referee in quite a few cases; if a fetus is indeed fully human, then the government certainly is obligated to intervene, just as it would do in "regular" instances of murder.

The crux of the argument is whether or not a fetus has the full rights as the rest of us, not over what control a woman has over her body.

 

Absolutely, you have pointed out the crux of the argument.  But you can't answer that question unless you answer the question of what rights a woman has over her body. 

Should a woman be prosecuted if she drinks alcohol while she is pregnant?  That injures the baby, but telling her she can't drink alchohol would violate one of her rights.  What if we found out carrots make babies much smarter if women eats them?  She is potentially injuring the baby by not eating carrots, so should she be prosecuted for that?  What if we found out that eating McDonald's all the time injures a baby?  Should we force pregnant women to not eat at McDonald's?

What if we find out that living in a polluted area injures an unborn child?  Should we prosecute a woman if she has a miscarriage because she lived in a polluted area? 

What if she knew that living in a polluted area would cause her to have a miscarriage but she never took any affirmative steps besides living in the same city she had always lived in that was already polluted?  Is that a crime?  How is that any different from voluntarily getting an abortion?  What if she moved to a polluted city because she knew it would cause a miscarriage?

What if we found out that grape juice causes spontaneous abortions?  What if a woman really likes grape juice and drank it on accident?  What if she drank the grape juice on purpose?  Is she a criminal?

The abortion issue can't be viewed in isolation of what are the child's rights, because it matters just as much what the woman's rights are in determining what the law recognizes

 

Would these situations apply any differently between two persons?  I mean, switching out "unborn child" with "another person" should make it clear when a woman's choices infringe upon another person's rights.  It certainly wouldn't be my right to blow other people up just because I like doing it, as might well apply with drinking duirng pregnancy (you like doing, but it is massively harming another person, thus you can't do it).

What if we found out that grape juice causes spontaneous abortions?  What if a woman really likes grape juice and drank it on accident?  What if she drank the grape juice on purpose?  Is she a criminal?

As would apply in any other situation, if accidental (and not negligent), she's not a criminal.  You can't drive drunk down the road because you might mow someone down.

 

An even better question is would they apply any differently under the law between a woman and her child as opposed to a woman and her fetus.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
MrBubbles said:no it doesnt...

That is what I used to believe, but most of the recent research I have read indicates that the consensus is moving in that direction. To start on the subject, read some of the research conducted by Dr. Stuart Derbyshire. 

 



Moongoddess256 said:
how is a guy killing a girl survival of the fittest? I wasn't implying suicide, but once again wtf? Aren't you in the hey don't kill the babies camp? Isn't that killing the baby?

 

That's why that part wasn't bolded.

You should explain your reasonings a little better.

Yes I am.

Of course it is, but when the woman is dumb enough to abort (read: kill) her kid while taking her own life, that is taking out 2 birds with one stone. A) she won't be dumb enough to spread her immoral ideas anymore and B) she won't have a kid that will believe the same thing.

 

Here is why abortion is a good thing:

All these people who abort their unborn children obviously can't raise them on the fact that abortion is a viable option thus forth they are not multiplying. They are killing off their own ideal so in a few generations we won't have to worry about this kind of crap.

And since people who are pro-life typically have kids, they teach their kids that pro-life is the right way to go and the idea spreads. So in a few generations, Roe V. Wade will be overruled and the pro-life activists will have won.

/thread.

 

 



Comrade Tovya said:The constitution does guarantee my rights as a native American, the rights of my African immigrant neighbors, my Mexican neighbors, and just as importantly, the 20 week unborn child that sits in my wife's womb as we speak.  That's what the consitution guarantees.. not the right for a woman to have sex, get pregnant and then abandon her responsibility to her child because it's inconvenient for her.

 

Have you read the Constitution before? If not, the 14th Amendment provides an answer to who receives constitutional rights: All persons born or naturalized in the United States. I think it is fairly clear that a fetus is neither born nor naturalized, and the SC ruled that a fetus should not receive the same constitutional rights as you and I.  



lol your morals have nothing to do with intelligence

You'd also be doing your camp a favor by not sounding like one of the nuts that are like YOU WANNA KILL BABIES? THEN MAYBE YOU'RE BETTER OFF DEAD.
It kinda makes you look like a bunch of nutters, kinda like how PETA makes vegetarians look bad by their extremism.



[2:08:58 am] Moongoddess256: being asian makes you naturally good at ddr
[2:09:22 am] gnizmo: its a weird genetic thing
[2:09:30 am] gnizmo: goes back to hunting giant crabs in feudal Japan

akuma587 said:
appolose said:
akuma587 said:
appolose said:

This is a misrepresentation of the anti-abortionist's view.  We are not telling a woman how to control her body, we're claiming another body is involved; therefore, for us, abortion is an violation of the rights of another person.  Just as we think the government should prevent murders, so do we (in the supposition of fetus=full-rights human being) think abortion should be prevented.  The goverment is the moral referee in quite a few cases; if a fetus is indeed fully human, then the government certainly is obligated to intervene, just as it would do in "regular" instances of murder.

The crux of the argument is whether or not a fetus has the full rights as the rest of us, not over what control a woman has over her body.

 

Absolutely, you have pointed out the crux of the argument.  But you can't answer that question unless you answer the question of what rights a woman has over her body. 

Should a woman be prosecuted if she drinks alcohol while she is pregnant?  That injures the baby, but telling her she can't drink alchohol would violate one of her rights.  What if we found out carrots make babies much smarter if women eats them?  She is potentially injuring the baby by not eating carrots, so should she be prosecuted for that?  What if we found out that eating McDonald's all the time injures a baby?  Should we force pregnant women to not eat at McDonald's?

What if we find out that living in a polluted area injures an unborn child?  Should we prosecute a woman if she has a miscarriage because she lived in a polluted area? 

What if she knew that living in a polluted area would cause her to have a miscarriage but she never took any affirmative steps besides living in the same city she had always lived in that was already polluted?  Is that a crime?  How is that any different from voluntarily getting an abortion?  What if she moved to a polluted city because she knew it would cause a miscarriage?

What if we found out that grape juice causes spontaneous abortions?  What if a woman really likes grape juice and drank it on accident?  What if she drank the grape juice on purpose?  Is she a criminal?

The abortion issue can't be viewed in isolation of what are the child's rights, because it matters just as much what the woman's rights are in determining what the law recognizes

 

Would these situations apply any differently between two persons?  I mean, switching out "unborn child" with "another person" should make it clear when a woman's choices infringe upon another person's rights.  It certainly wouldn't be my right to blow other people up just because I like doing it, as might well apply with drinking duirng pregnancy (you like doing, but it is massively harming another person, thus you can't do it).

What if we found out that grape juice causes spontaneous abortions?  What if a woman really likes grape juice and drank it on accident?  What if she drank the grape juice on purpose?  Is she a criminal?

As would apply in any other situation, if accidental (and not negligent), she's not a criminal.  You can't drive drunk down the road because you might mow someone down.

 

An even better question is would they apply any differently under the law between a woman and her child as opposed to a woman and her fetus.

 

Perhaps.  And in that case, you would agree the woman has no right to kill her child (or anything like that), and if a fetus is indeed a child, so too must it be treated as such.  That really returns to the crux of the argument.

 



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz