By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

MrBubbles on 10 December 2008

wow...guys...when you are going to quote stuff like that please leave out some of the earlier quotes.



"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
Comrade Tovya on 10 December 2008
Jackson50 said:

A fetus does not have a right to be unharmed because it is a person. We only prohibit harm if the mother decides to carry the fetus full term. If that is the case, then the state has a compelling interest to ensure that the fetus is allowed to develop to the point of personhood.

 

Okay, but like I said, what constitutes "personhood" as you so eloquently put it?  If we are jumping back to the discussion as to when a baby can survive outside of the mother, then once again that has been proven to be more than two months sooner than Roe v Wade stipulated.

And if we'd like to dive back into the "but the 19 week old baby survived on a machine" subject, than what happens when a child is carried to term (a full 9.5 months/40 weeks) and the baby requires "a machine" to survive anyway.  Is it your assertion that it's still not a child because only the hospital staff is keeping such child alive?  I which case, the hospital could technically refuse care* to the child because it is not technically reached "personhood".

 

*As we all know, U.S. law prohibits a hospital from refusing care to an individual for ANY reason, which includes the inability to take care of the fiscal responsibility of the visit.

 



MarioKart:

Wii Code:

2278-0348-4368

1697-4391-7093-9431
XBOX LIVE: Comrade Tovya 2
PSN ID:

Comrade_Tovya
Jackson50 on 10 December 2008
Comrade Tovya said:Okay, but like I said, what constitutes "personhood" as you so eloquently put it?  

Birth. 

 



vlad321 on 10 December 2008
Comrade Tovya said:
vlad321 said:

 

Yes, while it is considered human, it is not considered alive upon the moment of conception. That is where people are at a standstill and until it is decided when the fetus can actually be considered truly alive there is no reason for us to force opinions onto others.

 

But, using such a moral compass, you are implying that a mother has the right to force her opinion/desire upon the fetus, even though everyone agrees that the fetus MAY VERY WELL BE an individual being at the moment of conception.

Would it not make more sense to prevent abortions until we can be sure that the rights of both the mother and child are not being trampled upon?  The assertion that since we do not know when to define the fetus as a seperate being means that it has no rights is hyprocrisy.   It's exactly the same as me accusing you of theft of my property, and you being imprisoned without trial, and being told that you will not be released until YOU prove that you are innocent.

The very framework of our contitution provides the safety net that a court will decide your fate prior to your sentencing.  But in the courtroom of the abortion clinic, the baby is sentenced to his eternal fate prior to a decision being made as to what rights it has.  The whole assertion that a being has no rights because we cannot define it is cruel.  A final definition of the term individual being should be defined prior to carrying out its death sentence, and not after the fact... because after the fact is too late.

More importantly, as I stated prior, why does a fetus have the right not to be harmed but it doesn't have right to life?  Are they not one in the same?

First of all I don't know who everyone is because I don't consider something not alive as a being to begin with, and neither do most of the people I talk to about this, when it becomes alive then it becomes a being with human rights, as of right now we do not know when that is. Without this generalization of individual being most of your following arguments fall apart. As for why we don't protect it just to make sure, that argument goes both ways. Why should we go so far as to endanger the wellbeing, and sometimes the very life, of a woman for something that is no more alive than the skin cells you are leaving on your keyboard as you type?

 



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Comrade Tovya on 10 December 2008

Okay guys, I have to get ready now, but I promise I will respond to each of you when I return.

Regardless of the fact we don't see eye-to-eye, the conversation has been fascinating none-the-less, so I'll continue it here in awhile! Talk to you guys later this afternoon, and hope each of your days goes well.



MarioKart:

Wii Code:

2278-0348-4368

1697-4391-7093-9431
XBOX LIVE: Comrade Tovya 2
PSN ID:

Comrade_Tovya
Around the Network
Rath on 10 December 2008
Comrade Tovya said:
Jackson50 said:

A fetus does not have a right to be unharmed because it is a person. We only prohibit harm if the mother decides to carry the fetus full term. If that is the case, then the state has a compelling interest to ensure that the fetus is allowed to develop to the point of personhood.

 

Okay, but like I said, what constitutes "personhood" as you so eloquently put it?  If we are jumping back to the discussion as to when a baby can survive outside of the mother, then once again that has been proven to be more than two months sooner than Roe v Wade stipulated.

And if we'd like to dive back into the "but the 19 week old baby survived on a machine" subject, than what happens when a child is carried to term (a full 9.5 months/40 weeks) and the baby requires "a machine" to survive anyway.  Is it your assertion that it's still not a child because only the hospital staff is keeping such child alive?  I which case, the hospital could technically refuse care* to the child because it is not technically reached "personhood".

 

*As we all know, U.S. law prohibits a hospital from refusing care to an individual for ANY reason, which includes the inability to take care of the fiscal responsibility of the visit.

 

Personhood is such a ridiculously contentious issue.

Some people believe that a baby does not become a person until it become self aware - which is around the age of two I think. Others believe it is when the fetus is viable outside the mothers womb. Others (including me) believe it is when brain activity starts. Others believe it is at conception.

The problem is there is no actual definition of a 'person', science can't help because it is a philisophical rather than scientific distinction.



halogamer1989 on 10 December 2008
MrBubbles said:
akuma587 said:
Why do pro-life people act like pro-choice people are pro-abortion? And why do they act like forcing everyone else to adopt the same behavior as you is the morally superior choice?

I think abortion is terrible. But that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. People should make the decision for themselves, just like whether or not they decide to have sex in the first place.

Some people find interracial marriages to be immoral, and find smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol to be immoral. The government is not a moral referee, and it is ironic that many people who think the government should be a moral referee are against government intervention in any other context.

We'll take halogamer for instance. He is against government sponsored healthcare and against "socialism," but he is for the government telling women how to control their bodies.

Why should the government get involved? Shouldn't we let "the market" or social education programs fix the problem? Its just unnecessary regulation on private behavior that the government should have no interest in whatsoever.

Why should the government give tax exemptions to churches? I find that morally offensive.

 

im sure he probably thinks that the military and police are good services though.  ones that (should) protect a countries citizens...even those who cant defend themselves... like the unborn.

This I have to answer with a Hoo-rah!!  You are damn skippy that the military and police forces are good services.  Without them you most likely would not be here today.  Ask anyone in the mil if it is political.  It is not--it is for the guy on your 6 and the guy on point.  They protect us and you should be grateful.  Now as for overuse of political power, etc, etc, you would cry for a military if a power came in a kicked the order around--don't even bring up Iraq as a comback.  Like the Joker said, "Introduce a little chaos."  That is when you find out whether you are a true lib or a true Repub.  Now, OT halogamer actually says that abortion is a murder and should only happen after rape and not in the third trimester.  Hipocritical, not in the least.



xtastemyvenom on 10 December 2008

Fetus's are anti-abortion.



My daughter is my world.


Jackson50 on 10 December 2008
halogamer1989 said:This I have to answer with a Hoo-rah!!  You are damn skippy that the military and police forces are good services.  Without them you most likely would not be here today.  Ask anyone in the mil if it is political.  It is not--it is for the guy on your 6 and the guy on point.  They protect us and you should be grateful.  Now as for overuse of political power, etc, etc, you would cry for a military if a power came in a kicked the order around--don't even bring up Iraq as a comback.  Like the Joker said, "Introduce a little chaos."  That is when you find out whether you are a true lib or a true Repub.  Now, OT halogamer actually says that abortion is a murder and should only happen after rape and not in the third trimester.  Hipocritical, not in the least.

You support murder...I find that interesting and disquieting.

 



RCTjunkie on 10 December 2008
Jackson50 said:
halogamer1989 said:This I have to answer with a Hoo-rah!!  You are damn skippy that the military and police forces are good services.  Without them you most likely would not be here today.  Ask anyone in the mil if it is political.  It is not--it is for the guy on your 6 and the guy on point.  They protect us and you should be grateful.  Now as for overuse of political power, etc, etc, you would cry for a military if a power came in a kicked the order around--don't even bring up Iraq as a comback.  Like the Joker said, "Introduce a little chaos."  That is when you find out whether you are a true lib or a true Repub.  Now, OT halogamer actually says that abortion is a murder and should only happen after rape and not in the third trimester.  Hipocritical, not in the least.

You support murder...I find that interesting and disquieting.

 

Murder is killing an innocent life. Killing is taking the life of someone attempting murder.

Halogamer does not support murder.



WHO IS JESUS REALLY?