Hillary: Kill the brown babies or you get no aid

[93mkviii]

Fossten, I just want to clarify one thing. You're saying that the fetus has life that the host mother alone doesn't have the right to terminate. But I've got a simple...polar question. Can the fetus live without the host mother?

 

[fossten]

You stated that just because the baby has a "unique chromosomal structure", it can't be "part of the women's body". While there is evidence to support otherwise. Just because it has its own "unique chromosomal structure" doesn't mean it's not part of his/her body.

That wasn't the only point I made. You conveniently ignored the rest of my post.

Missed the point

No, I didn't. Your point was irrelevant.

What evidence?

Can't read? I've already stated it: Medical textbooks and the medical community, as well as documented cases where the mother's body tries to reject the baby. If I thought you really wanted to learn something about this I'd look it up for you, but at the moment I'm skeptical based on your tone, so I'm not inclined to do busywork on your behalf. You know how to use google, and you know how to look at both sides of the argument. Question is - are you openminded enough to do so? I doubt it.

Funny how the "discussion" has only been about pro-life vs pro-choice:shifty:

Yeah. Hilarious. So what? You still haven't addressed the topic.

 

[fossten]

Fossten, I just want to clarify one thing. You're saying that the fetus has life that the host mother alone doesn't have the right to terminate. But I've got a simple...polar question. Can the fetus live without the host mother?

Save your loaded, open-ended questions and make your point.

 

[Morbid Intentions]

don't give a :sh*t about African babies the same way I didn't give a sh*t about Haiti

JMO that makes other people cry a river and complain... which in turn makes me laugh

also... here ya go

YouTube- Iyaz Replay PARODY - Don't Be A Playa. Haiti ----- Rucka Rucka Ali

 

[PetesSweets86]

Hey Pete,

You think it's funny - here are some pics you might really get off on.

Fun, huh?

Want to keep going?

yummy. I'll get the BBQ and A1 steak sauce, you bring the babies :-D

I love stem cell research :-D

 

[PetesSweets86]

Hillary should just say "f*ck Africa" and give the Aid to Americans that need it. What about Katrina relieve that is still needed. The many jobless, homeless, and foodless families tragically scouraging around America. What about their relief?

 

[mark0101]

That wasn't the only point I made. You conveniently ignored the rest of my post.

Ok, now that the women body issue has been cleared up, lets move on.

That wasn't the only point I made. You conveniently ignored the rest of my post.


Can't read? I've already stated it: Medical textbooks and the medical community, as well as documented cases where the mother's body tries to reject the baby. If I thought you really wanted to learn something about this I'd look it up for you, but at the moment I'm skeptical based on your tone, so I'm not inclined to do busywork on your behalf. You know how to use google, and you know how to look at both sides of the argument. Question is - are you openminded enough to do so? I doubt it.

So one doctor means the whole medical community, I don't think so. Just because he believes life begins at conception does not make it true. Until we have the true definition from the scientific community defining LIFE, all we have are our own opinions and our morals. What you described here

"From the very moment of conception, the fetus contains all the genetic information that baby will have for the remainder of his or her lifetime. Any embryology book in any medical school will confirm that this human creation is a defined sex and is alive, complete, and growing"

Would not be the definition of life.

Again it is all an opinion on how you define life.

 

[PetesSweets86]

"Any Fetus that does not want to be aborted, please speak up now or forever hold your peace!!!"

 

[PetesSweets86]

lets put this in terms of business. If a company has shares that are divided and bought. THose whom control the largest shares pretty much have no say, which is why typically a business controls 51% or more shares to be able to control the business and have there say whereas if shares were all divided between whom bought, traded, sold, and earned them..then you are dealing with something like a credit union.

Now take a mother with a baby....a mother controls more shares of her body when the baby only controls a little. There is often a powerstruggle in which the baby or fetus will promote horomones to be able to get the mother to eat, be it things she does not want, does not like, or even just downing tons of carbs (since fetus needs to grow). But since the mother controls more shares of her body she is what is decided upon the company...hense calling for an abortion if needed.

 

[shagdrum]

Would not be the definition of life.

Any definition of life is entirely subjective.

I am really tired of all the self-righteous posturing about "protecting freedom" on this issue. If you can't out, specifically, where in the Constitution a freedom is protected that governmental prohibition of abortion would infringe upon, then you have no point.

The "freedom" that a "right to choose" protects is based purely on assertion. Any appeal to such freedom is rooted in ignorance and sophistry.

 

[foxpaws]

Any definition of life is entirely subjective.

I am really tired of all the self-righteous posturing about "protecting freedom" on this issue. If you can't out, specifically, where in the Constitution a freedom is protected that governmental prohibition of abortion would infringe upon, then you have no point.

The "freedom" that a "right to choose" protects is based purely on assertion. Any appeal to such freedom is rooted in ignorance and sophistry.

But, shag - I get to smoke, I get to drink, I get to do drugs, which could easily kill or maim the life I carry. I might be purposefully doing those to abort. Will the government control those as well?

I get to do almost any plastic surgery I want to with my body - until somehow 'life' gets interjected into the argument, then it is just a medical procedure. You have to define life for there to be infringement on freedoms. The constitution doesn't infringe on our personal medical choices.

Because until there is a definition within the constitution when 'life' starts - all we have to go by is 'born' as a defining moment when 'freedoms' and due process starts.

As far as the constitution goes, any pro-life argument is on weaker ground than pro-choice argument.

 

[shagdrum]

But, shag - I get to smoke, I get to drink, I get to do drugs, which could easily kill or maim the life I carry. I might be purposefully doing those to abort. Will the government control those as well?

I get to do almost any plastic surgery I want to with my body - until somehow 'life' gets interjected into the argument, then it is just a medical procedure. You have to define life for there to be infringement on freedoms. The constitution doesn't infringe on our personal medical choices.

Does any of that have anything to do with what I said?

As far as the constitution goes, any pro-life argument is on weaker ground than pro-choice argument.

Not so much. There is an actual right to life in the Constitution that can be pointed to. However there is absolutely NO right in the Constitution to justify the pro-choice position.

Don't confuse that for me saying that the Pro-Life position is Constitutionally grounded, because it isn't. However, the Pro-Life is on substantially stronger Constitutional grounds then the Pro-Choice position.

We have had this discussion before. You know better then the absurd assertions you are making.

 

[foxpaws]

Does any of that have anything to do with what I said?

Because - if you talk about rights within the womb, you start to get all over the rights of the mother. Drinking is a big one - she wants to drink - it is her 'right' to drink like a fish. It is proven that drinking harms the fetus, and can even cause abortions... what does the government do? It is a viable question shag - does the mother have to give up rights while she is an incubator?

This would reflect on the abortion issue. She very well could be removing the 'right to life' (if you believe life begins at conception or soon thereafter) from the fetus within her body. Does the government step in at that point - to protect the fetus? You would like the government to step in with the medical procedure, and deny it, what makes this different? Under the same argument they should also step in at this point - when the mother makes decisions that could kill the fetus. The government needs to protect that 'life' - in your argument - correct?

The government would try the mother for murder if she poured vodka down the throats of her children for months until they died... What is different with a fetus - if it is defined as 'life'?

Not so much. There is an actual right to life in the Constitution that can be pointed to. However there is absolutely NO right in the Constitution to justify the pro-choice position.

But, you have to define life - and right now - there is no definition of life in the constitution. So, you have to go by 'born' which is in the constitution. Until the fetus is defined as 'life', legally, within the constitution, it is a medical procedure.

Don't confuse that for me saying that the Pro-Life position is Constitutionally grounded, because it isn't. However, the Pro-Life is on substantially stronger Constitutional grounds then the Pro-Choice position.

So, why is pro-life's claim to the constitution strong than pro-choice? Once again - without the definition of life, it isn't. The constitution isn't subjective about this - it really clearly states 'born' as the beginning of rights - which include the right to life. How do you get around this shag?

We have had this discussion before. You know better then the absurd assertion you are making.

Yes we have, and you never, ever answered how you get around the whole 'rights begin at birth' equation in the constitution, without having a 'life begins at' definition within the constitution.

You need an amendment, and you know it. Without it, abortions will remain legal.

 

[shagdrum]

Foxy, your entire argument is premised on me actually arguing that the Constitution supports the pro-life position. That is not what I am arguing. In fact, I have asserted the exact opposite.

If you can't (or won't) grasp the distinctions I am making and the subtleties of what I am saying, then we have nothing to talk about.

 

[foxpaws]

Foxy, your entire argument is premised on me actually arguing that the Constitution supports the pro-life position. That is not what I am arguing. In fact, I have asserted the exact opposite.

If you can't (or won't) grasp the distinctions I am making and the subtleties of what I am saying, then we have nothing to talk about.

Ah - so, we really do have nothing to talk about, if it doesn't state specifically that we should do something, then we shouldn't. That is the argument you use for everything else regarding the constitution. No social programs, because they aren't provided for in the constitution. No regulatory programs other than contract law and to protect property rights, because it isn't in the constitution.

No banning of abortion, because it isn't in the constitution.

However - rather than circle the wagons once again - can't we really look at the first part of my discussion... this part...

Because - if you talk about rights within the womb, you start to get all over the rights of the mother. Drinking is a big one - she wants to drink - it is her 'right' to drink like a fish. It is proven that drinking harms the fetus, and can even cause abortions... what does the government do? It is a viable question shag - does the mother have to give up rights while she is an incubator?

This would reflect on the abortion issue. She very well could be removing the 'right to life' (if you believe life begins at conception or soon thereafter) from the fetus within her body. Does the government step in at that point - to protect the fetus? You would like the government to step in with the medical procedure, and deny it, what makes this different? Under the same argument they should also step in at this point - when the mother makes decisions that could kill the fetus. The government needs to protect that 'life' - in your argument - correct?

The government would try the mother for murder if she poured vodka down the throats of her children for months until they died... What is different with a fetus - if it is defined as 'life'?​

Let's just say that a 'life starts' amendment is voted in - because as I said, you know and I know that is the only way this gets resolved in 'pro-life's' favor, what happens in that scenario?

 

[shagdrum]

if it doesn't state specifically that we should do something, then we shouldn't. That is the argument you use for everything else regarding the constitution.

You are misrepresenting me. Again.

If the Constitution doesn't give the Federal Legislature, the Executive Branch, the courts or the states (depending on the context) the authority to do something, then for that entity to do so would be Unconstitutional. That does not speak to society in general, as you are grossly exaggerating it to say.

To take a very specific, context dependent argument and turn it into a broad generalization is to distort the argument. You are exaggerating and distorting what I say when you know better then that; you are misleading. Again.

 

[foxpaws]

You are misrepresenting me. Again.

If the Constitution doesn't give the Federal Legislature, the Executive Branch, the courts or the states (depending on the context) the authority to do something, then for that entity to do so would be Unconstitutional. That does not speak to society in general, as you are grossly exaggerating it to say.

To take a very specific, context dependent argument and turn it into a broad generalization is to distort the argument. You are exaggerating and distorting what I say when you know better then that; you are misleading. Again.

Shag - I am not misrepresenting you - I am trying to figure you out on this issue... to see why you have arrived at your conclusions.

So, where in the constitution does the Pro Life argument come out on top when pitted against Pro Choice, without defining life?

And - when you do define life - how does the mother as incubator scenario play out?

I am not trying to get at some great truth here shag - we aren't going to change one person's mind... I just want to play out some 'what ifs'...

 

[mmtphoto]

If a woman who is known to be pregnant is slain in an act of violence, isn't the perp charged with the death of the baby? Pro-lifers would like to have it both ways...

http://crime.about.com/od/issues/a/fetalhomicide.htm

In Missouri and 17 other states, the laws recognize a fetus as living at the time of conception. On April 1, 2004, President Bush signed into law the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, also known as "Laci and Conner's Law." The new law states that any "child in utero" is considered to be a legal victim if injured or killed during the commission of a federal crime of violence. The bills definition of "child in utero" is "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

Although this was a great victory for anti-abortion groups, they are still fighting to change the law in states that have remained inactive on this issue.

"The great majority of violent crimes are governed by state law, not federal law, so it is absolutely necessary for each state to also enact and enforce a comprehensive unborn victims law," explained Mary Spaulding Balch, NRLC state legislative director.

Veronica Jane Thornsbury

Kentucky is one of the latest states to recognize "fetal homicide" as a crime. Since February 2004, Kentucky law recognizes a crime of "fetal homicide" in the first, second, third, and fourth degrees. The law defines an "unborn child," as "a member of the species homo sapiens in utero from conception onward, without regard to age, health, or condition of dependency."

This came after the March 2001 tragedy involving 22-year-old Veronica Jane Thornsbury who was in labor and on her way to the hospital when a driver, under the influence of drugs, Charles Christopher Morris, 29, ran a red light and smashed into Thornsbury car and killed her. The fetus was stillborn.

The drugged driver was prosecuted on for the murder of both the mother and the fetus. However, because her baby was not born, state Court of Appeals overturned a guilty plea in the death of the fetus.

Judge John Miller was quoted as saying, at that time, "We view the born-alive rule as providing a cogent and well-defined legal criterion which has existed as common law in this commonwealth for more than half a century."

"I just don't think it's fair that people can sit up in their high place and decide she's not a baby," Teena Justice said as quoted by the Lexington Herald. "I saw my daughter's first child during an ultrasound when she was 7 months pregnant and he was sucking his thumb. How was something that's not a something sucking its thumb?"

Currently, 30 states recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances.

 

[shagdrum]

Pro-lifers would like to have it both ways...

How do you draw that conclusion from the story you cite?

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - I am not misrepresenting you - I am trying to figure you out on this issue... to see why you have arrived at your conclusions.

First, those options are not mutually exclusive.

Second, we have had this discussion before. You know what my position is and you know that you are misrepresenting it and misrepresenting me in pretending my position has not been clearly articulated on this forum before.

For someone who eschews "labels" you seem pretty determined to pigeonhole my position as some cliche stereotype. Can your talking points only confront what you (mis)understand the stereotypical conservative position to be?

So, where in the constitution does the Pro Life argument come out on top when pitted against Pro Choice, without defining life?

I have already answered this question. You are simply ignoring that. I am not going to waste time going 'round and 'round with you continuing to ignore my answers to your questions.

Stay classy.

 

[mmtphoto]

my mistake, I meant to say 'pro-choice' proponents would like to have it both ways, not 'pro-lifers'. Been a long day...

 

[FIND]

I can get to that later, but I am about to rush out the door.

However, here is another question; is respect for a Right to Life (as in Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness) a necessity in your view for a civil society?

Also, personally (not politically) are you "pro-choice" or "pro-life"? If you personally had to make the choice of weather or not to abort, which would you go with?

Personally I am against abortion. But I also support others rights to make that choice for themselves. Being pro-choice doesn't mean that everyone has to get abortions. I just respect the fact that people are capable of thinking for themselves and making moral decisions on their own. Therefore personally and politically speaking, I am pro-choice, I would just always choose not to be involved in abortion.

 

[fossten]

But, shag - I get to smoke, I get to drink, I get to do drugs, which could easily kill or maim the life I carry. I might be purposefully doing those to abort. Will the government control those as well?

I get to do almost any plastic surgery I want to with my body - until somehow 'life' gets interjected into the argument, then it is just a medical procedure. You have to define life for there to be infringement on freedoms. The constitution doesn't infringe on our personal medical choices.

Because until there is a definition within the constitution when 'life' starts - all we have to go by is 'born' as a defining moment when 'freedoms' and due process starts.

As far as the constitution goes, any pro-life argument is on weaker ground than pro-choice argument.

Do you believe that the fetus inside a woman's body is just a mass of lifeless tissue like Planned Parenthood preaches to its 'clients?' It's a yes or no question.

 

[FIND]

my mistake, I meant to say 'pro-choice' proponents would like to have it both ways, not 'pro-lifers'. Been a long day...

Not really..... they would like the choice to be in their own hands, not some criminals.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Quote,"Bob, you're using a lot of rhetoric about the soul without so much as a shred of evidence, no source, no cite, just your say so. I too have studied for years about the soul and what I've learned directly contradicts your entire statement. Why should I believe anything you're saying? "Quote.

If you need to see the sources for my information, you might try reading "the sprit's book" by Allan Kardec
You will be enlightened to what I belive to be the true facts once you read this book.
Also Raymond Moody's books on the subject are well read throughout the world.
Among them are, "Life after life", Life after death" just to name a couple.
The "Sprit's book" has a wealth of somewhat technical information, and I found myself reading the information presented a couple of times to completely gain a full understanding of the information.
I would be most interested in where you have benn getting your information that would have you belive my information is in direct conflict with what you have learned.
There are many opinions throughout the world regarding the soul. sprits, and the after life.
Many books have been written on these subjects, and some, just as some opinions of those suppossedly in the know leave an ambiguous , cloudy interpretation.
In one of Ray Monney's books, a couple of chapters deal with contacting those who have passed on, through voice recording.
I don't want to hijack this thread, and will be starting another dealing with this after life subject, but suffice to say, I followed those two chapters in Mr. Moody'y book closely, and have been involved heavily in these recording experimemts Mr Moddy spoke of, and I might ad, with much success.
Any way, by your feeling I am not correct in my dissitation regarding the soul, I can only state facts based on what I have read.
I do however strongly belive in the facts as stated, and I have physical, tangible evidence that when we leave this earth, it is never the end., and the soul is what dictates our lives on a daily basis.
Nothing happens in our lives that the soul within us is not responsible for.
I would strongly suggest you read the sprit's book.
Bob.