Abortion thread:11-14-05 14 yr old Pa. Girl Missing After Parents Slain - Update: Found

[zendari]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Women have a choice: to spread their legs!

(I support exceptions for rape & incest.)

I agree. There are obvious times when an abortion is necessary or understandable. When a women's life, or the child's, is in serious jeopardy, there is not reason to force her to have the child. Also, she never had the choice, such as in the cases quoted above, she should have that choice. However, if neither of these cases exist, it is not wrong to prohibit abortion. You are not taking away a right to choice, you are simply enforcing the consequences of a choice already made. Plus, you're not even requiring her to keep the child, she just has to give birth to it.

Sex is great. Personally, I like it quite a bit. However, sex is the mechanism for procreation. You don't strike a match if you don't want a fire. Does that mean every time you strike the match that it will catch fire? No. Doesn't always happen. However, the probability is pretty good. Why? Because it is a mechanism for creating fire. It is the same principle. If you decide to have sex, you must be aware of the fact that it could lead to having a child.

In conclusion, I will say this though. I personally do not vote for anti-abortion acts. There are very few cases where I feel the need for abortion exist, but I think that the need for abortion in those cases far exceeds the need to remove it all together. So until a reasonable law can be passed with exceptions (which will never happen), I'll continue to vote against anti-abortion acts. I am one of those apparent few Christian who feel that way, but as a Christian, I have faith that it will all get sorted out eventually.

Laws have been passed with all the exceptions you mention above. They were struck down.

But that right does not include the right to live at the coercive expense of another person's bodily integrity. That's why nobody can be forced to donate blood or organs for transplant.

There is no coercion. The mother chose to have the child.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Women have a choice: to spread their legs!

(I support exceptions for rape & incest.)

I agree. There are obvious times when an abortion is necessary or understandable. When a women's life, or the child's, is in serious jeopardy, there is not reason to force her to have the child. Also, she never had the choice, such as in the cases quoted above, she should have that choice. However, if neither of these cases exist, it is not wrong to prohibit abortion. You are not taking away a right to choice, you are simply enforcing the consequences of a choice already made. Plus, you're not even requiring her to keep the child, she just has to give birth to it.

Sex is great. Personally, I like it quite a bit. However, sex is the mechanism for procreation. You don't strike a match if you don't want a fire. Does that mean every time you strike the match that it will catch fire? No. Doesn't always happen. However, the probability is pretty good. Why? Because it is a mechanism for creating fire. It is the same principle. If you decide to have sex, you must be aware of the fact that it could lead to having a child.

In conclusion, I will say this though. I personally do not vote for anti-abortion acts. There are very few cases where I feel the need for abortion exist, but I think that the need for abortion in those cases far exceeds the need to remove it all together. So until a reasonable law can be passed with exceptions (which will never happen), I'll continue to vote against anti-abortion acts. I am one of those apparent few Christian who feel that way, but as a Christian, I have faith that it will all get sorted out eventually.

Laws have been passed with all the exceptions you mention above. They were struck down.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Every time they come up with a good idea like that it gets struck down, so I just don't think it'll ever happen/keep.

But that right does not include the right to live at the coercive expense of another person's bodily integrity. That's why nobody can be forced to donate blood or organs for transplant.

There is no coercion. The mother chose to have the child.

No big deal, but I didn't say that. Just letting you know.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Garth
Everyone quibbling over the question of whether or not a fetus should be entitled to the same rights as a person are missing one very important and glaring fact: no person, born or unborn, has the right to occupy another person's body against that person's will, to forcibly extract nutrients from that person's blood, and to inject that person's body with imbalancing hormones and waste. To deny a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy is tantamount to an entitlement of special rights to the fetus that no other person enjoys -- in clear violation of the equal protection clause.

I'll grant arguendo that the fetus is a person (though I don't believe it really is). So what? The mother owes it no duty. There is nothing that could be considered negligent about becoming pregnant. Nobody else's circumstance is affected for the worse, and abortion simply restores the status quo ante.

One would think that the right to life is the greatest right of all.

But that right does not include the right to live at the coercive expense of another person's bodily integrity. That's why nobody can be forced to donate blood or organs for transplant.

Really weak argument. Children sucking off the tit in your world lack rights to do this.

Newsflash, genius, in the real world, babies do not have a right to suckle their mothers if their mothers do not want them to. That is a fact. No law can compel a mother to breast feed her baby.

Donating organs has little to do with a human gestating in the womb.

It demonstrates another application of the relvant principle.

The human in the womb has no intelectual ability to respond to a womens wish to have them removed. Once removed the human doesnt have the capacity to live on its own.

Irrelevancies.

And one thing you forgot to mention. Unless it was rape, the women voluntarily chose to perform an act that got her pregnant.

Again, irrelevant. Consent to sex is not tantamount to consent to becoming and remaining pregnant. Waivers of the right to bodily integrity must be explicit.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Garth
Again, irrelevant. Consent to sex is not tantamount to consent to becoming and remaining pregnant. Waivers of the right to bodily integrity must be explicit.

So there should be two Laws?

One for consentual sex and the other for resulting pregnancy?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Garth
Again, irrelevant. Consent to sex is not tantamount to consent to becoming and remaining pregnant. Waivers of the right to bodily integrity must be explicit.

Consent to sex without contraception, however, is.

An uninterested father can be forced to pay child support for a kid he has no interest in. Parents can be held negligent if the child engages in dangerous behavior. So the parents do owe the child a duty indeed.

How do you feel about conjoined twins? Can 1 twin exile the other against his/her will because he/she doesn't want the other attached to the body?

 

[SagaLore]

What does pain have to do with it?

 

[dmcowen674]

Hillary Clinton voted no on Roberts because she said she knows that Roberts will overturn Womens' rights and Roe V Wade.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Garth

Again, irrelevant. Consent to sex is not tantamount to consent to becoming and remaining pregnant. Waivers of the right to bodily integrity must be explicit.

Having sex is how you become pregnant. If you consent to have sex, you consent to the fact that you may become pregnant. It is the exact same thing. You CAN NOT consent to one without the other. The absolute only 100% guaranteed way to prevent yourself from ever becoming pregnant is to never have sex (or to be a man 😉). Therefore, if you have sex, you must realize there is a possibility that you will become pregnant.

 

[Jmman]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: AntaresVI
Dave, I support much of the notion of stem cell research, but you cant's possibly be equating the ability to feel pain with humanity, can you?

You're right, humanity is much too painful.

Not quite as painful as your posts though.......😉



I doubt we will see Roe v Wade overturned anytime soon.....

 

[Ferocious]

heh, most Reps in power or elected wannabes do NOT want Roe V. Wade overturned.

That is a big battle cry for them every four years.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Garth

Again, irrelevant. Consent to sex is not tantamount to consent to becoming and remaining pregnant. Waivers of the right to bodily integrity must be explicit.

Having sex is how you become pregnant.

Not strictly, speaking, no. Implantation of the fertilized ovum into the uterine wall is how one becomes pregant. Sex is simply one of many means of delivering sperm -- a very small fraction of which result in viable pregancies.

If you consent to have sex, you consent to the fact that you may become pregnant.

Newsflash, Poindexter: "May become pregnant" <> "Being pregnant." The former does not entail the latter. That would be like claiming that all drivers consent to a wreck each and every time they step behind the wheel. After all, driving cars is how you get into wrecks, right? When you drive a car, you consent to the fact that you may be hit by another driver, right? So when you are hit by another driver, on what basis could you indemnify your assailant? Your consent is implicit, according to your reasoning.

Obviously, however, your reasoning is faulty.

It is the exact same thing. You CAN NOT consent to one without the other. The absolute only 100% guaranteed way to prevent yourself from ever becoming pregnant is to never have sex (or to be a man 😉). Therefore, if you have sex, you must realize there is a possibility that you will become pregnant.

Like I've said from the beginning, this is totally meaningless. Your entire argument rests on the equivocation of "accepting the risk of being pregnant" with "accepting being pregnant." As I showed, that runs in contravention to established legal principles.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Garth

Newsflash, Poindexter: "May become pregnant" <> "Being pregnant." The former does not entail the latter. That would be like claiming that all drivers consent to a wreck each and every time they step behind the wheel. After all, driving cars is how you get into wrecks, right? When you drive a car, you consent to the fact that you may be hit by another driver, right? So when you are hit by another driver, on what basis could you indemnify your assailant? Your consent is implicit, according to your reasoning.

First off, thanks for the compliment. Being called a "poindexter" implies that I am very intellegent, so thanks.

It would not be like claiming that all drivers consent to a wreck, but it would be claiming that all drivers consent to the possibility that they may get in a wreck when they drive. Hence the reason that people invented safety equipment. That doesn't guarantee that they'll be kept from harm if they get into a wreck, but it does try to reduce the risk. Same thing with sex. Safety equipment=contraceptives. They reduce the risk, but don't eliminate it all together.

If you want to drive a car, you have to be willing to accept the consequences/possibility that you may get into a wreck. If you want to have sex, you have to be willing to accept the consequences/possibility that you may get pregnant.

Obviously, however, your reasoning is faulty.

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

It is the exact same thing. You CAN NOT consent to one without the other. The absolute only 100% guaranteed way to prevent yourself from ever becoming pregnant is to never have sex (or to be a man 😉). Therefore, if you have sex, you must realize there is a possibility that you will become pregnant.

Like I've said from the beginning, this is totally meaningless. Your entire argument rests on the equivocation of "accepting the risk of being pregnant" with "accepting being pregnant." As I showed, that runs in contravention to established legal principles.

Actually, it has a lot of meaning. It's just that some people don't want to accept it. Accepting the consequences of your actions is not always an easy thing to do.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

It would not be like claiming that all drivers consent to a wreck, but it would be claiming that all drivers consent to the possibility that they may get in a wreck when they drive.

This is direct contradiction to the point you made previously. It is not a point of contention that people engaging in sexual intercourse assume the risk of possibly becoming pregnant. The point is that assuming this risk of a particular outcome is not the same as assuming full responsibility for the same outcome. This is beautifully illustrated by the fact that drivers do not automatically assume full responsibility for any wrecks they might encounter through the course of their normal driving.

Hence the reason that people invented safety equipment. That doesn't guarantee that they'll be kept from harm if they get into a wreck, but it does try to reduce the risk. Same thing with sex. Safety equipment=contraceptives. They reduce the risk, but don't eliminate it all together.

Next time, tell me something I don't know, genius. It would also help if your facts actually had pertinence to the topic at hand. This one obviously does not.

If you want to drive a car, you have to be willing to accept the consequences/possibility that you may get into a wreck.

But that doesn't mean you automatically owe a duty to a person that infringes upon your rights through the course of driving your car. Similarly, it doesn't mean that you owe a duty to another person that infringes upon your fundamental rights through the course of your having intercourse.

If you want to have sex, you have to be willing to accept the consequences/possibility that you may get pregnant.

It's obvious that you did not comprehend the full significance of my reply. Perhaps it would be best if you reserved your argumentative efforts for opponents that were more easily distracted by your ineptitude with regard to grasping the pertinent facts.

As I already demonstrated, accepting possibilities is not the same as accepting actualities. Still, you confuse the two despite my differentiation. Obviously, therefore, you lack the intellectual rigor to engage me effectively.

I suggest you take your amateur act to try to pawn it off on someone less seasoned. Nobody is going to buy your snake oil around here.

<snip>

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

It would not be like claiming that all drivers consent to a wreck, but it would be claiming that all drivers consent to the possibility that they may get in a wreck when they drive.

This is direct contradiction to the point you made previously. It is not a point of contention that people engaging in sexual intercourse assume the risk of possibly becoming pregnant. The point is that assuming this risk of a particular outcome is not the same as assuming full responsibility for the same outcome. This is beautifully illustrated by the fact that drivers do not automatically assume full responsibility for any wrecks they might encounter through the course of their normal driving.

Hence the reason that people invented safety equipment. That doesn't guarantee that they'll be kept from harm if they get into a wreck, but it does try to reduce the risk. Same thing with sex. Safety equipment=contraceptives. They reduce the risk, but don't eliminate it all together.

Next time, tell me something I don't know, genius. It would also help if your facts actually had pertinence to the topic at hand. This one obviously does not.

If you want to drive a car, you have to be willing to accept the consequences/possibility that you may get into a wreck.

But that doesn't mean you automatically owe a duty to a person that infringes upon your rights through the course of driving your car. Similarly, it doesn't mean that you owe a duty to another person that infringes upon your fundamental rights through the course of your having intercourse.

If you want to have sex, you have to be willing to accept the consequences/possibility that you may get pregnant.

It's obvious that you did not comprehend the full significance of my reply. Perhaps it would be best if you reserved your argumentative efforts for opponents that were more easily distracted by your ineptitude with regard to grasping the pertinent facts.

As I already demonstrated, accepting possibilities is not the same as accepting actualities. Still, you confuse the two despite my differentiation. Obviously, therefore, you lack the intellectual rigor to engage me effectively.

I suggest you take your amateur act to try to pawn it off on someone less seasoned. Nobody is going to buy your snake oil around here.

<snip>

Yeah, OK, whatever. Without abortion, accepting possibilities is exactly the same as accepting actualities. When you have the, oh what did you call it, "ineptitude" or "intellectual rigor", to understand/comprehend that, let me know. In the mean time, have fun slipping around in my "oil."

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

It would not be like claiming that all drivers consent to a wreck, but it would be claiming that all drivers consent to the possibility that they may get in a wreck when they drive.

This is direct contradiction to the point you made previously. It is not a point of contention that people engaging in sexual intercourse assume the risk of possibly becoming pregnant. The point is that assuming this risk of a particular outcome is not the same as assuming full responsibility for the same outcome. This is beautifully illustrated by the fact that drivers do not automatically assume full responsibility for any wrecks they might encounter through the course of their normal driving.

Different story. You can be not responsible for a wreck if the other driver is negligent.

Fortunately, we have a license to drive to keep the retards off the road. Maybe we need a license for sexual activity.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

what Republicans just don't understand is that Roe V. Wade will NEVER be overturned. it will stand for as long as America stands. one of the primary reasons is it is the single largest issue that divides conservatives/liberals today. republican politicians would be moronic to finally squash the issue. think about it, Republican president + republican congress + conservative SC and Roe V. Wade still stands. it's never going to happen, your better off teaching safe sex and abstinence. at least that way you can actually do something to prevent these abortions from happening.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
what Republicans just don't understand is that Roe V. Wade will NEVER be overturned. it will stand for as long as America stands. one of the primary reasons is it is the single largest issue that divides conservatives/liberals today. republican politicians would be moronic to finally squash the issue. think about it, Republican president + republican congress + liberal SC and Roe V. Wade still stands. it's never going to happen, your better off teaching safe sex and abstinence. at least that way you can actually do something to prevent these abortions from happening.

Bolded the relevant incorrect section. When did the Supreme Court become conservative?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Roe v. Wade was close to being overturned in 92', but Kennedy backed out. Now we have replaced Rehnquist, who led the charge in trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, with Roberts who will most likely uphold Roe v. Wade and not overturn it. And we replace O' Connor, who upheld Roe v. Wade, with possibly Alito who might overturn Roe v. Wade. Therefore, unless Roberts is willing to overturn Roe v. Wade, then it will stand as the law of the land. I fail to see how Republicans can get excited over this. If Roe v. Wade is not overturned now, it NEVER will be.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Roe v. Wade was close to being overturned in 92', but Kennedy backed out. Now we have replaced Rehnquist, who led the charge in trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, with Roberts who will most likely uphold Roe v. Wade and not overturn it. And we replace O' Connor, who upheld Roe v. Wade, with possibly Alito who might overturn Roe v. Wade. Therefore, unless Roberts is willing to overturn Roe v. Wade, then it will stand as the law of the land. I fail to see how Republicans can get excited over this. If Roe v. Wade is not overturned now, it NEVER will be.

Its not unreasonable to believe that Roberts responses were cleverly designed to limit democratic opposition. As long as he didn't come out and say he would or wouldn't uphold roe vs wade he had a much better chance of getting confirmed easily. All he said was that he recognized the precedent of Roe vs Wade. He clearly left room for making his own decision based on the exact case presented. Obviously, we won't know for sure till the case goes to the SC, but I I don't think the outcome is as certain as your making it out to be.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Roe v. Wade was close to being overturned in 92', but Kennedy backed out. Now we have replaced Rehnquist, who led the charge in trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, with Roberts who will most likely uphold Roe v. Wade and not overturn it. And we replace O' Connor, who upheld Roe v. Wade, with possibly Alito who might overturn Roe v. Wade. Therefore, unless Roberts is willing to overturn Roe v. Wade, then it will stand as the law of the land. I fail to see how Republicans can get excited over this. If Roe v. Wade is not overturned now, it NEVER will be.

Even with Roberts voting to over turn that still leaves it a 5-4 vote to keep it the way it is. And it's still a 5-4 Lib/Con balance to the court. So how is the court conservative again? If anything it's just more widely divided than before.

Conservative:
Roberts
Thomas
Scalia
Alito (if approved)

Liberal:
Ginsburg
Souter
Kennedy
Stevens
Breyer

 

[TheSlamma]

Why do repubs want no control over corporations but way too damn much control over human beings.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Roe v. Wade was close to being overturned in 92', but Kennedy backed out. Now we have replaced Rehnquist, who led the charge in trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, with Roberts who will most likely uphold Roe v. Wade and not overturn it. And we replace O' Connor, who upheld Roe v. Wade, with possibly Alito who might overturn Roe v. Wade. Therefore, unless Roberts is willing to overturn Roe v. Wade, then it will stand as the law of the land. I fail to see how Republicans can get excited over this. If Roe v. Wade is not overturned now, it NEVER will be.

Even with Roberts voting to over turn that still leaves it a 5-4 vote to keep it the way it is. And it's still a 5-4 Lib/Con balance to the court. So how is the court conservative again? If anything it's just more widely divided than before.

Conservative:
Roberts
Thomas
Scalia
Alito (if approved)

Liberal:
Ginsburg
Souter
Kennedy
Stevens
Breyer

Kennedy, is considered a swing vote. If anything, this makes the court a dead tie, with Kennedy becoming incredibly important.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Even with Roberts voting to over turn that still leaves it a 5-4 vote to keep it the way it is. And it's still a 5-4 Lib/Con balance to the court. So how is the court conservative again? If anything it's just more widely divided than before.

Conservative:
Roberts
Thomas
Scalia
Alito (if approved)

Liberal:
Ginsburg
Souter
Kennedy
Stevens
Breyer

Stevens and Ginsberg will no longer be on that list in a couple years.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Even with Roberts voting to over turn that still leaves it a 5-4 vote to keep it the way it is. And it's still a 5-4 Lib/Con balance to the court. So how is the court conservative again? If anything it's just more widely divided than before.

Conservative:
Roberts
Thomas
Scalia
Alito (if approved)

Liberal:
Ginsburg
Souter
Kennedy
Stevens
Breyer

Stevens and Ginsberg will no longer be on that list in a couple years.

So, the next president could be pivotal. Are they in bad health?

 

[dmcowen674]

I put this in here because all I could think of is the morality police are to blame for this in this Country.

This is squarely the Republicans fault:

11-14-2005 14 yr old Pa. Girl Missing After Parents Slain

LITITZ, Pa. - A 14-year-old girl was missing after her parents were shot to death in their home Sunday morning, and authorities issued an arrest warrant for an 18-year-old believed to be her boyfriend.

We think they're boyfriend and girlfriend," Seace said. "The young girl was out during the night, came home, and her parents confronted her. From what we understand, he came to the house."

Stephanie Mannon, a 16-year-old friend who had worked with Ludwig, said he and Kara had been seeing each other secretly.

"Their parents didn't approve of them being together" because of the age difference, she said. "It wasn't because he was a shady character, because he wasn't."