Louisiana House OK's Ban on Most Abortions

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Perhaps there is no CORRECT answer because life isn't a chalk line you can draw on the pavement...its a bit more complex then that, largely because we still do not understand what creates life...sure we understand the sperm fertilizes the egg and all that good stuff, but the inner workings of the whole process are still beyond our comprehension, to include its very origin.

However, we seem to be experts on how to destroy life.

This is probably the most reasonable response to the abortion topic I've ever heard.

You only think so because you're trying to reduce everything to 1.

You want 1 short definition of life, 1 sentence to explain its source, etc...

The only way to do that is through religious axiom.

Ok, by THAT standard, the definition of life is when fertilization happens.

Clones are not fertilized. So they're not alive? Dogs, on the other hand, are fertilized, but we kill them.

Criminals on death row are fully grown people and we kill them. And the fetuses that die from bad medical care due to our economic system are alive too. Are insurance companies murderers?

 

[GeNome]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Ah, so your definition of life is being able to think. So, that means anyone under about 4 months is fair game to slaughter at will then right?

Again, you can reject reality and substitute your own, but it doesnt change anything. "Life" is not defined as having logical thought, nor is "life" defined as being able to breathe on your own.

But whatever you need to tell yourself to justify killing babies is ok with me.

By your definition, plants, trees, animals, bugs, etc. would all fit under the umbrella. Heck, some of them can even think and breath for themselves! Why are we so cavalier about killing them then?

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Perhaps there is no CORRECT answer because life isn't a chalk line you can draw on the pavement...its a bit more complex then that, largely because we still do not understand what creates life...sure we understand the sperm fertilizes the egg and all that good stuff, but the inner workings of the whole process are still beyond our comprehension, to include its very origin.

However, we seem to be experts on how to destroy life.

This is probably the most reasonable response to the abortion topic I've ever heard.

You only think so because you're trying to reduce everything to 1.

You want 1 short definition of life, 1 sentence to explain its source, etc...

The only way to do that is through religious axiom.

I don't see you taking issue with the whole "life begins with the baby's first unassisted breath" statement. If that's not a reduction to 1, I don't know what is.

Again, consistency folks. It's all I'm asking for.

You don't have to be "religious" to give a sh*t about an unborn child. I don't concern myself with the whole "when does life begin". I KNOW I don't know the answer to that, so I err on the side of caution when it boils down to a matter of convencience for a would-be parent versus the inevitable life of a human being.

If you think I'm looking for a short, quick, packaged little anticdote to use, you're wrong. In fact, that's pretty much all I'm seeing from the pro-choicers.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: GeNome

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Ah, so your definition of life is being able to think. So, that means anyone under about 4 months is fair game to slaughter at will then right?

Again, you can reject reality and substitute your own, but it doesnt change anything. "Life" is not defined as having logical thought, nor is "life" defined as being able to breathe on your own.

But whatever you need to tell yourself to justify killing babies is ok with me.

By your definition, plants, trees, animals, bugs, etc. would all fit under the umbrella. Heck, some of them can even think and breath for themselves! Why are we so cavalier about killing them then?

Uhhh, they DO fall under that umbrella.
Go ask your science teacher if a tree is a living organism. Go ask your science teacher if a bug is alive.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Perhaps there is no CORRECT answer because life isn't a chalk line you can draw on the pavement...its a bit more complex then that, largely because we still do not understand what creates life...sure we understand the sperm fertilizes the egg and all that good stuff, but the inner workings of the whole process are still beyond our comprehension, to include its very origin.

However, we seem to be experts on how to destroy life.

This is probably the most reasonable response to the abortion topic I've ever heard.

You only think so because you're trying to reduce everything to 1.

You want 1 short definition of life, 1 sentence to explain its source, etc...

The only way to do that is through religious axiom.

I don't see you taking issue with the whole "life begins with the baby's first unassisted breath" statement. If that's not a reduction to 1, I don't know what is.

Again, consistency folks. It's all I'm asking for.

You don't have to be "religious" to give a sh*t about an unborn child. I don't concern myself with the whole "when does life begin". I KNOW I don't know the answer to that, so I err on the side of caution when it boils down to a matter of convencience for a would-be parent versus the inevitable life of a human being.

If you think I'm looking for a short, quick, packaged little anticdote to use, you're wrong. In fact, that's pretty much all I'm seeing from the pro-choicers.

The rights of someone who has been alive for a multiple years, established and is making choices in there life, to the rights of a bunch of cells the outcome of which is not known. That is what it comes down too.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Two different types of cells living within the body of a host. Same thing.

It's the "same thing" because that's where YOU chose to end the comparison. The analogies you're trying to attempt here are ludicrous. You're simply twisting and contorting them to whatever shape you need to make your point.

Comparing human life to cancer, a flu virus, or the common cold?

Come on man...

 

[RichardE]

nvm

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Perhaps there is no CORRECT answer because life isn't a chalk line you can draw on the pavement...its a bit more complex then that, largely because we still do not understand what creates life...sure we understand the sperm fertilizes the egg and all that good stuff, but the inner workings of the whole process are still beyond our comprehension, to include its very origin.

However, we seem to be experts on how to destroy life.

This is probably the most reasonable response to the abortion topic I've ever heard.

You only think so because you're trying to reduce everything to 1.

You want 1 short definition of life, 1 sentence to explain its source, etc...

The only way to do that is through religious axiom.

I don't see you taking issue with the whole "life begins with the baby's first unassisted breath" statement. If that's not a reduction to 1, I don't know what is.

Again, consistency folks. It's all I'm asking for.

You don't have to be "religious" to give a sh*t about an unborn child. I don't concern myself with the whole "when does life begin". I KNOW I don't know the answer to that, so I err on the side of caution when it boils down to a matter of convencience for a would-be parent versus the inevitable life of a human being.

If you think I'm looking for a short, quick, packaged little anticdote to use, you're wrong. In fact, that's pretty much all I'm seeing from the pro-choicers.

The rights of someone who has been alive for a multiple years, established and is making choices in there life, to the rights of a bunch of cells the outcome of which is not known. That is what it comes down too.

... still not addressing 4 month old babies, babies on ventillators, and the bad "quality of life" in Africa...

 

[GeNome]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: GeNome

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Ah, so your definition of life is being able to think. So, that means anyone under about 4 months is fair game to slaughter at will then right?

Again, you can reject reality and substitute your own, but it doesnt change anything. "Life" is not defined as having logical thought, nor is "life" defined as being able to breathe on your own.

But whatever you need to tell yourself to justify killing babies is ok with me.

By your definition, plants, trees, animals, bugs, etc. would all fit under the umbrella. Heck, some of them can even think and breath for themselves! Why are we so cavalier about killing them then?

Uhhh, they DO fall under that umbrella.
Go ask your science teacher if a tree is a living organism. Go ask your science teacher if a bug is alive.

I am aware of that. But you didn't answer my question: How are they less important? Just because we can't communicate with them? Don't get me wrong, if I had to choose between a human and a bug, I'd choose the human. I'm just trying to understand your logic.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: GeNome
Don't get me wrong, if I had to choose between a human and a bug, I'd choose the human. I'm just trying to understand your logic.

By the same token, we're trying to understand the logic of 'if I had to choose between a serial murderer and an unborn baby, I'd choose the murderer'.

I'm not trying to flame with that statement; it's honestly something I'm trying to understand.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: GeNome
Don't get me wrong, if I had to choose between a human and a bug, I'd choose the human. I'm just trying to understand your logic.

By the same token, we're trying to understand the logic of 'if I had to choose between a serial murderer and an unborn baby, I'd choose the murderer'.

I'm not trying to flame with that statement; it's honestly something I'm trying to understand.

I thought the value of life was absolute to you... and here you are ALREADY making a judgement as to who deserves to live.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: zendari
Text

BATON ROUGE, La. ? The Louisiana House approved a ban on most abortions, a largely symbolic bill that could go into effect only if the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 1973 decision is overturned.

The measure would allow abortion in cases when the woman's life is in danger or childbirth would permanently harm her health. The bill passed 85-17 and heads to the Senate.

It could take effect only under two circumstances: if the U.S. Constitution is amended to allow states to ban abortion; or if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down its own Roe v. Wade ruling, which provided for a woman's right to an abortion.

The bill is similar to a South Dakota law passed this year that is expected to land before the high court.

Passage of the Louisiana bill was not in doubt; the fight centered on whether to allow exceptions for rape and incest victims. The amendment failed after opponents argued that the bill should prevent as many abortions as possible.

Under the bill, doctors found guilty of performing abortions would face up to 10 years in prison and fines of $100,000.

Gov. Kathleen Blanco, who campaigned as an anti-abortion candidate, has not said whether she would support such a strict ban.


Round 2. There are probably plenty of other states where the will of the people through the legislatures would pass similar statutes.

why are you opposed to polygamy when you think it's perfectly rational for a 13yr old girl to have her father's baby? That makes you a sicko. Abortion should be allowed for the following reasons, mothers life in danger, rape, and incestuous pregnancy.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Rejecting reality and substituting your own I see.......

You can try to justify it however you want, at the end of the day you support killing babies.

You can repeat it as many times as you wish. It's not going to make it true. A zygote is not a baby... a morula is not a baby... a blastula is not a baby... and neither is the embryo. We call people who are brain-dead vegetables, but you call something without a brain a human.

Can we shoot "vegetables" the way we shoot deer?

 

[GeNome]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: GeNome
Don't get me wrong, if I had to choose between a human and a bug, I'd choose the human. I'm just trying to understand your logic.

By the same token, we're trying to understand the logic of 'if I had to choose between a serial murderer and an unborn baby, I'd choose the murderer'.

I'm not trying to flame with that statement; it's honestly something I'm trying to understand.

Actually, I totally agree with you there. For me, the baby wins. I don't defend the rights of serial killers..they're just screwed up individuals IMO. So if someone here is suggesting that a serial killer is more important than an unborn, please explain your logic. But I don't see anyone doing that. 😉

Edit: I suppose it could be pointed out that I do support the serial killer, since I said that if people care about the existence of an individual, it's not the same as an unborn. The exception to the rule, possibly? Or I'm just too tired right now...

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: GeNome
Don't get me wrong, if I had to choose between a human and a bug, I'd choose the human. I'm just trying to understand your logic.

By the same token, we're trying to understand the logic of 'if I had to choose between a serial murderer and an unborn baby, I'd choose the murderer'.

I'm not trying to flame with that statement; it's honestly something I'm trying to understand.

I thought the value of life was absolute to you... and here you are ALREADY making a judgement as to who deserves to live.

It IS absolute to me. I've already stated that I don't believe in the Death Penalty. What I'm trying to come to terms with is the fact that there are people out there with, what seems to me, a pretty f'ed up sense of priorities. I mean, if you're going to start making exceptions for murder, I find it interesting that it's the violent criminals some of you choose to protect.

If I had it my way, neither would be an issue... but that's not the way it is, is it?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Rejecting reality and substituting your own I see.......

You can try to justify it however you want, at the end of the day you support killing babies.

You can repeat it as many times as you wish. It's not going to make it true. A zygote is not a baby... a morula is not a baby... a blastula is not a baby... and neither is the embryo. We call people who are brain-dead vegetables, but you call something without a brain a human.

Can we shoot "vegetables" the way we shoot deer?

These people have guardians who are responsible for their "lives", whose choice it is. Just like you'd go to prison for shooting a deer that belonged to somebody, you'd go to prison for shooting a brain-dead human too.

Not to mention the fact that I have a bit of a problem with people who kill for pleasure.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: zendari
Can we shoot "vegetables" the way we shoot deer?

These people have guardians who are responsible for their "lives", whose choice it is. Just like you'd go to prison for shooting a deer that belonged to somebody, you'd go to prison for shooting a brain-dead human too.

Not to mention the fact that I have a bit of a problem with people who kill for pleasure.

So can the guardian do the shooting? AFAIK theres nothing wrong with shooting your own deer.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: GeNome
if someone here is suggesting that a serial killer is more important than an unborn, please explain your logic. But I don't see anyone doing that. 😉

Originally posted by: RichardE
The rights of someone who has been alive for a multiple years, established and is making choices in there life, to the rights of a bunch of cells the outcome of which is not known. That is what it comes down too.

What he's basicaly saying is that we should be more interested in preserving the rights of violent criminals over those of the unborn. The idea is that the unborn is not deserving of any rights because they're not a breathing, thinking, walking individual yet.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: GeNome
Don't get me wrong, if I had to choose between a human and a bug, I'd choose the human. I'm just trying to understand your logic.

By the same token, we're trying to understand the logic of 'if I had to choose between a serial murderer and an unborn baby, I'd choose the murderer'.

I'm not trying to flame with that statement; it's honestly something I'm trying to understand.

I thought the value of life was absolute to you... and here you are ALREADY making a judgement as to who deserves to live.

It IS absolute to me. I've already stated that I don't believe in the Death Penalty. What I'm trying to come to terms with is the fact that there are people out there with, what seems to me, a pretty f'ed up sense of priorities. I mean, if you're going to start making exceptions for murder, I find it interesting that it's the violent criminals some of you choose to protect.

If I had it my way, neither would be an issue... but that's not the way it is, is it?

But abortion isn't absolute too.

What about a fetus affected with a horrific condition that will ensure it has no brain functions, and will make life hell for it and its parents FOR EVER. Do you still its life is more important than the lives of the people who will be ruined emotionally, physically, and financially?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: zendari
Can we shoot "vegetables" the way we shoot deer?

These people have guardians who are responsible for their "lives", whose choice it is. Just like you'd go to prison for shooting a deer that belonged to somebody, you'd go to prison for shooting a brain-dead human too.

Not to mention the fact that I have a bit of a problem with people who kill for pleasure.

So can the guardian do the shooting? AFAIK theres nothing wrong with shooting your own deer.

They pull the plug, don't they... It's just unseemly, but totally equivalent.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Perhaps there is no CORRECT answer because life isn't a chalk line you can draw on the pavement...its a bit more complex then that, largely because we still do not understand what creates life...sure we understand the sperm fertilizes the egg and all that good stuff, but the inner workings of the whole process are still beyond our comprehension, to include its very origin.

However, we seem to be experts on how to destroy life.

This is probably the most reasonable response to the abortion topic I've ever heard.

You only think so because you're trying to reduce everything to 1.

You want 1 short definition of life, 1 sentence to explain its source, etc...

The only way to do that is through religious axiom.

I don't see you taking issue with the whole "life begins with the baby's first unassisted breath" statement. If that's not a reduction to 1, I don't know what is.

Again, consistency folks. It's all I'm asking for.

You don't have to be "religious" to give a sh*t about an unborn child. I don't concern myself with the whole "when does life begin". I KNOW I don't know the answer to that, so I err on the side of caution when it boils down to a matter of convencience for a would-be parent versus the inevitable life of a human being.

If you think I'm looking for a short, quick, packaged little anticdote to use, you're wrong. In fact, that's pretty much all I'm seeing from the pro-choicers.

The rights of someone who has been alive for a multiple years, established and is making choices in there life, to the rights of a bunch of cells the outcome of which is not known. That is what it comes down too.

... still not addressing 4 month old babies, babies on ventillators, and the bad "quality of life" in Africa...

Easy, those mothers made the choice to keep the pregnancy going.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: GeNome
Don't get me wrong, if I had to choose between a human and a bug, I'd choose the human. I'm just trying to understand your logic.

By the same token, we're trying to understand the logic of 'if I had to choose between a serial murderer and an unborn baby, I'd choose the murderer'.

I'm not trying to flame with that statement; it's honestly something I'm trying to understand.

I thought the value of life was absolute to you... and here you are ALREADY making a judgement as to who deserves to live.

It IS absolute to me. I've already stated that I don't believe in the Death Penalty. What I'm trying to come to terms with is the fact that there are people out there with, what seems to me, a pretty f'ed up sense of priorities. I mean, if you're going to start making exceptions for murder, I find it interesting that it's the violent criminals some of you choose to protect.

If I had it my way, neither would be an issue... but that's not the way it is, is it?

But abortion isn't absolute too.

What about a fetus affected with a horrific condition that will ensure it has no brain functions, and will make life hell for it and its parents FOR EVER. Do you still its life is more important than the lives of the people who will be ruined emotionally, physically, and financially?

I do feel there should be exceptions to the rule, and honestly, if that's something you want to get into then I'm not really interested. Quite frankly, I haven't even really formed concrete opinions on the subject (and am thankful I'm not in a position where I have to).

When I discuss my stance on abortion, I'm doing it from the position of 'you should not be able to talk into a clinic and, no questions asked, terminate your child'.

This leaves rooms for exceptions... but I think that's a different discussion for a different day. First things first.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Perhaps there is no CORRECT answer because life isn't a chalk line you can draw on the pavement...its a bit more complex then that, largely because we still do not understand what creates life...sure we understand the sperm fertilizes the egg and all that good stuff, but the inner workings of the whole process are still beyond our comprehension, to include its very origin.

However, we seem to be experts on how to destroy life.

This is probably the most reasonable response to the abortion topic I've ever heard.

You only think so because you're trying to reduce everything to 1.

You want 1 short definition of life, 1 sentence to explain its source, etc...

The only way to do that is through religious axiom.

I don't see you taking issue with the whole "life begins with the baby's first unassisted breath" statement. If that's not a reduction to 1, I don't know what is.

Again, consistency folks. It's all I'm asking for.

You don't have to be "religious" to give a sh*t about an unborn child. I don't concern myself with the whole "when does life begin". I KNOW I don't know the answer to that, so I err on the side of caution when it boils down to a matter of convencience for a would-be parent versus the inevitable life of a human being.

If you think I'm looking for a short, quick, packaged little anticdote to use, you're wrong. In fact, that's pretty much all I'm seeing from the pro-choicers.

The rights of someone who has been alive for a multiple years, established and is making choices in there life, to the rights of a bunch of cells the outcome of which is not known. That is what it comes down too.

... still not addressing 4 month old babies, babies on ventillators, and the bad "quality of life" in Africa...

Easy, those mothers made the choice to keep the pregnancy going.

You totally missed the point.

I was using your definition of a "human being" and illustrating that it's not nearly as clear-cut as you believe it to be. It's been said that a human being is one that's begun breathing on its own. It's been said that it's one who can think and is aware of their surroundings. It's been said that it's a matter of quality of life.

I merely presented three examples where those definitions fail miserably. By those definitions, I can walk into a NICU and kill every baby on a ventillator, walk into any home and kill any baby not congniscent of its surroundings (which is pretty much any child under 3 - 4 months old), and turn 90% of African into a sheet of glass.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Perhaps there is no CORRECT answer because life isn't a chalk line you can draw on the pavement...its a bit more complex then that, largely because we still do not understand what creates life...sure we understand the sperm fertilizes the egg and all that good stuff, but the inner workings of the whole process are still beyond our comprehension, to include its very origin.

However, we seem to be experts on how to destroy life.

This is probably the most reasonable response to the abortion topic I've ever heard.

You only think so because you're trying to reduce everything to 1.

You want 1 short definition of life, 1 sentence to explain its source, etc...

The only way to do that is through religious axiom.

I don't see you taking issue with the whole "life begins with the baby's first unassisted breath" statement. If that's not a reduction to 1, I don't know what is.

Again, consistency folks. It's all I'm asking for.

You don't have to be "religious" to give a sh*t about an unborn child. I don't concern myself with the whole "when does life begin". I KNOW I don't know the answer to that, so I err on the side of caution when it boils down to a matter of convencience for a would-be parent versus the inevitable life of a human being.

If you think I'm looking for a short, quick, packaged little anticdote to use, you're wrong. In fact, that's pretty much all I'm seeing from the pro-choicers.

The rights of someone who has been alive for a multiple years, established and is making choices in there life, to the rights of a bunch of cells the outcome of which is not known. That is what it comes down too.

... still not addressing 4 month old babies, babies on ventillators, and the bad "quality of life" in Africa...

Easy, those mothers made the choice to keep the pregnancy going.

You totally missed the point.

I was using your definition of a "human being" and illustrating that it's not nearly as clear-cut as you believe it to be. It's been said that a human being is one that's begun breathing on its own. It's been said that it's one who can think and is aware of their surroundings. It's been said that it's a matter of quality of life.

I merely presented three examples where those definitions fail miserably. By those definitions, I can walk into a NICU and kill every baby on a ventillator, walk into any home and kill any baby not congniscent of its surroundings (which is pretty much any child under 3 - 4 months old), and turn 90% of African into a sheet of glass.

I made no definition of a human being. I defined a fetus as a combination of cells. It doesn't matter whether they are alive or not, I could care less. What matters is whether you are taking away the option of choice away from someone who is no doubt alive, to every person on either side of the argument.

 

[GeNome]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: GeNome
if someone here is suggesting that a serial killer is more important than an unborn, please explain your logic. But I don't see anyone doing that. 😉

Originally posted by: RichardE
The rights of someone who has been alive for a multiple years, established and is making choices in there life, to the rights of a bunch of cells the outcome of which is not known. That is what it comes down too.

What he's basicaly saying is that we should be more interested in preserving the rights of violent criminals over those of the unborn. The idea is that the unborn is not deserving of any rights because they're not a breathing, thinking, walking individual yet.

It does sound like that, and if it is what he meant by it then I don't agree. So is there an exception in there somewhere Richard? In your opinioin, does a serial killer, who is living, breathing, cognitive, have priority over an unborn?

Another thing that just occured to me..why is it such a big deal? As in, if you don't agree with it, just don't do it. That's not a flame, I'm just curious if anybody can explain that to me.