New South Dakota Abortion Law

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Mursilis said that many things have life and unique DNA but are not considered human, because in the end, those things will die as exactly what they were in life, just a cell. A fertilized egg, however, provided no external hindrances occur, matures into an adult human.

No, it doesn't. It requires the consensual donation of space and resources from a woman, and the law cannot require those of her.

This simple fact, to me, is testament to the fact that a fertilized egg is simply a human at the very earliest stage of development.

So what? No person has the right to occupy the body of another person, to forcibly extract nutrients from that person's blood, and the inject that person's body with foreign hormones and waste.

This is the lamest of lame arguments you can make. Right behind the argument Umbrella makes about the poor. The calous nature of some of you is telling of where our society is heading. Children in the womb are viewed as some kind of parasitic leech.

btw women consented to grant permission to that fetus when she spreads her legs. The only people who have a legitimate arguments like your type are rape victims.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
This simple fact, to me, is testament to the fact that a fertilized egg is simply a human at the very earliest stage of development.

Well, the law says otherwise and there is nothing more right or wrong about that. One could say that, "The simple fact to me is that an unfertilized egg is simply a human at the very earliest stage of development and every time we voluntarily let that egg go unfertilized and die it is a form of murder. We need to stop murdering the eggs!"

Obviously that sounds ludicrous, but realize that it is nothing more than a single step away from your opinion about when a human should be legally classified as a human and subject to being defended by all of our laws.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Genx87

This is the lamest of lame arguments you can make. Right behind the argument Umbrella makes about the poor. The calous nature of some of you is telling of where our society is heading. Children in the womb are viewed as some kind of parasitic leech.

That's usually what people say when they can't actually rebut the facts.

btw women consented to grant permission to that fetus when she spreads her legs. The only people who have a legitimate arguments like your type are rape victims.

Consenting to sex is not tantamount to consenting to becoming and remaining pregnant. Waivers to fundamental rights must be explicit.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Genx87

This is the lamest of lame arguments you can make. Right behind the argument Umbrella makes about the poor. The calous nature of some of you is telling of where our society is heading. Children in the womb are viewed as some kind of parasitic leech.

That's usually what people say when they can't actually rebut the facts.

btw women consented to grant permission to that fetus when she spreads her legs. The only people who have a legitimate arguments like your type are rape victims.

Consenting to sex is not tantamount to consenting to becoming and remaining pregnant. Waivers to fundamental rights must be explicit.

What facts? You considering a child in womb to be a blood sucking parasite? That sounds more like a sick fantasy based opinion to me.

Consenting to risky behavior is equal to consenting to its consequences. If you jump out of an airplane do you consent to the possible consequence of the chute not opening and you splattering on the ground below? A better example of course is when you sign up for this msgboard does one need to explicitly wave their right to free speech or is it agreed upon that a private forum can curtail such rights?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Consenting to sex is not tantamount to consenting to becoming and remaining pregnant.

It has been since the invention of birth control. The use of that is your choice.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Genx87

This is the lamest of lame arguments you can make. Right behind the argument Umbrella makes about the poor. The calous nature of some of you is telling of where our society is heading. Children in the womb are viewed as some kind of parasitic leech.

That's usually what people say when they can't actually rebut the facts.

btw women consented to grant permission to that fetus when she spreads her legs. The only people who have a legitimate arguments like your type are rape victims.

Consenting to sex is not tantamount to consenting to becoming and remaining pregnant. Waivers to fundamental rights must be explicit.

What facts? You considering a child in womb to be a blood sucking parasite? That sounds more like a sick fantasy based opinion to me.

Fetuses are parasites, by any ordinary definition of the term.

Consenting to risky behavior is equal to consenting to its consequences.

That has no basis in U.S. positive law, whatsoever. Moreover, one still retains one's fundamental rights when engaging in this (nebulous term) "risky behavior." Do I not run the risk of being collided with by another driver when I operate my vehicle? Of course I do, but I do not waive my fundamental rights by getting behind the wheel.

If you jump out of an airplane do you consent to the possible consequence of the chute not opening and you splattering on the ground below?

Possible consequences are not realities. If my chute doesn't open and it can be determined that its failure was due to negligence on the behalf of someone else, I still retain my rights to seek legal restitution. What a terrible analogy.

A better example of course is when you sign up for this msgboard does one need to explicitly wave their right to free speech or is it agreed upon that a private forum can curtail such rights?

That depends on the language of the user agreement. You're not very familiar with the law, are you?

 

[Genx87]

Fetuses are parasites, by any ordinary definition of the term

Like I noted above the calous nature of the living really tells us where our society is heading.

That has no basis in U.S. positive law, whatsoever. Moreover, one still retains one's fundamental rights when engaging in this (nebulous term) "risky behavior." Do I not run the risk of being collided with by another driver when I operate my vehicle? Of course I do, but I do not waive my fundamental rights by getting behind the wheel.

Oh really? And what fundamental rights would that be?

Possible consequences are not realities. If my chute doesn't open and it can be determined that its failure was due to negligence on the behalf of someone else, I still retain my rights to seek legal restitution. What a terrible analogy.

Sure they are, if the chute fails to open do I not splatter?

That depends on the language of the user agreement. You're not very familiar with the law, are you?

I'd like to know how free speech is guranteed in a private forum.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Consenting to sex is not tantamount to consenting to becoming and remaining pregnant.

It has been since the invention of birth control. The use of that is your choice.

No, it has not, because birth control methods fail. I repeat, waivers to fundamental rights must be explicit. See Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970).

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Fetuses are parasites, by any ordinary definition of the term

Like I noted above the calous nature of the living really tells us where our society is heading.

Like I noted above, that's usually what people say when they can't rebut the facts.

That has no basis in U.S. positive law, whatsoever. Moreover, one still retains one's fundamental rights when engaging in this (nebulous term) "risky behavior." Do I not run the risk of being collided with by another driver when I operate my vehicle? Of course I do, but I do not waive my fundamental rights by getting behind the wheel.

Oh really? And what fundamental rights would that be?

Bodily integrity.

Possible consequences are not realities. If my chute doesn't open and it can be determined that its failure was due to negligence on the behalf of someone else, I still retain my rights to seek legal restitution. What a terrible analogy.

Sure they are, if the chute fails to open do I not splatter?

The chute failing is a possible consequence. You don't really think before you type, I take it.

That depends on the language of the user agreement. You're not very familiar with the law, are you?

I'd like to know how free speech is guranteed in a private forum.

[/quote]
I never claimed that it was. Do you even read the posts before you respond? I'm guessing you hear the term "knee jerk" frequently from people you debate.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Consenting to sex is not tantamount to consenting to becoming and remaining pregnant.

It has been since the invention of birth control. The use of that is your choice.

No, it has not, because birth control methods fail. I repeat, waivers to fundamental rights must be explicit. See Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970).

Yet how many abortions are explicitly needed because birth control was used AND failed? Probably a small percent, but you use it as the chief excuse for everyone including those who choose to murder because they felt like it.

As long as the delineation does not exist, I don?t care what corrupt interpretation of the law you cite. A judge?s ruling does not create a constitutional right. You only treat it as such because of the objective you use it for.

 

[Genx87]

Bodily integrity

Oh yeah? How so?

The chute failing is a possible consequence. You don't really think before you type, I take it.

:disgust:

Uh you are asking me that question? Perhaps if you thought more before responding to me you wouldnt have to back track on the basic premise of your own argument. And what pray tell us is a consequence of the chute failing to open? I know baby steps.

I never claimed that it was. Do you even read the posts before you respond? I'm guessing you hear the term "knee jerk" frequently from people you debate.

Is this where this is going to head? You making claims, when called on them insult me?

I bet you are a joy to all around you.

:disgust:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Consenting to sex is not tantamount to consenting to becoming and remaining pregnant.

It has been since the invention of birth control. The use of that is your choice.

No, it has not, because birth control methods fail. I repeat, waivers to fundamental rights must be explicit. See Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970).

Yet how many abortions are explicitly needed because birth control was used AND failed?

I do not know, and it is ultimately irrelevant.

Probably a small percent, but you use it as the chief excuse for everyone including those who choose to murder because they felt like it.

Abortion is not now, and has never been, "murder" in the positive law of the United States, or even English Common Law -- so I have no idea what you're talking about. Presumably, neither do you.

As long as the delineation does not exist, I don?t care what corrupt interpretation of the law you cite. A judge?s ruling does not create a constitutional right.

It doesn't have to; the constitutional right already exists. I can cite more precedent if you like.

You only treat it as such because of the objective you use it for.

It is a powerful testament when someone's integrity can be impugned for accurately reporting the facts. I think it is not me that has an agenda, and you are obviously projecting.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Bodily integrity

Oh yeah? How so?

How so what? Do you need a remedial course in the biology of pregnancy?

Uh you are asking me that question? Perhaps if you thought more before responding to me you wouldnt have to back track on the basic premise of your own argument. And what pray tell us is a consequence of the chute failing to open? I know baby steps.

There are lots of things that can happen, but I'm not going to argue this analogy any more unless you can explain how it is relevant to abortion.

Consider before you respond that sex does not cause pregnancy. Pregnancy isn't even a likely outcome of sex.

 

[Genx87]

Consider before you respond that sex does not cause pregnancy. Pregnancy isn't even a likely outcome of sex.

Comically funny. Let me guess this is where you lecture me on how sperm invading the egg is the actual act that creates a pregnancy? Not the sexual intercourse that injected the sperm into the uterus?

Meuge is that you?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Consider before you respond that sex does not cause pregnancy. Pregnancy isn't even a likely outcome of sex.

Comically funny. Meuge is that you?

It doesn't, despite your back-water, "commonsense" notions. Implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterine wall causes pregnancy. Sex isn't even a necessary precursor to pregnancy. It's worth noting that the ovum actually has to subvert the immune defenses of the woman in order to implant itself, also.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Genx87

Consider before you respond that sex does not cause pregnancy. Pregnancy isn't even a likely outcome of sex.

Comically funny. Meuge is that you?

It doesn't, despite your back-water, "commonsense" notions. Implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterine wall causes pregnancy. Sex isn't even a necessary precursor to pregnancy. It's worth noting that the ovum actually has to subvert the immune defenses of the woman in order to implant itself, also.

lmao I cant write this reponse any better.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Genx87

Consider before you respond that sex does not cause pregnancy. Pregnancy isn't even a likely outcome of sex.

Comically funny. Meuge is that you?

It doesn't, despite your back-water, "commonsense" notions. Implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterine wall causes pregnancy. Sex isn't even a necessary precursor to pregnancy. It's worth noting that the ovum actually has to subvert the immune defenses of the woman in order to implant itself, also.

lmao I cant write this reponse any better.

People often say similar things when they cannot rebut the facts.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Genx87

Consider before you respond that sex does not cause pregnancy. Pregnancy isn't even a likely outcome of sex.

Comically funny. Meuge is that you?

It doesn't, despite your back-water, "commonsense" notions. Implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterine wall causes pregnancy. Sex isn't even a necessary precursor to pregnancy. It's worth noting that the ovum actually has to subvert the immune defenses of the woman in order to implant itself, also.

lmao I cant write this reponse any better.

People often say similar things when they cannot rebut the facts.

I don't see how you can rebut the fact that sex leads to pregnancy, for the simple reason that nothing else naturally leads to pregnancy.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I don't see how you can rebut the fact that sex leads to pregnancy, for the simple reason that nothing else naturally leads to pregnancy.

Two words: artificial insemination. At best, sex is positively correlated with pregnancy insofar as most pregnancies were preceded by sex. To claim that sex causes pregnancy, however, is a classic post hoc fallacy.

I can't even begin to count the number of times I have had sex, and not one of them has resulted in a pregnancy.

I have another friend who discusses this topic, and he claims to have had sex with this wife more than 400 times in the 20 years they have been married, and they only have 2 kids. That means pregnancy follows sex less than 1 half of 1 percent of the time for him, and I don't think his case is unusual.

Last week I had sex with my girlfriend, is she pregnant? Take a guess.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Paratus
Well see thats the point, if you are willing to compromise then it's not black and white, it's gray and the only issue is where to draw the line in the most fair way on subject that is inherently unfair.

BTW there are many people who would disagree with you about implantation. Some work in pharmacies and refuse to distribute the morning after pill to raped women because of it.

I also think the founding father's would have a tougher time going your way then you do. They founded this country on principles of the enlightenment which said that your body is yours not the kings/states and your soul is yours not the churches.

In this case you are proscribing a pregnant womans liberty be taken by the state. That is an inherently unconservative viewpoint IMO.

That's because, despite his occasional soaring rhetoric, he's not an actual conservative but one of those same religious authoritarian types who fought against Locke, Jefferson, et al as they established that a person's body and soul does not belong to state and church, among other basic human rights.
The 'pro-life' agenda is part of a movement whose goal is nothing less but to re-enslave humanity to theocracy.

"The clergy believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1800

 

[ElFenix]

wow.

just


wow.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
wow.

just


wow.

:thumbsup:

Clearly this thread proves that we need more abortions. :laugh:

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I don't see how you can rebut the fact that sex leads to pregnancy, for the simple reason that nothing else naturally leads to pregnancy.

Two words: artificial insemination. At best, sex is positively correlated with pregnancy insofar as most pregnancies were preceded by sex. To claim that sex causes pregnancy, however, is a classic post hoc fallacy.

I can't even begin to count the number of times I have had sex, and not one of them has resulted in a pregnancy.

I have another friend who discusses this topic, and he claims to have had sex with this wife more than 400 times in the 20 years they have been married, and they only have 2 kids. That means pregnancy follows sex less than 1 half of 1 percent of the time for him, and I don't think his case is unusual.

Last week I had sex with my girlfriend, is she pregnant? Take a guess.

So okay, let's follow this.

Back in olden times, before artificial insemination, I guess we don't know where pregnancy came from. Gosh, the abortion debate must've been pretty easy to decide back then.

I can't believe you are arguing this. Pregnancy is caused by fertilizing an egg. Traditionally, this means sex.

I swear, some people would argue that 2+2 doesn't always equal 4.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I swear, some people would argue that 2+2 doesn't always equal 4.

You asked for it: http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I swear, some people would argue that 2+2 doesn't always equal 4.

You asked for it: http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html

Ugh. I'm going to kill myself.