Pro-lifers please shoot this down

[bryanl]

Now! Now! Check your Bible where it allows/commands parents to kill their disobedient child. And kill a favorite child to show your love for God. And on and on.

God's design? Over 50% of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted, this makes God the designer, the No. one abortionist.

You have a very serious lack of understanding when I comes to the Bible...but on the other hand that should have been expected!

You have a very serious lack of understanding when it comes to science, and you worship the worst murderer of all time.

 

[shira]

The Declaration of Independence is an outline of basic human rights.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights that all humans are created with.

Not rights that we are born with, not rights we are granted by the government. Those rights are endowed upon us at the time of our creation.

When the right to life and the right to liberty are in conflict with each other, which one wins?

 

[Atreus21]

When the right to life and the right to liberty are in conflict with each other, which one wins?

In this case, the right to life.

 

[Texashiker]

When the right to life and the right to liberty are in conflict with each other, which one wins?

Why do you think life is listed first?

 

[Texashiker]

When a woman decides her guest is no longer welcome, she retains the right to exclude it from her premises.

You want to be brutally honest?

A dog has more protection under the law than an unborn child.

I can not kill a dog on my property without the owners permission. The exception is if that dog is threatening my children, my livestock,, or my other property.. Parents are co-owners of the child, what about the rights of the father?

 

[cubby1223]

When the right to life and the right to liberty are in conflict with each other, which one wins?

If it is a born person, we all agree that murder is wrong under 99% of circumstances.

If it is an unborn person, half the population gives the one who killed, a congratulatory salute.

 

[cubby1223]

Everyone has a right to life.

No one has a right to occupy the body of an unwilling person.

No one has a right to inject an unwilling person with hormones and waste.

No person owes a duty to any other to endure those violations without explicit consent.

When a woman decides her guest is no longer welcome, she retains the right to exclude it from her premises.

It's actually pretty amusing how many of those knuckle-dragging conservatives are in favor of the castle doctrine but anti-abortion. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.

And what does that say about those knuckle-dragging liberals who are anti-castle doctrine but completely in favor of abortion?

You start out declaring everyone has the right to life, and end with everyone has the right to kill on the grounds of inconvenience.

 

[shira]

In this case, the right to life.

And where is that hierarchy documented?

 

[shira]

Why do you think life is listed first?

First of all, you're confused. The phrase . . .

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

. . . is from the Declaration of Independence, not the U.S. Constitution. Second of all, please provide us with a link the supports your contention that the SCOTUS has stated that the order in which rights are listed indicates the relative primacy of rights.

Finally, even given your baseless claim, the very first paragraph of the U.S. Constitution is:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Furthermore, we see in the Fourth Amendment this reference to the right of persons to be secure in their persons:

Thee right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against . . . seizures, shall not be violated . . . .

Presumably this phrasing would bar the state from forcing a woman to carry a baby to term against her will.

It's not until the middle of the Fifth Amendment that any reference to "life" is made:

nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

So by you own completely unsupported contention that the ORDER that rights are listed indicates the relative importance of rights, "liberty" clearly wins out over "life."

 

[nehalem256]

Furthermore, we see in the Fourth Amendment this reference to the right of persons to be secure in their persons:

Presumably this phrasing would bar the state from forcing a woman to carry a baby to term against her will.

So long as she performs the abortion herself you would be correct.

Otherwise it can be regulated as a commercial activity. Thank you commerce clause :thumbsup:

 

[alzan]

You want to be brutally honest?

A dog has more protection under the law than an unborn child.

I can not kill a dog on my property without the owners permission. The exception is if that dog is threatening my children, my livestock,, or my other property.. Parents are co-owners of the child, what about the rights of the father?

When fathers start carrying and nurturing embryos and fetuses in their bodies with all the hormonal imbalances and other negative effects on their bodies, then we can talk.

 

[Texashiker]

When fathers start carrying and nurturing embryos and fetuses in their bodies with all the hormonal imbalances and other negative effects on their bodies, then we can talk.

Rights protect the weak.

Isn't that what the civil rights movement was about, protecting the oppressed?

. . . is from the Declaration of Independence, not the U.S. Constitution. Second of all, please provide us with a link the supports your contention that the SCOTUS has stated that the order in which rights are listed indicates the relative primacy of rights.

And?

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are basic human rights we are all created with.

A mothers right to liberty does not trump the childs right to life.

 

[nehalem256]

When fathers start carrying and nurturing embryos and fetuses in their bodies with all the hormonal imbalances and other negative effects on their bodies, then we can talk.

Don't agree to store someone else's property if you want to destroy it.

If you let me store my car in your garage and I come back 9 months later to pick it up and find you had it destroyed you can't go "sorry nehalem, my garage, my choice". Judge Judy ain't buying that shit.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Silly liberals - don't you know that only a man, when commanded by God, is allowed to kill his child?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+22

 

[mikeymikec]

Either we are all created equal, or we are not created equal.

If we are all created equal, then our rights start at the time of creation. These rights can not be taken away except through our due process of law.

If we are not created equal, then your rights can be taken away without due process of law. This includes your right to life can be taken away without due process.

I'm just going to poke one small hole in this idea - the rights of a child are not the same as the rights of an adult. So no, we're not "created equal" in the context of your statement.

 

[Texashiker]

I'm just going to poke one small hole in this idea - the rights of a child are not the same as the rights of an adult. So no, we're not "created equal" in the context of your statement.

Explain to me why rights for one group are not the same as for another group.

Straight people get to marry, but gays do not?

Whites get to vote, but blacks do not?

Men get to vote, but women do not?

 

[mikeymikec]

Explain to me why rights for one group are not the same as for another group.

Do you need it explaining why children are not allowed to drive cars, vote, etc?

 

[Texashiker]

Do you need it explaining why children are not allowed to drive cars, vote, etc?

The right to life is a supreme right.

 

[mikeymikec]

The right to life is a supreme right.

Non-sequitur.

 

[Texashiker]

Non-sequitur.

You are being obtuse.

The right to life of an innocent person is a supreme right that can not be taken away without due process of law.

The child is created with a right to life.

The child has committed no crime.

 

[mikeymikec]

You are being obtuse.

The right to life of an innocent person is a supreme right that can not be taken away without due process of law.

This is how our discussion went:

You said that we're created equal.
I gave examples about how we're not created equal. The implications are obvious, that if adults have more rights than children, then it is logically sound to assume that process goes back even further.
Human sperm or eggs for example are not recognised as human beings.
You refused to concede the point, and instead accused me of being obtuse.

I'm not interested in having another abortion argument, but your point was blatantly incorrect, so I pointed out the mistake you had made.

The abortion argument in my experience comes down to one factor - when do people consider a human life to actually begin and so therefore when does it deserve the same amount of legal recognition as say a newborn.

Cells are created and die all the time, so claiming that life begins at the moment of conception is a little pointless considering that neither adult might even be aware of what might have happened even for weeks afterwards, the woman might miscarry and simply notice an usually heavy menstrual flow and think nothing of it, these things make me think that it would be pointless to think of initiating a murder inquiry for.

IMO, it's the job of medical professionals to decide at what point of mental/physical function or development should the unborn be considered to be legally recognised as a human with some rights. The rest is a human's rights to determine what goes on in their body.

 

[nehalem256]

Do you need it explaining why children are not allowed to drive cars, vote, etc?

(1) Driving is a privilege and not a right

(2) There is also no universal right to vote. This can be obviously seen by the numerous constitutional amendments preventing the restriction of voting by various groups.

 

[brandonb]

What really bothers me with abortion threads is that people like to refer to a fetus as a parasite. As in they are attempting to remove humanity from the object and give it a name as if it was an insect or harmful pest within the body.

I can call a lot of things in life a parasite. Like people on government assistance. Can I dehumanize them? The entire point is we should treat them like humans and care for one another, so we give them assistance. But if I change their name to parasite, then assistance is no longer relevant as we have just removed humanity from the being. I don't care about parasites.

Do people do this to try to fool themselves? To make them not care about something they should? They can use it as an excuse to justify their own vile opinion?

 

[nehalem256]

What really bothers me with abortion threads is that people like to refer to a fetus as a parasite. As in they are attempting to remove humanity from the object and give it a name as if it was an insect or harmful pest within the body.

I can call a lot of things in life a parasite. Like people on government assistance. Can I dehumanize them? The entire point is we should treat them like humans and care for one another, so we give them assistance. But if I change their name to parasite, then assistance is no longer relevant as we have just removed humanity from the being. I don't care about parasites.

Do people do this to try to fool themselves? To make them not care about something they should? They can use it as an excuse to justify their own vile opinion?

The really funny part is that many of the same people that call it a parasite will also support tons of government assistance programs in order to support the parasite.

If a fetus is really nothing more than a parasite why are we giving it medicaid and WIC?

No tax dollars to support parasites!

 

[dank69]

What really bothers me with abortion threads is that people like to refer to a fetus as a parasite. As in they are attempting to remove humanity from the object and give it a name as if it was an insect or harmful pest within the body.

I can call a lot of things in life a parasite. Like people on government assistance. Can I dehumanize them? The entire point is we should treat them like humans and care for one another, so we give them assistance. But if I change their name to parasite, then assistance is no longer relevant as we have just removed humanity from the being. I don't care about parasites.

Do people do this to try to fool themselves? To make them not care about something they should? They can use it as an excuse to justify their own vile opinion?

It's all about potential.