Roe Vs. Wade Roe is jumping ship

[josphII]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Pro-choice is a misnomer. A woman gets the choice to destroy a child. The child does not get a choice in this matter, nor does the father of the child. So, thinking about it, Pro-abortion people are anti-choice by taking away the choices of two individuals while only gaining one choice. So we are at -1 choices.

Adoption is a wonderful thing.

so a father has the right to tell a woman that she must grow something in her body?

and for all you people saying that a woman should pay for her mistakes I ask why? Why should somebody pay for their mistakes if they dont have to? simply because you think so? thats quite an argument you got there!

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Kev

yes but if nature runs its course a fertilized egg becomes a human.

not so with a lonely sperm cell. this whole "masturbate and you kill billions of babies" argument is so ridiculous.

What if the woman had a single sperm cell, and the male released millions of eggs, only one being potentially viable?

It ultimately comes down to is only one can carry, but the progeny is 50% genetics of both parents.

The woman should have no more rights than the man, unless she decides to decline support from that man.

I am not talking rape issues...I am talking two adults should know potential consequences and know they both have equal involvement.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Pro-choice is a misnomer. A woman gets the choice to destroy a child. The child does not get a choice in this matter, nor does the father of the child. So, thinking about it, Pro-abortion people are anti-choice by taking away the choices of two individuals while only gaining one choice. So we are at -1 choices.

Adoption is a wonderful thing.

so a father has the right to tell a woman that she must grow something in her body?

I think a father should have a say in the growth of the mass inside of the woman's body. It is partially his creation after all.

and for all you people saying that a woman should pay for her mistakes I ask why? Why should somebody pay for their mistakes if they dont have to? simply because you think so? thats quite an argument you got there!

The easy road is not necessarily the best road.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Kev

ok, but then if we knew that a woman was going to get pregnant from some load of semen, using a condom during that session (of intercourse) would then be murder?

same idea, if you are preventing a specific person from being born in the future, it's the same as murder. contraception (without knowing the absolute future) is not.

i assume then, you draw a distinction between contraception without knowing the absolute future and aborting a fertilized egg? because a fertilized egg does not have an absolute future at all, as you pointed out, things can go wrong. in fact, in about a third of all pregnancies, something does go wrong, and the baby is not born (all naturally).

yes they can go wrong, but there's nothing you can do about it. but there is something you can do to prevent abortion - just don't do it.

1/3? where did you get that number? that seems like a lot.

that and i believe all human beings have a right to life.

so what is the reasoning behind that belief?

I was given a chance to live...why should I be specially priveleged and not somebody else? People don't have the right to end other people's lives.

So I'm safe in assuming that all those voicing pro-life opinions in this thread oppose the death penalty and war in all cases?

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff

Originally posted by: josphII

differentiating between humans and persons, eh? They did the same thing with black people in colonial times. "Hey, those humans are black, let's consider them 3/5ths of a person" You just substitute race with age and there you go. That's incredibly arbitrary of you.

this is probably the most ridiculous post yet. not only do you equate abortions with somebody dismembering a 6wk old child but now your comparing slavery to abortions. the difference between a fetus and a person is simple - a fetus is in the mothers womb moron! i certainly dont refer to a fetus as a person, who does? a fetus has no name, fingerprints, hell might not even have a brain yet - and this is a person? of course a fetus is going to be human in nature, what else would it be? and your "quote" is simply hilarious - "Hey, those humans are black, let's consider them 3/5ths of a person". you need to replace "3/5ths of a person" w/ "3/5ths of a human" for your own argument to even make sense! substitute race with age? i dont know about you but ive never heard anybody refer to fetus or what not in a mothers womb as having age. how old was somebody one week before they were born, -1wk old??

So, smart guy, who determines what the "age of personhood" is? Where is that drawn. If you say "when the child is born", what about the babies that could in fact survive when born prematurely? Are they not a person until they've reached their ninth month of development? Where is the line and how do you determine precisely which child is or is not before or after that point in their development? Set it to anytime before the third trimester? What if the baby develops faster than average? Again, how do you determine for sure, whether or not the "human" you are killing is or is not a "person"?

so simple... you dont become a person until you are born. if the baby has been born, independent on weather or not they could have survived a birth at an earlier time, then they are a person and their age starts at that point. it is not arbitrary in any way shape or form. ...and if you dont believe me then try claiming your wifes pregnancy as a child tax credit!

I wasn't comparing slavery with abortion, I was comparing the ATTITUDE of the colonial slavers toward blacks with your ATTITUDE toward an unborn child. It's a very important point. You are degrading the person in the womb of the mother to a non-person. Now we know exactly where we disagree on this issue. You don't think that an unborn child is a person and I do. I honestly don't understand your logic. How does passing through a woman's vagina inately change the personhood of the human coming out? It isn't some magic portal that has Person Fairies all around it zapping blobs of flesh with their "PersonWand"TM. The child is simply passing from one stage of development to another. It makes no sense to classify it as a non-person one instant and a person the next, when ultimately there is no change in the nature of the being coming out. You are saying location determines personhood. That just sounds ludicrous to me.

as far as your "tax credit" BS, why can it be considered a double homocide to kill a pregnant mother? In that case the law is definitely in the favor of the life of the child.

I consider and all the pro-lifer's consider the fetus to be a person.

i am not classifying weather or not somebody is a person based on location - im basing it on weather or not they have been born. there is a big difference between 'passing through a womans vagine' and the act of being born, or do you not understand the difference?

and it can be considered double homocide because the mother is one person, and the fetus will be another person. the person commiting the act has taken two lives, one currently being lived and one that will be lived. taking two lives = double homocide

 

[ILikeStuff]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Kev

ok, but then if we knew that a woman was going to get pregnant from some load of semen, using a condom during that session (of intercourse) would then be murder?

same idea, if you are preventing a specific person from being born in the future, it's the same as murder. contraception (without knowing the absolute future) is not.

i assume then, you draw a distinction between contraception without knowing the absolute future and aborting a fertilized egg? because a fertilized egg does not have an absolute future at all, as you pointed out, things can go wrong. in fact, in about a third of all pregnancies, something does go wrong, and the baby is not born (all naturally).

yes they can go wrong, but there's nothing you can do about it. but there is something you can do to prevent abortion - just don't do it.

1/3? where did you get that number? that seems like a lot.

that and i believe all human beings have a right to life.

so what is the reasoning behind that belief?

I was given a chance to live...why should I be specially priveleged and not somebody else? People don't have the right to end other people's lives.

So I'm safe in assuming that all those voicing pro-life opinions in this thread oppose the death penalty and war in all cases?

I explicitly defined my position earlier as to it being against the intentional murder of an innocent. death penalty and War are separate issues from this.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

So I'm safe in assuming that all those voicing pro-life opinions in this thread oppose the death penalty and war in all cases?

A collection of random cells growing inside of the womb of a victim of sexual contact (whether willing or not) did not in any way commit a cause that a known effect could be the death penalty. War? War is evolution.

 

[Lyfer]

Abortion is gay like george michael.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Fausto1

So I'm safe in assuming that all those voicing pro-life opinions in this thread oppose the death penalty and war in all cases?

A collection of random cells growing inside of the womb of a victim of sexual contact (whether willing or not) did not in any way commit a cause that a known effect could be the death penalty. War? War is evolution.

Nice rationalization. What about all the civilians that die in any given war? How are they different than the collection of random cells? They have no idea what's going on, but they have a will to live, then....whammo! They're dead at the hand of another.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: josphII

and it can be considered double homocide because the mother is one person, and the fetus will be another person. the person commiting the act has taken two lives, one currently being lived and one that will be lived. taking two lives = double homocide

One that may be lived. The fetus could die (for lack of a better word for something that is considered not living by many here) before it is born. But, if we are going to put people on trial for possible homicide (the child might live after all if it weren't for the actions of the murderer of the mother), then shouldn't we put him on trial for all of the lives that might have possibly come from the possible child? The possible child of the possible child in the mother's womb will not get a chance to live, make sure that goes into the trial. Triple homicide. Unless of course that potential child was going to have 2 children, and each of those children had a child. Then we are looking at an 8 time murderer.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Lyfer
Abortion is gay like george michael.

You're captain of the Debate Team, aren't you?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Fausto1

So I'm safe in assuming that all those voicing pro-life opinions in this thread oppose the death penalty and war in all cases?

A collection of random cells growing inside of the womb of a victim of sexual contact (whether willing or not) did not in any way commit a cause that a known effect could be the death penalty. War? War is evolution.

Nice rationalization. What about all the civilians that die in any given war? How are they different than the collection of random cells? They have no idea what's going on, but they have a will to live, then....whammo! They're dead at the hand of another.

And if you have read any of my comments on the skirmishes in Iraq when they began, you would know that I did not want to see any civilians die. But because governments are callous enough to not care, should individuals with souls (the potential mother, as opposed to politicians) become as uncaring?

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: gopunk

yes they can go wrong, but there's nothing you can do about it. but there is something you can do to prevent abortion - just don't do it.

so what you meant to say was that aborting a fertilized egg is bad, not because the fate of that egg is set, but because you have no control over the fate of that egg?

1/3? where did you get that number? that seems like a lot.

it's a number i've heard in the news... the july 1998 issue of newsweek says on the cover "as many as 1 in 3 pregnancies fails"... article is about miscarriages.

People don't have the right to end other people's lives.

and is this something you just hold to be a fundamental right, or is there further reasoning behind that as well?

look i'm not going into a deep philosphical debate over why murder isn't right. jesus christ.

ok i'm done with this now, i can't stand the nitpicking/you trying to twist everything i say. it's gotten old.

 

[ILikeStuff]

Originally posted by: josphII<
and it can be considered double homocide because the mother is one person, and the fetus will be another person. the person commiting the act has taken two lives, one currently being lived and one that will be lived. taking two lives = double homocide

what is the difference, even going with your argument that it will be a person, between that and abortion? Either way someone is taking the life of the unborn, whether it is or will be a person. You just completely contradicted yourself. So it is homocide if someone else does it but not if the mother decides to have it done. The more you post, the weaker and weaker your position gets.

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Pro-choice is a misnomer. A woman gets the choice to destroy a child. The child does not get a choice in this matter, nor does the father of the child. So, thinking about it, Pro-abortion people are anti-choice by taking away the choices of two individuals while only gaining one choice. So we are at -1 choices.

Adoption is a wonderful thing.

so a father has the right to tell a woman that she must grow something in her body?

I think a father should have a say in the growth of the mass inside of the woman's body. It is partially his creation after all.

and for all you people saying that a woman should pay for her mistakes I ask why? Why should somebody pay for their mistakes if they dont have to? simply because you think so? thats quite an argument you got there!

The easy road is not necessarily the best road.

The easy road is not necessarily the best road... and its each persons decsion as to which road to travel. see personal freedom

I think a father should have a say in the growth of the mass inside of the woman's body. It is partially his creation after all.

hey if the woman wants an abortion and the father is against it then he can have the aborted fetus because, your right, its part his creation

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Pro-choice is a misnomer. A woman gets the choice to destroy a child. The child does not get a choice in this matter, nor does the father of the child. So, thinking about it, Pro-abortion people are anti-choice by taking away the choices of two individuals while only gaining one choice. So we are at -1 choices.

Adoption is a wonderful thing.

so a father has the right to tell a woman that she must grow something in her body?

and for all you people saying that a woman should pay for her mistakes I ask why? Why should somebody pay for their mistakes if they dont have to? simply because you think so? thats quite an argument you got there!

should fat people be allowed to sue fast food restaurants for making them obese?

by your logic they should be allowed - why should they take responsibility for their actions?

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Kev

yes but if nature runs its course a fertilized egg becomes a human.

not so with a lonely sperm cell. this whole "masturbate and you kill billions of babies" argument is so ridiculous.

What if the woman had a single sperm cell, and the male released millions of eggs, only one being potentially viable?

It ultimately comes down to is only one can carry, but the progeny is 50% genetics of both parents.

The woman should have no more rights than the man, unless she decides to decline support from that man.

I am not talking rape issues...I am talking two adults should know potential consequences and know they both have equal involvement.

yes, and in the case of a man carrying the baby it would be wrong for him to kill it. no big difference, you just switched a few words around. the concept remains the same.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: josphII

The easy road is not necessarily the best road... and its each persons decsion as to which road to travel. see personal freedom

Agreed. But I seem to hold people to higher standards than most others. It is that drive in me to want a better species, and unfortunately, the easy road cannot provide that.

hey if the woman wants an abortion and the father is against it then he can have the aborted fetus because, your right, its part his creation

That is the perfect solution. It is wonderful that so many anti-lifers are as caring and understanding as yourself.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer
Originally posted by: XZeroII

Having an abortion is ending a human life. If you disagree with that, I would hate to see what kind of father or mother you would ever become

In my humble opinion, this shot your argument(s) in the foot. This reminds me (and I'm gonna make a HUGE leap here) of the people that are just sure that homosexuals won't make good parents.

No. My point is that if you are having an abortion, then you obviously don't have any respect for human life (because you are ending your own child's life). If you have no respect for human life, you will probably abuse your kids and stuff because what is there to stop you? You've already killed one of your own children. Heck, if your current kids don't turn out right, hack 'em into pieces and start over. Your analogy is flawed because people who have abortions show that they have no respect for human life, thus they are more likely to be bad parents (for the reasons aforementioned). Homosexuals don't have that problem.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Kev

ok, but then if we knew that a woman was going to get pregnant from some load of semen, using a condom during that session (of intercourse) would then be murder?

same idea, if you are preventing a specific person from being born in the future, it's the same as murder. contraception (without knowing the absolute future) is not.

i assume then, you draw a distinction between contraception without knowing the absolute future and aborting a fertilized egg? because a fertilized egg does not have an absolute future at all, as you pointed out, things can go wrong. in fact, in about a third of all pregnancies, something does go wrong, and the baby is not born (all naturally).

yes they can go wrong, but there's nothing you can do about it. but there is something you can do to prevent abortion - just don't do it.

1/3? where did you get that number? that seems like a lot.

that and i believe all human beings have a right to life.

so what is the reasoning behind that belief?

I was given a chance to live...why should I be specially priveleged and not somebody else? People don't have the right to end other people's lives.

So I'm safe in assuming that all those voicing pro-life opinions in this thread oppose the death penalty and war in all cases?

i can't speak for everyone, but i oppose the death penalty. it doesn't bother me as much as abortion though because people who are put to death have usually done something horrible, whereas unborn babies are innocent.

war is different. sometimes war is necessary on a humanitarian level.

 

[ILikeStuff]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer
Originally posted by: XZeroII

Having an abortion is ending a human life. If you disagree with that, I would hate to see what kind of father or mother you would ever become

In my humble opinion, this shot your argument(s) in the foot. This reminds me (and I'm gonna make a HUGE leap here) of the people that are just sure that homosexuals won't make good parents.

No. My point is that if you are having an abortion, then you obviously don't have any respect for human life (because you are ending your own child's life). If you have no respect for human life, you will probably abuse your kids and stuff because what is there to stop you? You've already killed one of your own children. Heck, if your current kids don't turn out right, hack 'em into pieces and start over. Your analogy is flawed because people who have abortions show that they have no respect for human life, thus they are more likely to be bad parents (for the reasons aforementioned). Homosexuals don't have that problem.

<anecdote>I can see that. My ex-GF's mother had quite a few abortions in her younger years and she was a horrible parent. She is self absorbed and psychotic and it definitely shows in her children (hence he rdaughter is now my EX)</anecdote>

Edit: spelling

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff

Originally posted by: josphII<
and it can be considered double homocide because the mother is one person, and the fetus will be another person. the person commiting the act has taken two lives, one currently being lived and one that will be lived. taking two lives = double homocide

what is the difference, even going with your argument that it will be a person, between that and abortion? Either way someone is taking the life of the unborn, whether it is or will be a person. You just completely contradicted yourself. So it is homocide if someone else does it but not if the mother decides to have it done. The more you post, the weaker and weaker your position gets.

oh my. because on one hand the mother is making the decision and on the other hand a seemingly random person is making that decision. again - the mothers rights on weather or not something grows in her body supercedes the rights of the fetus. a random person doesnt have the right to make that decision.

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Pro-choice is a misnomer. A woman gets the choice to destroy a child. The child does not get a choice in this matter, nor does the father of the child. So, thinking about it, Pro-abortion people are anti-choice by taking away the choices of two individuals while only gaining one choice. So we are at -1 choices.

Adoption is a wonderful thing.

so a father has the right to tell a woman that she must grow something in her body?

and for all you people saying that a woman should pay for her mistakes I ask why? Why should somebody pay for their mistakes if they dont have to? simply because you think so? thats quite an argument you got there!

should fat people be allowed to sue fast food restaurants for making them obese?

by your logic they should be allowed - why should they take responsibility for their actions?

my gosh right when i think you pro lifers cant sink any lower you yet again amaze me! obese ppl shouldnt be allowed to sue fast food restaurants and my logic doesnt dictate that. ON THE OTHER HAND your logic dictates that if a group of people decided that fat people shouldnt undergo liposuction (for whatever reason) then liposuction should be illegal because obese people should pay for their actions.

all im saying is if people can get away with making bad decisions (ie unwanted pregnancies), and not interfere with anybody elses personal freedoms (imo a fetus has no personal freedoms), then they should do so and other people should simply stay out of their buisness.

 

[ILikeStuff]

Basically the whole Abortion argument boils down to whether the person in the womb is or is not eligible for basic human rights. Any argument ultimately leads to this (as we have seen), so discussing anything beyond this idea is irrelevant and a waste of my employers money

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Pro-choice is a misnomer. A woman gets the choice to destroy a child. The child does not get a choice in this matter, nor does the father of the child. So, thinking about it, Pro-abortion people are anti-choice by taking away the choices of two individuals while only gaining one choice. So we are at -1 choices.

Adoption is a wonderful thing.

so a father has the right to tell a woman that she must grow something in her body?

and for all you people saying that a woman should pay for her mistakes I ask why? Why should somebody pay for their mistakes if they dont have to? simply because you think so? thats quite an argument you got there!

should fat people be allowed to sue fast food restaurants for making them obese?

by your logic they should be allowed - why should they take responsibility for their actions?

my gosh right when i think you pro lifers cant sink any lower you yet again amaze me! obese ppl shouldnt be allowed to sue fast food restaurants and my logic doesnt dictate that. ON THE OTHER HAND your logic dictates that if a group of people decided that fat people shouldnt undergo liposuction (for whatever reason) then liposuction should be illegal because obese people should pay for their actions.

all im saying is if people can get away with making bad decisions (ie unwanted pregnancies), and not interfere with anybody elses personal freedoms (imo a fetus has no personal freedoms), then they should do so and other people should simply stay out of their buisness.

The disagreements (I think) begin where you said that in your oppinion, fetus' have no personal freedoms. I believe that all persons have basic human rights and one of them is the right to live. I'm curious as to why you believe that fetus' have no personal freedoms (no flaming intended).