Why Roe v. Wade should never be overturned...Macomb teens end pregnancy with beating

[conjur]

Originally posted by: jhu

Originally posted by: JoLLyRoGer

Ever heard of a case where abstinence didn't work to prevent a pregnancy?
Two unarguable facts:

1. Abstinence works 100% of the time it's practiced... Period!
2. Abortion = Murder 1... Period! I dont' care how the courts and the media try to gloss it, its Murder 1 when it's used as post-hoc birth control.
Exceptions: Rape, Incest, Imminent danger to the mother's life.

i believe i read it in the bible somewhere...

OOOHHHH!!! SNAP!


Not that I believe Jesus was a virgin birth (that's a mistranslation) but that was good. 🙂

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma
It's just chilling the amount of these type of people there are here in MI, knuckle draggers. Here is a couple that had legal abortion available, but instead the girl has herself beat into miscarriage by her 'boyfriend' and then they contact the boy's mother to help bury the fetus. Now everyone knows that not only was the girl/couple pregnant but also has the ability to terminate her own pregnancy via brute force.

I guess that's simpler and more direct than just communicating the information verbally.

If this were to happen with my own daughter in a few years, I would not blame the current abortion laws, I would just be amazed that such a dim bulb came from our family.

If a daughter of mine ever felt I was so unsupportive of her that she had to resort to such a thing,it would be a sad,sad,sad day🙁

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

At least these threads are more civilized than the other threads. Actual reasons for opposition 🙂

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma
It's just chilling the amount of these type of people there are here in MI, knuckle draggers. Here is a couple that had legal abortion available, but instead the girl has herself beat into miscarriage by her 'boyfriend' and then they contact the boy's mother to help bury the fetus. Now everyone knows that not only was the girl/couple pregnant but also has the ability to terminate her own pregnancy via brute force.

I guess that's simpler and more direct than just communicating the information verbally.

If this were to happen with my own daughter in a few years, I would not blame the current abortion laws, I would just be amazed that such a dim bulb came from our family.

If a daughter of mine ever felt I was so unsupportive of her that she had to resort to such a thing,it would be a sad,sad,sad day🙁

Well, yeah, triple sad is right. My daugter (plural, actually) know I am supportive of them, so it would be incredibly sad if they chose to be hit with a baseball bat instead of talking to me.

TastesLikechicken has a point though, the story could have been fabricated to cover up physical abuse by the BF.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: JoLLyRoGer
As for #2. A pregnancy or gestation of an egg resulting in an embryo is the beginning of human life. It is how you began right? Therefore it holds true that the abortion of said embryo, fetus, etc. directly results in the termination of human life, yes or no? And the willful termination of human life is... drumroll please.... Murder. Murder 1 is defined as Murder with motive and intent. Motive = Whatever your selfish reasons are to kill your child because you believe you will enjoy a better quality of life because of it. Intent = It takes a conscious effort to carry out an abortion doesn't it?

There you have it, Abortion = Murder 1, no Jesus, just good old logic and reason.

JR..

Logic can demonstrate nothing on its own. It must begin with axioms (i.e., assumptions), which can be arbitrary as in mathematics or which can be derived from the natural world. The problems with your argument lie in your assumptions.

You assertation that life begins when the fetus is able to live on its own is absurd. Mom and Dad don't have sex and then boom instant kid. There is a process that takes place to create that life.That process begins upon conception. Kill the process, kill the life.

I agree that developing a person is a process, but that's why picking any one point like conception is absurd. A collection of cells doesn't magically become a person at any specified instant. Plus which instant do you choose from this long developmental process? The formation of the egg, the sperm, fertilization, implantation, transition from zygote to embryo, transition from embryo to fetus, development of a nervous system, birth, learning to speak?

No instant is the right one, but for fun let's look at the problems with the particular instant you chose: conception. Conception results in a zygote, which clearly isn't a person or even a life. It is a piece of living tissue that has the potential to become zero, one, or two or more people, but clearly an entity with such properties is not a person. The fertilization process often fails in some way, resulting in a failure of implantation or a later miscarriage. Somtimes the zygote divides, resulting in identical embryos.

How many abortions were carried out last year in this country alone, how many Einsteins were slain, how many next presidents, how many future nobel peace prize winners, doctors, authors, how many?

How many criminals, madmen, Hitlers, and bin Ladens were aborted too? The potential argument cuts both ways. However, you're getting closer to reality here. Abortion stops a process that has potential to create a person, but it doesn't kill a person, for there is no person to be killed.

 

[Riprorin]

Warren said she hears anecdotal evidence of forced miscarriages but those come mostly from states that require both parents approval for an abortion.

"If 16-year-olds feel that this is there only option, than we have really missed the boat on educating them about sexual health," Warren said.

So "sexual health" is latest buzzword for killing a baby?

 

[BBond]

I'm not making excuses for their actions, but walk in abortions aren't available for teens there so that may have had some bearing on their decision to use beatings as an abortion option.

Michigan
The Law: Requires that one of your parents give permission for your abortion.
Judicial Bypass - Yes.

Teen Abortion Laws In the U.S.A.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BBond
I'm not making excuses for their actions, but walk in abortions aren't available for teens there so that may have had some bearing on their decision to use beatings as an abortion option.

Michigan
The Law: Requires that one of your parents give permission for your abortion.
Judicial Bypass - Yes.

Teen Abortion Laws In the U.S.A.

Think kids needing parental permission to have an abortion will be tried as adults? 😕

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BBond
I'm not making excuses for their actions, but walk in abortions aren't available for teens there so that may have had some bearing on their decision to use beatings as an abortion option.

Michigan
The Law: Requires that one of your parents give permission for your abortion.
Judicial Bypass - Yes.

Teen Abortion Laws In the U.S.A.

Think kids needing parental permission to have an abortion will be tried as adults? 😕

A very insightful point.

 

[NeoV]

I'm sorry, but this has nothing to do with why Roe v Wade should never be overturned

Anyone who resorts to this is a complete, utter loss as a contributing human to our society...nothing constructive or good will ever come from these two pieces of S&%^.

 

[EDoG2K]

Why are you conservatives so up in arms about this?

There are only liberals killing their own babies! A good christian person would never EVER get an abortion. No wonder those democrats they lost the election!

And a clause to allow abortions in the case of incest or rape? You are still murdering an innocent, are you not? that is hypocritical!

Do you feel guilty when you masturbate? cuz i spread thousands of potential kids out to die every time. and I enjoy it! Murder 1? maybe Assault and Battery?

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Since I know I'll get flamed for this, I'll reiterate my position beforehand. If you want to teach 'safe sex', teach it truthfully, with real statistics and actual literature.

don't they? ever sex ed class I ever took made it pretty clear that condoms weren't 100% effective.

No kidding. Same here. What kind of sex ed did you get?

Edit: Here's a thought experiment I put to Cyclo once. I'm going to extrapolate the principles of the pro-life crowd to a scenario that is technically implausible, but morally telling.

From what I've seen, there are two rights at play in the abortion debate.

1. The rights of the mother to choose what happens to her body.
2. The rights of the foetus to live.

In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, these two rights are in conflict.

The pro-life message is essentially that the rights of the mother are waived because she is responsible for the consequences to have sex. She chose to give them up when she had sex.

My argument hinges on the fact that I believe that the man and the woman have an equal responsibilty regarding the consequences of sex.

Imagine a technology that allows a feotus to be transfered from on body to another, whether or not that second body is male or female. This is the technically implausible part. Accept that this exists.

Now, imagine a situation where the mother dies suddenly, but the foetus survives. By the logic of the pro-lifers, it should be legally required for the father to undergo this fictional procudure.

If he protests, we can say that he waived the right to determine what happens to his body vis a vis this child, and the child's life needs to be saved. And he is responsible.

Cyclo surprised me, because he agreed with strapping the fathers down in this hypothetical.

What do you think?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
Remember, the Bush administration has moved to cut federal funding from sex education programs that do not teach abstinence-only.

Last I checked, he just increased funding for abstinence-based education, not cut funding for safe sex.

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Take an example. Say a sperm fertilizes an egg, but for some reason there is a spontaneous abortion by the mother (meaning that something happened biologically so the egg couldn't implant itself in the uterus). Should we call this manslaughter? Why not?

For the same reason no one is charged with murder after someone gets struck by lightning and dies. Equating a grotesque man-made procedure with natural occurrences is ridiculous. You can't legislate nature, but you DO legislate intentional human behavior.

Originally posted by: conjur
I didn't intend to imply you were a Jesus-Freak. Just that that type of rhetoric is what they spew.

As for your comment: "Motive = Whatever your selfish reasons are to kill your child" It's not killing a child. The child isn't born yet. It's not a child by any legal means. It has no SSN, no name, no birth record, nothing.

Now, in my opinion, having an abortion for non-medical emergency means is a very selfish act. But, to call it pre-meditated murder is ridiculous.

I'm curious... What is the magical transformation that occurs the instant a fetus is born? Why is that the dividing line? The legal answer is because the USSC took one sentence completely out of context of the entire Constitution and interpreted it ver batim to achieve their agenda. I want why you think there is a difference between a fetus at nine months and a baby five minutes later.

Originally posted by: cquark
I agree that developing a person is a process, but that's why picking any one point like conception is absurd. A collection of cells doesn't magically become a person at any specified instant. Plus which instant do you choose from this long developmental process? The formation of the egg, the sperm, fertilization, implantation, transition from zygote to embryo, transition from embryo to fetus, development of a nervous system, birth, learning to speak?

No instant is the right one, but for fun let's look at the problems with the particular instant you chose: conception. Conception results in a zygote, which clearly isn't a person or even a life. It is a piece of living tissue that has the potential to become zero, one, or two or more people, but clearly an entity with such properties is not a person. The fertilization process often fails in some way, resulting in a failure of implantation or a later miscarriage. Somtimes the zygote divides, resulting in identical embryos.

So how would you define a person, and on what basis would you choose to deprive rights to the remainder?

For everyone arguing that there should be a ban on general abortion with exceptions in case of X, consider what you're actually arguing. You're basically saying that a zygote/embryo/fetus is a person and thus must have an absolute right to life. You're then turning around and saying in the same breath that it does not have an absolute right to life - that in some cases, which are arbitrary, it has no right to life at all. That position does not stand up to inspection. Bush agrees with it, and is one of the reasons I think he's an idiot.

 

[Klixxer]

I love how extremist fundamentalist idiots like Cyclo look away from the information presented in the OP and somehow think that a ban against abortions will lead to anything good.

READ THE OP, the girl got a beating with a baseball bat to force a miscarriage, of course the holier than thou idiots will want to look beyond the facts that a ban on abortion will only bring more situations like this and of course they will condemn every 16 year old girl who gets hurt and possibly killed since they are so much holier than them.

Fvcking sickos.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Remember, the Bush administration has moved to cut federal funding from sex education programs that do not teach abstinence-only.

Last I checked, he just increased funding for abstinence-based education, not cut funding for safe sex.

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Take an example. Say a sperm fertilizes an egg, but for some reason there is a spontaneous abortion by the mother (meaning that something happened biologically so the egg couldn't implant itself in the uterus). Should we call this manslaughter? Why not?

For the same reason no one is charged with murder after someone gets struck by lightning and dies. Equating a grotesque man-made procedure with natural occurrences is ridiculous. You can't legislate nature, but you DO legislate intentional human behavior.

Originally posted by: conjur
I didn't intend to imply you were a Jesus-Freak. Just that that type of rhetoric is what they spew.

As for your comment: "Motive = Whatever your selfish reasons are to kill your child" It's not killing a child. The child isn't born yet. It's not a child by any legal means. It has no SSN, no name, no birth record, nothing.

Now, in my opinion, having an abortion for non-medical emergency means is a very selfish act. But, to call it pre-meditated murder is ridiculous.

I'm curious... What is the magical transformation that occurs the instant a fetus is born? Why is that the dividing line? The legal answer is because the USSC took one sentence completely out of context of the entire Constitution and interpreted it ver batim to achieve their agenda. I want why you think there is a difference between a fetus at nine months and a baby five minutes later.

Originally posted by: cquark
I agree that developing a person is a process, but that's why picking any one point like conception is absurd. A collection of cells doesn't magically become a person at any specified instant. Plus which instant do you choose from this long developmental process? The formation of the egg, the sperm, fertilization, implantation, transition from zygote to embryo, transition from embryo to fetus, development of a nervous system, birth, learning to speak?

No instant is the right one, but for fun let's look at the problems with the particular instant you chose: conception. Conception results in a zygote, which clearly isn't a person or even a life. It is a piece of living tissue that has the potential to become zero, one, or two or more people, but clearly an entity with such properties is not a person. The fertilization process often fails in some way, resulting in a failure of implantation or a later miscarriage. Somtimes the zygote divides, resulting in identical embryos.

So how would you define a person, and on what basis would you choose to deprive rights to the remainder?

For everyone arguing that there should be a ban on general abortion with exceptions in case of X, consider what you're actually arguing. You're basically saying that a zygote/embryo/fetus is a person and thus must have an absolute right to life. You're then turning around and saying in the same breath that it does not have an absolute right to life - that in some cases, which are arbitrary, it has no right to life at all. That position does not stand up to inspection. Bush agrees with it, and is one of the reasons I think he's an idiot.

If you are correct in your assesment then a woman getting tipsy and falling and get a miscarriage of the baby she was not even aware of carrying would indeed be manslaugther.

If abortion is murder then a misscariage due to carelessness is manslaughter.

I am arguing that abortion is a choice you will never have to make so you should shut your trap about it until you know about every situation that results in an abortion.

 

[Format C:]

I'm curious. Quite a few of you have attempted reasoned arguments as to why life does not begin at conception. Based on that premise, and in its most basic terms, what do you consider to be the definition of life? What happens differently at the moment of birth that wasn't happening already? If its the first breath then isn't that only a different method of achieving what had already been happening; furnishing the organism with oxygen? If its the ability to survive on its own, a lack of dependence if you will, one would have to assume that a newborn has the ability to survive completely on its own with no intervention from anyone else. Thats definitely not the case correct? Is it an onset of change? I don't see how one could argue that position as change has been a constant process since conception and will continually occur until death. So, at what scientifically or logically definable point does a non-life, a mass of cells, or fetus, go through a transformational process to become a life, a baby, or a "person" and just exactly what is the precipitating factor of such a change?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Remember, the Bush administration has moved to cut federal funding from sex education programs that do not teach abstinence-only.

Last I checked, he just increased funding for abstinence-based education, not cut funding for safe sex.

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Take an example. Say a sperm fertilizes an egg, but for some reason there is a spontaneous abortion by the mother (meaning that something happened biologically so the egg couldn't implant itself in the uterus). Should we call this manslaughter? Why not?

For the same reason no one is charged with murder after someone gets struck by lightning and dies. Equating a grotesque man-made procedure with natural occurrences is ridiculous. You can't legislate nature, but you DO legislate intentional human behavior.

Originally posted by: conjur
I didn't intend to imply you were a Jesus-Freak. Just that that type of rhetoric is what they spew.

As for your comment: "Motive = Whatever your selfish reasons are to kill your child" It's not killing a child. The child isn't born yet. It's not a child by any legal means. It has no SSN, no name, no birth record, nothing.

Now, in my opinion, having an abortion for non-medical emergency means is a very selfish act. But, to call it pre-meditated murder is ridiculous.

I'm curious... What is the magical transformation that occurs the instant a fetus is born? Why is that the dividing line? The legal answer is because the USSC took one sentence completely out of context of the entire Constitution and interpreted it ver batim to achieve their agenda. I want why you think there is a difference between a fetus at nine months and a baby five minutes later.

Originally posted by: cquark
I agree that developing a person is a process, but that's why picking any one point like conception is absurd. A collection of cells doesn't magically become a person at any specified instant. Plus which instant do you choose from this long developmental process? The formation of the egg, the sperm, fertilization, implantation, transition from zygote to embryo, transition from embryo to fetus, development of a nervous system, birth, learning to speak?

No instant is the right one, but for fun let's look at the problems with the particular instant you chose: conception. Conception results in a zygote, which clearly isn't a person or even a life. It is a piece of living tissue that has the potential to become zero, one, or two or more people, but clearly an entity with such properties is not a person. The fertilization process often fails in some way, resulting in a failure of implantation or a later miscarriage. Somtimes the zygote divides, resulting in identical embryos.

So how would you define a person, and on what basis would you choose to deprive rights to the remainder?

For everyone arguing that there should be a ban on general abortion with exceptions in case of X, consider what you're actually arguing. You're basically saying that a zygote/embryo/fetus is a person and thus must have an absolute right to life. You're then turning around and saying in the same breath that it does not have an absolute right to life - that in some cases, which are arbitrary, it has no right to life at all. That position does not stand up to inspection. Bush agrees with it, and is one of the reasons I think he's an idiot.

If you are correct in your assesment then a woman getting tipsy and falling and get a miscarriage of the baby she was not even aware of carrying would indeed be manslaugther.

If abortion is murder then a misscariage due to carelessness is manslaughter.

I am arguing that abortion is a choice you will never have to make so you should shut your trap about it until you know about every situation that results in an abortion.

The questions is, is deliberately taking the life of an innocent humans being right or wrong. I say that it's wrong, and it's governments obligation abd duty to protect the life of that innocent human being.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
As for your comment: "Motive = Whatever your selfish reasons are to kill your child" It's not killing a child. The child isn't born yet. It's not a child by any legal means. It has no SSN, no name, no birth record, nothing.

Now, in my opinion, having an abortion for non-medical emergency means is a very selfish act. But, to call it pre-meditated murder is ridiculous.

I'm curious... What is the magical transformation that occurs the instant a fetus is born? Why is that the dividing line? The legal answer is because the USSC took one sentence completely out of context of the entire Constitution and interpreted it ver batim to achieve their agenda. I want why you think there is a difference between a fetus at nine months and a baby five minutes later.

There is no magical transformation; that's your argument, that a magical transformation occurs and suddenly a person exists. It's a long term process, taking place between birth and the age of reason, and as there are no magical transformations, then we take the extremely conservative position of declaring an entity a person, with respect to certain laws, at birth. For other laws, we have other requirements for personhood, such as age 18 for voting or age 21 for drinking, with certain exceptions for the mentally disabled. No one thinks these requirements are perfect, since development is a continuous process that isn't the same in any two entities.

Originally posted by: cquark
I agree that developing a person is a process, but that's why picking any one point like conception is absurd. A collection of cells doesn't magically become a person at any specified instant. Plus which instant do you choose from this long developmental process? The formation of the egg, the sperm, fertilization, implantation, transition from zygote to embryo, transition from embryo to fetus, development of a nervous system, birth, learning to speak?

No instant is the right one, but for fun let's look at the problems with the particular instant you chose: conception. Conception results in a zygote, which clearly isn't a person or even a life. It is a piece of living tissue that has the potential to become zero, one, or two or more people, but clearly an entity with such properties is not a person. The fertilization process often fails in some way, resulting in a failure of implantation or a later miscarriage. Somtimes the zygote divides, resulting in identical embryos.

So how would you define a person, and on what basis would you choose to deprive rights to the remainder?

A person is an entity capable of abstract rational thought. It's the difference between a person and a nonintelligent animal that we use to give persons considerably different rights and responsibilities under the law than we give to nonintelligent animals.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Klixxer
If you are correct in your assesment then a woman getting tipsy and falling and get a miscarriage of the baby she was not even aware of carrying would indeed be manslaugther.

If abortion is murder then a misscariage due to carelessness is manslaughter.

I am arguing that abortion is a choice you will never have to make so you should shut your trap about it until you know about every situation that results in an abortion.

The questions is, is deliberately taking the life of an innocent humans being right or wrong. I say that it's wrong, and it's governments obligation abd duty to protect the life of that innocent human being.

No, the question is whether a person exists then or not. Assuming your conclusion won't get you anywhere logically.

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Remember, the Bush administration has moved to cut federal funding from sex education programs that do not teach abstinence-only.

Last I checked, he just increased funding for abstinence-based education, not cut funding for safe sex.

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Take an example. Say a sperm fertilizes an egg, but for some reason there is a spontaneous abortion by the mother (meaning that something happened biologically so the egg couldn't implant itself in the uterus). Should we call this manslaughter? Why not?

For the same reason no one is charged with murder after someone gets struck by lightning and dies. Equating a grotesque man-made procedure with natural occurrences is ridiculous. You can't legislate nature, but you DO legislate intentional human behavior.

Originally posted by: conjur
I didn't intend to imply you were a Jesus-Freak. Just that that type of rhetoric is what they spew.

As for your comment: "Motive = Whatever your selfish reasons are to kill your child" It's not killing a child. The child isn't born yet. It's not a child by any legal means. It has no SSN, no name, no birth record, nothing.

Now, in my opinion, having an abortion for non-medical emergency means is a very selfish act. But, to call it pre-meditated murder is ridiculous.

I'm curious... What is the magical transformation that occurs the instant a fetus is born? Why is that the dividing line? The legal answer is because the USSC took one sentence completely out of context of the entire Constitution and interpreted it ver batim to achieve their agenda. I want why you think there is a difference between a fetus at nine months and a baby five minutes later.

Originally posted by: cquark
I agree that developing a person is a process, but that's why picking any one point like conception is absurd. A collection of cells doesn't magically become a person at any specified instant. Plus which instant do you choose from this long developmental process? The formation of the egg, the sperm, fertilization, implantation, transition from zygote to embryo, transition from embryo to fetus, development of a nervous system, birth, learning to speak?

No instant is the right one, but for fun let's look at the problems with the particular instant you chose: conception. Conception results in a zygote, which clearly isn't a person or even a life. It is a piece of living tissue that has the potential to become zero, one, or two or more people, but clearly an entity with such properties is not a person. The fertilization process often fails in some way, resulting in a failure of implantation or a later miscarriage. Somtimes the zygote divides, resulting in identical embryos.

So how would you define a person, and on what basis would you choose to deprive rights to the remainder?

For everyone arguing that there should be a ban on general abortion with exceptions in case of X, consider what you're actually arguing. You're basically saying that a zygote/embryo/fetus is a person and thus must have an absolute right to life. You're then turning around and saying in the same breath that it does not have an absolute right to life - that in some cases, which are arbitrary, it has no right to life at all. That position does not stand up to inspection. Bush agrees with it, and is one of the reasons I think he's an idiot.

Just so folks understand what Cyclo said above is that if you are against abortion you need to be against all abortions. So in the case that your wife/sister/mother was raped and impregnated she would have to bear the child even if complications from the pregnancy killed her. Because as some has said here abortion is always wrong Same goes for incest.

Just wanted to make sure that as Pro Lifers you understood all the ramifications of what you are Pro for.