Home - List All Discussions

When a Parent Doesn't Know

Mother Not Told of Thirteen-Year Old's Abortio

by: yoda

When a Parent Doesn't Know
Mother Not Told of Thirteen-Year Old's Abortion

BY ANNE KNIGHT

On Friday morning, July 30, 2004, Diana Lopez, a divorced mother of four young children, was awakened by a phone call. The call was from a staff member at the middle school that her two oldest children attend, Memorial Academy in San Diego. Lopez recounted that the staff member told her that her 13-year-old daughter had been taken to the hospital because she was bleeding. Lopez states that when she asked what had happened to her daughter, the staff member's response was that they didn't know and that her daughter's boyfriend's mother had come to take her to the hospital.

Lopez's 14-year-old daughter then called Lopez, revealing that her 13-year-old sister was about to get an abortion at Planned Parenthood. "I just started screaming," Lopez recalled. Lopez spoke to the staff member again and asked what she should do and how she could find her daughter. Lopez said that the staff member replied that she didn't know what to do and suggested that Lopez contact the police.

Lopez says that she was not aware that her daughter was pregnant. She later learned that the mother of her 13-year-old daughter's boyfriend (also 13) had orchestrated the abortion. On the morning that the school called her, the boyfriend's mother had arranged to pick up Lopez's 13-year-old daughter at the school and take her to Planned Parenthood for the abortion. The 13-year-old was then four months pregnant and had had laminaria inserted. As she walked with her older sister to school that morning, she began experiencing severe cramps and bleeding. Upon arriving at the school office, her older sister asked to use the phone, intending to call the boyfriend's mother.

full article: http://www.sffaith.com/ed/articles/2005/0501ak.htm

reply from: galen

this happens more than we might think possible.

Mary

reply from: yoda

Sorry, I fogot to put the link in when I posted that.

reply from: Alexandra

Funny how a girl needs parental consent to get her ears pierced if she's under 18, but she can go get her child killed and possibly get certain body parts mutilated without her parents even knowing!

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I hear they're trying to pass a law saying the parents don't have to be notified if a young girl gets an abortion. How sad.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Well hello there sista. Fancy meeting you here.

reply from: NewPoster1

I think this revised statement is a more accurate depiction of the situation.

"Lopez insists that had she known her daughter was pregnant, she would have forced her to have the baby against her will."

It seems to me that this woman's views are strongly anti-choice, it's not surprising that her daughter chose not to tell her that she was going to have an abortion.

reply from: yoda

Besides reading this woman's mind, you also can read the daughter's mind? Wow!

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I think this revised statement is a more accurate depiction of the situation.

"Lopez insists that had she known her daughter was pregnant, she would have forced her to have the baby against her will."

It seems to me that this woman's views are strongly anti-choice, it's not surprising that her daughter chose not to tell her that she was going to have an abortion.

I don't see what's so bad about having a child. You can't die during childbirth; we don't live in the 1850's. If you're too small to give birth, get a C-Section. Honestly.

reply from: bradensmommy

I think this revised statement is a more accurate depiction of the situation.

"Lopez insists that had she known her daughter was pregnant, she would have forced her to have the baby against her will."

It seems to me that this woman's views are strongly anti-choice, it's not surprising that her daughter chose not to tell her that she was going to have an abortion.

Your damned right I would make her have the baby, got a problem with that? Too bad, she is MY daughter not yours. Any child under the age of 18 are MINORS which means they are under the care of a parent or guardian. Would you be mad if your child got a tattoo or piercing without your knowledge? Would you be mad if your child needed surgery and refused?

NP, you seriously need help like I said before.

reply from: Alexandra

So NewPoster is against this woman saving the life of her grandchild?

Hey--that was a WANTED baby there, if you want to play that way!

Know what, my pregnancy with my son wasn't the easiest in the world--but I wouldn't change a thing.

reply from: RePit

Yes damned right. If my 13-year-old daughter is pregnant, I want to know about it so I can drive her to the best abortion clinic in my area. She's not coming of there until that pregnancy is aborted. I believe that is in her best interests, and I know what's best.

reply from: galen

i have to wonder how many people out there know what its like for a 13 yo to go through either procedure... MY GOD SHE IS 13!!!!

Either way it was NOT the boyfriend's mother's place to be providing medical care of ANY kind for that child.

Mary

reply from: bradensmommy

Yes damned right. If my 13-year-old daughter is pregnant, I want to know about it so I can drive her to the best abortion clinic in my area. She's not coming of there until that pregnancy is aborted. I believe that is in her best interests, and I know what's best.

awww what a caring and thoughtful parent you'd make. Its a damned shame you don't have 10 kids, they'd love you to pieces!

reply from: SpiritualisticBuddhist

Blimey! If I learned about my child being pregnant at 13 I would figure out what she wanted to do and what she thought was right and support her, even if I disagreed. I would give her every darn bit of information and viewpoint out there and let her decide.

Some people seem to forget that their children are human beings and have minds of their own. I thought the whole point of parenting is being as selfless as possible.

Force your child into having an abortion? What planet of nastiness do you live on?

As for the whole 'telling the parents of a teenage child' thing I am totally divided. If there wasnt child abuse in this world I would agree wholeheartedly with that law. It's a toughy. Should some children be made to suffer so others dont?

Honestly, the force your child into aborting has made me sick. I hope you were being sarcastic RePit. Otherwise you should strip your prochoice guise right now and change it to 'Pro-hold your daughter down screaming as you take something she deems precious and hates you for the rest of her life'... unless of course she wants the abortion... then I suppose it's a different matter.

Back onto the issue, I agree with Mary. As a mother, the boyfriends mother should've known better than to hide something so important from the daughters parent. I am more inclined to think, because she didn't tell the 13 year olds mother, that this was coerced. I could definitely be wrong... she could simply be trying to protect the childs wishes.

You know, I'm thinking of changing my already very iffy 'pro-choice' stance to 'pro-god knows what, I don't even know anymore'

It's hard sitting on the fence... It's sharp and I'm lonely.

reply from: RePit

Yes I was being sarcastic.

My point was that it is just as bad to force a child into an abortion as it is to force her not to.

I have a lengthy post in the thread New poll: Parental consent for abortion favored by 73% that better explains my position on this.

reply from: SpiritualisticBuddhist

Yes I was being sarcastic.

My point was that it is just as bad to force a child into an abortion as it is to force her not to.

I have a lengthy post in the thread New poll: Parental consent for abortion favored by 73% that better explains my position on this.

Whew, sorry, It's hard to pick up sarcasm on the net. I did wonder...

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Tell me, how in the world is making your daughter give birth to a baby as bad as making her get an abortion? Why risk her life letting her get an abortion while you can save your grandchild's life and maybe even save her life too? I don't see how childbirth is dangerous. She isn't going to die because we have the technology to prevent that. If she doesn't want the baby, she can put it up for adoption. Yeesh.

reply from: bradensmommy

The reason why I said what I said is because if my child thinks they are grown enough to have sex, they are grown enough to deal with whatever comes with it. You lie in your bed, you should make it.

But I hope that I teach my children what is right and wrong and what happens when you make certain choices.

reply from: RePit

But they are not grown up enough to decide if they need an abortion or not?

reply from: RePit

It doesn't matter what the risks or the pros and cons of each option are. What does matter is that she gets a balanced accurate view of those pros cons and risks, and she makes her own decision.

reply from: bradensmommy

But they are not grown up enough to decide if they need an abortion or not?

you are asking the wrong person that question. Ask one of your pro-abortion buddies and get back to me.

reply from: RePit

you are asking the wrong person that question. Ask one of your pro-abortion buddies and get back to me.

Why do you think you are the wrong person to ask? On one hand you want to force a decision on your teenage daughter. On the other hand you think your teenage daughter is grown up enough to deal with the consequences of her actions. Which is it?

reply from: yoda

I thought her sentiment was perfectly clear. She thinks her daughter is old enough to accept the consequences of her actions, one of which is that sex sometimes results in pregnancy. And she will not allow her to "escape the consequences" by killing her own child, because that would also make her a baby killer.

That makes perfect sense to me.

reply from: bradensmommy

I thought her sentiment was perfectly clear. She thinks her daughter is old enough to accept the consequences of her actions, one of which is that sex sometimes results in pregnancy. And she will not allow her to "escape the consequences" by killing her own child, because that would also make her a baby killer.

That makes perfect sense to me.

I knew there was a reason I loved ya Yoda!

reply from: Sigma

Then it has little to do with what the daughter is old enough to accept the consequences, it is about punishing the daughter for her actions. The daughter cannot deal with the consequences as she chooses, so it is about making her do what the parent wants to teach her a lesson.

reply from: bradensmommy

Then it has little to do with what the daughter is old enough to accept the consequences, it is about punishing the daughter for her actions. The daughter cannot deal with the consequences as she chooses, so it is about making her do what the parent wants to teach her a lesson.

Children must learn from thier actions. I don't think abortion solves anything or makes anything better. A friend of mine got pregnant at 16 and she gave her child up for adoption to a very nice couple. She knew what she did and she didn't think killing a baby solved her problem. She is still a mother nonetheless.

I don't know why you think the way you do but it really bothers me.

reply from: Sigma

Yes, but I don't think pregnancy should be treated as a learning tool, no matter how irresponsible the girl has been. It simply is too serious for that. It should always be entered into and continued willingly.

That's great, but it is a personal decision even if you think it is the wrong one. People make mistakes, people learn from mistakes. You shouldn't take away other's choices because you are afraid they will make the wrong one.

Trust me, likewise.

reply from: yoda

EVERY experience in life should be treated as a "learning tool", and pregnancy is no exception.

And the first thing that a female should learn in a pregnancy is that it will terminate sometime, no matter what she does or doesn't do.

It will terminate with a live baby, or a dead one. And that's a very important lesson.

reply from: Sigma

And abortion is no exception. It can be treated as a learning tool by the one going through it; it should not required by another in order to teach a lesson.

'Terminate' commonly refers to an interruption of a normal pregnancy. Completion is the ending with a live birth. Using 'terminate' for both just muddies the water.

reply from: yoda

Oh my, what a huge, important semantic distinction! Kinda "flea like", IMO.

Try this one then: "All pregnancies will end, either with a live baby or a dead one."

Or this one: "Live baby good, dead baby bad". Do you wish to quibble with my language on that one?

reply from: Sigma

How about All pregnancies end, either with live birth or early termination.

reply from: bradensmommy

So I guess in your case a dead baby is better than a live one?

reply from: Sigma

Where have I said this?

reply from: bradensmommy

Where have I said this?

Since your comments lately have been pertaining as such I just assumed. You seem to be typically pro-abortion since you joined.

reply from: Sigma

Well, you are incorrect. I would generally rather a woman carry a pregnancy through to completion. I fight for the option of abortion to be available. I am pro-choice.

To answer your question, I would rather a live birth than an early termination.

reply from: yoda

That works only if you want to weaselword the truth by using a euphemism (early termination) for something that will cause the death of a baby.

If you want to be honest, you say it like I suggested, IMO.

BTW, did you understand "Live baby good, dead baby bad?"

reply from: yoda

Right. You want them born alive, but you "fight" to keep the option to kill them legal.

No, you don't "fight" to help them be born alive, you fight to help mothers to kill them.

And yet you would "prefer" that they didn't kill them.

Uh-huh........

reply from: Sigma

I was including miscarriages as “early termination”. Shall we get back on-topic?

reply from: yoda

You know quite well that no one is interested in debating about miscarriages, that's a red herring argument, a smokescreen, and a diversion.

I'm more interested in how you "fight for the option of abortion", but really don't want it used. Why don't you try NOT "fighting for it" for a change, and see it that helps?

reply from: Sigma

Yodavater... your brain is for thinking. Try it out.

We were making generalized statements about pregnancy.

Because I believe laws against abortion violate a woman’s freedom. I believe that a woman should have a right to have one, even if I generally believe a woman should not do so.

Shall we get back on-topic? My last post to you before we went off on a tangent was:

And abortion is no exception. It can be treated as a learning tool by the one going through it; it should not required by another in order to teach a lesson.

I would like to continue our discussion on why you should not require pregnancies to continue by law in order to teach others lessons or to punish them for irresponsible behavior.

reply from: scopia1982

Sigma, as far as responsible or irresponsible behavior goes, I believe that unless you are prepared to deal with all of the consequences of sex, STDS/ pregnancy then you have no right to be doing it. Sex is an adult thing and must be treated as such. That is the problem with society today, they want to play, the freedom of sex, but dont want ANY of the responsiblities that go along with it. Proaborts and liberals go on about "Reproductive Freedom" etc yet I have not heard one address the issue of responsibilty. THey just offer to take a large sum of money and an appointment at the local PP and will fix the problem. This day and time, unplanned pregnacy is the most benign consequence of sex, considering AIDS and the other Diseases out there. Simply you play, you pay and that goes for both young men and young women. No one is exempt .

reply from: Sigma

I believe that one should not participate if one does not want the consequences with you.

Abortions are neither pleasant, scopia1982, nor do women revel in having them.

"Do the crime, do the time" is a horrible way of looking at pregnancy. Sex is not a crime, and pregnancy should never be used as a punishment or as a learning tool by others to teach a lesson. It is a very personal and private issue.

You may be able to look at someone with a STD and tell them "hey, that's just the way the cookie crumbles" and deny them the choice to persue treatment, but I would not.

reply from: scopia1982

"Abortions are neither pleasant, scopia1982, nor do women revel in having them."

Believe me, I know, I was forced to have one against my will after I said 'no" Most women who have them dont want them it is usaully outside forced, mainly her partner that wants it . Abortion most of the time isnt a 'choice" instead its a duty to "comply"

"Do the crime, do the time" is a horrible way of looking at pregnancy. Sex is not a crime, and pregnancy should never be used as a punishment or as a learning tool by others to teach a lesson. It is a very personal and private issue."

No sex isnt a crime and pregnacy isnt a punishment. But one doesnt have the moral or ethical right to end another life because they cant accept the reprecussions of an adult act.

"You may be able to look at someone with a STD and tell them "hey, that's just the way the cookie crumbles" and deny them the choice to persue treatment, but I would not"

I never said or implied anything of the kind. I would tell them that they need to get treatmetn, but hopefully lesson will be learned and they will be more careful and responsible next time.

reply from: Sigma

Which obviously is wrong to truly pro-choice people. It should always be the choice of the woman having it.

You do have the moral and ethical right to disconnect anyone who is attached to one against your will, however, regardless of whether they are connected as a result of your actions. If someone is connected to me and I do not want them there and did not agree to having them there I would have every right to remove them. If killing them is the only way to do this, so be it.

You did indeed imply that. You said:
I believe that unless you are prepared to deal with all of the consequences of sex, STDS/ pregnancy then you have no right to be doing it. Sex is an adult thing and must be treated as such.
Implying that the consequence of STDs, like pregnancy, cannot be changed because the woman in question has to learn responsibility. You play you pay, with no exceptions. Now you say that people with STDs can get treatment and hopefully learn from the experience. Well, I think women who are pregnant can get an abortion and hopefully learn from the experience to be more responsible next time.

reply from: bradensmommy

Which obviously is wrong to truly pro-choice people. It should always be the choice of the woman having it.

You do have the moral and ethical right to disconnect anyone who is attached to one against your will, however, regardless of whether they are connected as a result of your actions. If someone is connected to me and I do not want them there and did not agree to having them there I would have every right to remove them. If killing them is the only way to do this, so be it.

You did indeed imply that. You said:
I believe that unless you are prepared to deal with all of the consequences of sex, STDS/ pregnancy then you have no right to be doing it. Sex is an adult thing and must be treated as such.
Implying that the consequence of STDs, like pregnancy, cannot be changed because the woman in question has to learn responsibility. You play you pay, with no exceptions. Now you say that people with STDs can get treatment and hopefully learn from the experience. Well, I think women who are pregnant can get an abortion and hopefully learn from the experience to be more responsible next time.

Its all about responsibility Sigma, realize that. A friend of mine contracted genital herpes because she was attracted to some guy who she saw at her work and decided to have sex with him with NO protection. She knew it was her fault because she knew it was her responsibility to protect herself. We all have to be responsible and take care of ourselves because noone else is going to. (especially when it comes to sex)

reply from: Sigma

Agreed. We differ on the fact that I believe it is personal responsibility, not governmentally enforced responsibility.

reply from: Sigma

It is unavoidable. To protect the fetus within the woman, you must violate or infringe upon her rights, her freedoms. Whether you believe it is justified to do so is your opinion.

Whether it is her reason to do so is irrelevant if she is in that situation. We don't criminalize motives, generally.

reply from: Tam

But they are not grown up enough to decide if they need an abortion or not?

This is not a matter of being grown up. Is there a legal age where someone is grown-up enough to commit murder? How about rape? Well, there is no age after which one is grown-up enough to commit abortion, either.

Then it has little to do with what the daughter is old enough to accept the consequences, it is about punishing the daughter for her actions. The daughter cannot deal with the consequences as she chooses, so it is about making her do what the parent wants to teach her a lesson.

Ridiculous. Preventing a murder is not done to punish the one who is trying to commit the murder. Punishment is for one who has already committed murder.

It is unavoidable. To protect the fetus within the woman, you must violate or infringe upon her rights, her freedoms.

That is true ONLY if it is the case that the mother has the right to kill the child. If she does NOT have that right, then protecting the child does NOT infringe upon the mother's rights.

reply from: Tam

Hiya sweetie.

I've been there--as you know. The sort of limbo-land in which I found myself for a few years was icky and no fun! It felt like I didn't agree with anyone, and no one agreed with me! Lonely and sharp! Just keep your focus on what's important and it will all come together eventually. A little-known fact about me is that I have never taken an action that would restrict or abolish a woman's ability to procure a legal abortion. I have never even voted for a pro-life candidate--usually, I disagree with them on so many other issues (animal welfare, the environment, civil liberties, you name it) that I can't bring myself to vote for them. Then again, I usually don't vote at all--I am mostly an anarchist and don't like others making rules for me or for anyone. But...when it comes right down to it, I have also refused to vote for pro-choice candidates solely because of their pro-choice stance. In other words, I don't fight to make it illegal--but I would sooner support someone who did than support someone fighting to keep it legal, that's for sure! To me, it's more a moral battle than a legal one. I'm not much interested in the legal stuff--when hearts and minds change, laws change to reflect that, and I am more interested in encouraging the former than forcing the latter.

You don't have to take a stand either way about the legality if you don't want to. You can just do your best to help women make better choices for themselves and their children. You won't be on anyone's "side"--but maybe that's not as important as whether you are accomplishing something positive. I spent too long on that fence precisely because I felt I had to pick a side and become active on that side. The whole abortion war is something I'd rather work to end than fight on either side of. But I have to stand up for what I know is true, that is: that abortion (if "successful") kills babies. I love women and I love freedom, but I can't pretend that killing babies is pro-woman or pro-freedom. Like the first feminists, I see abortion as another problem, rather than a solution to our problems.

Our society is sick. It is this sickness that manifests in symptoms such as abortion, rape, child molestation, etc. When I am sick, I don't just treat the symptoms--I try to address the cause. Same with the culture. Outlawing abortion won't cure the sickness, it will just mask that one symptom. Granted, that symptom is killing people! And criminalization is like the drug that would save the lives of many of those people, though not all of them. If pressed, I would support criminalization rather than abortion on demand. So far, I haven't been pressed. DEpressed about it, a bit, maybe!

I wonder about some other solution. Some process, some way of permitting yet regulating abortions. It sounds ridiculous, even to me, at first, but it might work. Some way that would permit only those abortions that were deemed ok by a jury of the mother's peers or something. As society becomes more and more pro-life (which I am sure is happening and will continue to happen), fewer and fewer would be permitted, until at last it would be eradicated. This is different from simply driving it underground with criminalization. I think some people (on both sides) assume it can never be eradicated, but that is because they are treating the symptom. The problem is: moms and kids need to be taken care of, and no mom should ever be in a position where the best care she can think of for herself and/or her child involves killing the child! So that's the problem, and it's hard to find a cure for that. But we need to work together on it, all of us, no matter how we feel about the legality of abortion. What someone said--was it scopia or galen?--about welfare was right on.

I used to be more traditionally libertarian: what's mine is mine, what's yours is yours, hands off what's mine and I'll leave what's yours alone, the government can't take what's mine and give it to you, or that's just not fair. Ok, it's not fair---but it's not fair if I have 1000X what you have, and you are starving and thinking of killing your kids, and I'm living large and have no concerns for food, shelter, etc, and have plenty to spare. That is the culture we live in, and it's not fair to THE KIDS WHO GET KILLED! So while I would have said that the government has no right to take a million dollars from Bill Gates and use it to save the lives of children whose poverty-stricken mothers would otherwise feel they had to abort them--I have no sympathy for Gates in the face of that, frankly. He has plenty. I think over a certain income level, you've got enough! I would never have thought I'd say these things, just a few years ago, but there are things more important than property rights--and the lives of children pretty much top that list.

Anyway, I have to get back to work! But I was so tickled to see you over here, SB.

reply from: yoda

I wish I could return the compliment, Sig......

Yes, her "freedom to kill (her baby)", which oddly enough is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights.... How could they have overlooked that one?

Discuss away. My concern is with the life of the innocent, unborn baby, and yours is in protecting the right to kill that innocent unborn baby. That's pretty much self-explanatory, proabort.

reply from: Sigma

Tam,

Abortion is not murder because abortion is legal. Read the discussion. The daughter in question is old enough to handle the consequences in terms of childbirth, but is not old enough to handle the consequences in terms of abortion?

This shows it is not about being old enough to accept the consequences, it is about “do the crime, do the time”. It is about punishment from the parent for the daughters actions.

Protecting what the woman carries inevitably interferes with the woman’s right to her own body. You cannot do one without doing the other if you accept a woman has a right to bodily integrity and a right to privacy. You may feel it is justified to do so, but you will be violating her rights.

reply from: Tam

Abortion is not murder because abortion is legal.

I didn't say "abortion is, legally speaking, murder." So can it, Sigma. You know quite well what I meant, and I see yet another attempt to derail the discussion.

The point (which I know you grasped, despite your nonsense) is that preventing an abortion isn't done to punish the pregnant woman. That has no part whatsoever in the motivation to prevent an abortion. Even when people say, "you play, you pay" they don't mean that preventing abortion is a punishment for sex. Preventing abortion is done for the same EXACT reason that any of us would prevent a murder or a rape. THAT was my point. Just because you don't consider unborn children worthy of life unless their mommies agree with you does not mean the rest of us are likewise willing to allow them to be killed.

She will have to be old enough to handle the consequences of having a child--because she has a child. If she chooses to kill the child, she will have to handle the consequences of that. Trying to save the child's life is not a way to punish his/her mother--no matter how old or young the child is.

No. It is about neither. It is about saving a child's life, Sigma. That's what it is about.

Protecting what the woman carries inevitably interferes with the woman’s right to her own body. You cannot do one without doing the other if you accept a woman has a right to bodily integrity and a right to privacy. You may feel it is justified to do so, but you will be violating her rights.

Nope. Her right to privacy ends where my right to life begins. It's not that she HAS a right, and that right is VIOLATED, it's that she doesn't have the right in the first place.

reply from: Sigma

My goodness, Tam not using the proper dictionary definition for a term. I can accept using “murder” in a philosophical sense, but I ask that you extend the same courtesy that you demand.

lol. Dance away.

That’s fine, but you are trying to refocus the discussion. The discussion at hand is about responsibility, not whether abortion is justified or how bad abortion is. The contention was that a parent can disallow abortion because the daughter is old enough to accept the consequences of her actions. The response was that if the daughter is old enough to accept childbirth she is old enough to accept an abortion. To disallow abortion when she is “old enough to accept the consequences” is not about responsibility, it is being argued, but is then about punishing the daughter for her actions.

You are being intellectually dishonest. If you cannot answer the point, concede then start a new discussion.

Bear a child then. You know what is meant.

Sure, but the justification cannot be “she must deal with the consequences” because then she can deal with the consequences by having an abortion. If she is old enough to go through one, she is old enough to go through the other.

And your right to live ends where her body begins. It works both ways, Tam

Everyone has a right to bodily integrity. You must violate that to require her to share her body against her will.

reply from: Tam

My goodness, Tam not using the proper dictionary definition for a term. I can accept using “murder” in a philosophical sense, but I ask that you extend the same courtesy that you demand.

I wasn't talking about abortion; I was talking about murder in the legal sense. Hello? As for asking for some courtesy from you--ha! I wasn't, and I won't! I don't expect you to recognize abortion is murder--you will hide in the legal definition, and I expect THAT, not some recognition of the true nature of the act. Come now, you didn't really think I was asking for your courtesy, did you?! LOL As for extending to you "the same courtesy"--if you mean, extending to you the privilege of misusing words and demanding that everyone else similarly misuse them--no, that "courtesy" will not be extended.

lol. Dance away.

You really don't get it, huh? Let me bring you up to speed (oh, what wishful thinking on my part--let me TRY to bring you up to speed). No matter how bad someone's situation, that doesn't justify killing babies. I have no sympathy for the act of killing a baby, no matter what drove someone to it. You might feel similarly about rape--or, hell, maybe you have sympathy for some rapists under extreme circumstances, maybe you don't. Point being that when something is obviously horrifically immoral to you, you have no sympathy for people's excuses for why they just HAD to do it. So when I hear, "Waaaah! I didn't MEAN to get pregnant!" I don't think, "Well, then, I guess it's okay for you to kill a baby, but try to be more careful in the future." I think, "Yeah, well, you had sex and you know pregnancy is a very real possibility when you have sex, so don't expect me to condone your desire to kill your innocent child." The point is to protect the innocent child. You somehow would love for the point to be to punish the woman for having sex, but I don't care about her sex life. I care about her child's life. Get it yet? I do have sympathy for rape victims. They didn't want to have sex; it was forced upon them. That still doesn't justify killing a baby, but it wouldn't warrant a comment such as, "you pay, you play." Is ANY of this getting through to you yet, or do you still think my point is to punish women for having sex?

That’s fine, but you are trying to refocus the discussion.

Nooo....try to stay with me....I was trying to correct your false notion of the reasoning behind the "you pay, you play" comment that someone else made. Just trying to help you understand.

The entire context of the discussion is that some of us feel abortion is not justified, because it is immoral. You'd love for this and all abortion discussions to take place outside of that context, but that isn't going to happen.

You're still wrong. First of all, it is entirely possible to be old enough to handle pregnancy but NOT old enough to handle the emotional consequences of killing your child. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that a woman old enough to create a child is "old enough" to kill that child. There is no level of maturity one can reach at which killing a child is something that one should have to handle. That's like saying that there's an age after which someone is old enough to commit rape. There isn't. Second of all, you are completely wrong about it being about punishing the daughter. I have tried to explain to you why you're wrong, but you can disregard my explanation as "off-topic" if that's the easiest way for you to dodge it.

Well, you're welcome to your opinion, but I'll let my posts speak for themselves rather than try to explain to you what is happening in this discussion.

Sure, but the justification cannot be “she must deal with the consequences” because then she can deal with the consequences by having an abortion. If she is old enough to go through one, she is old enough to go through the other.

Ha! Only a proabort thinks the experience of creating and giving birth to a child is the emotional and moral equivalent of creating and then killing a child. You call yourself pro-choice! And you think there's a difference. You actually think you don't support abortion. I hope it's a nice dream you're having. It's a rude awakening--been there, done that.

And your right to live ends where her body begins. It works both ways, Tam

LOL You just keep telling yourself that.

Everyone has a right to bodily integrity. You must violate that to require her to share her body against her will.

Require her? Oh, you're talking about forcibly impregnating her. No one advocates that, Sigma.

As for my right to bodily integrity--if such a right exists, then when I am pregnant, my "bodily integrity" is that of a PREGNANT WOMAN, and the abortionist killing my baby violates that bodily integrity.

reply from: Sigma

It’s good you recognize that abortion is not murder, then.

Then whether she had irresponsible sex is irrelevant, correct? She does not have to “take responsibility for her consequences” because her sex life is of no concern. It’s not about her actions, it is purely a question of her rights and the supposed rights of the fetus, correct?

I get that you wish to refocus the discussion, yes.

You are trying to refocus the discussion. “You play, you pay” has a pretty clear direction, thank you You dancing around it is just that, dancing.

The entire context of this discussion is regarding responsibility and consequences. You wish to refocus that.

It is a consequence. If she is old enough to go through pregnancy, she is old enough to go through an abortion. Whether she handles either well is highly individual. Some women do, some women don’t.

lol. Just lol.

Both are very emotional issues and both require a certain amount of maturity to handle well. If one says she is old enough to go through one, she is old enough to go through the other by the same reasoning.

Translation: I cannot answer your point.

You are advocating requiring women to continue their pregnancies, Tam.

If it is against your will, yes. If you willingly allow the fetus to continue to feed off of your body then there is no issue. If you willingly allow the doctor to perform an abortion, there is no issue.

reply from: Tam

Yeah, I'll answer that pathetic post tomorrow, after the personal attacks (which I reported to the moderator) are removed.

reply from: yoda

It appears she had some good luck there, Sig.......

reply from: Sigma

The luck I was referring to was in replying to my post.

reply from: Tam

It’s good you recognize that abortion is not murder, then.

I do realize (hello? did you not get this?) that abortion does not currently fall within the legal definition of murder. That's because the legal definition of murder rests upon the idea that it is a person being murdered, and an erroneous judgement wrongly claimed that unborn children aren't really persons, so it doesn't apply to them.

Abortion, if you want to look at it as fundamentally different from murder, is actually WORSE than "murder" IMO. I don't need to call it "murder" because it already has a name ("abortion") that means something even worse. Abortion is when someone murders an unborn child. "Murders" in that sense is a correct usage, but to call that action "murder" is temporarily incorrect (because of a legal technicality which will eventually be corrected).

But none of that was even the point. That was a tangent we had to go on because when I said "murder" YOU read it as "abortion" and made all these assumptions. Back to what I said--the point of preventing a murder is not to punish the one trying to commit it by denying him his "choice". The POINT of preventing a murder is to save the life of the person who is the target of that murder. The POINT of preventing an abortion is to save the life of the child who is the target of that abortion. If you try to claim that there is ANY other point of preventing abortion, whether you think it's to oppress and control women, to punish them for having sex, or any other ridiculous thing, you are wrong. It's really as simple as that. You want to pretend that preventing abortion is motivated by some desire OTHER THAN to save the lives of children, when in fact it is not.

Then whether she had irresponsible sex is irrelevant, correct? She does not have to “take responsibility for her consequences” because her sex life is of no concern. It’s not about her actions, it is purely a question of her rights and the supposed rights of the fetus, correct?

She does have to take responsibility for her actions--we all do, for all our actions. That is true, but it is a side note, not the basic issue. I don't care about her sex life--but often, the fact that someone is irresponsible sexually is used as an excuse for abortion. The point is that it is NO excuse, that there IS NO excuse. When that excuse is trotted out, the appropriate response is to point out that she has to take responsibility for her actions. That doesn't make "she has to take responsibility" the motivation for preventing abortion. It is, quite simply, the response to the lame excuse of "what if her birth control fails, or she fails to use it?". It is NOT the motivation to prevent abortion.

The motivation to prevent abortion is the EXACT SAME motivation as the one to prevent murder. THAT is why I brought up murder.

I get that you wish to refocus the discussion, yes.

LOL No, keep trying. Someone said her daughter was old enough to accept the consequences of her actions and wouldn't be allowed to kill a baby in order to escape those consequences. YOU took that to mean that the point was to punish the daughter, when the point was that the daughter would not be allowed to kill a baby. If you think that my efforts to help you understand have taken us on a tangent, then it's a tangent we got on because of YOUR lack of understanding (or, more likely, deliberate misinterpretation) of the point someone was making.

You are trying to refocus the discussion. “You play, you pay” has a pretty clear direction, thank you You dancing around it is just that, dancing.

So from this, I take it that despite my efforts to help you understand, you persist in claiming that the point of preventing the daughter from aborting the grandchild has nothing to do with saving the grandchild's life and everything to do with punishing the daughter for having sex. Right? And you support abortion on demand.

It is a consequence. If she is old enough to go through pregnancy, she is old enough to go through an abortion. Whether she handles either well is highly individual. Some women do, some women don’t.

Well, she could choose to kill the baby's father, instead of killing the baby. That would also be "a consequence"--right? Is she "old enough" to do that? Would it be ok, as long as she "handled it well"?

Both are very emotional issues and both require a certain amount of maturity to handle well. If one says she is old enough to go through one, she is old enough to go through the other by the same reasoning.

Exactly--to you, giving a child life is the same sort of experience as giving a child death. Heck, she can handle it, right? No problem! She'll be fine!

To you, as a supporter of abortion, abortion is essentially the same as allowing the child to live. Neither is more potentially rewarding or damaging than the other. I am amazed at your ability to persist in this opinion in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Wow! You certainly are dedicated to your pro-abortion ideals!

Translation: I cannot answer your point.

Your point that my right to live ends where my mother's body begins?? It's utter nonsense--is that a better answer? It's a matter of whether or not my mother had the right to kill me while I was living in her womb. You say she has that right; I say she does not. You say her "right to bodily integrity" gives her the right to kill. I say, no one has the right to kill me.

You are advocating requiring women to continue their pregnancies, Tam.

PLEASE don't make me bring out the urine analogy again! Please just concede that when you say "requiring women to continue their pregnancies" what you mean is "extending to unborn children legal protection from being killed". I understand that to YOU, those things are one and the same! But you need to understand that this has NOTHING to do with controlling women or requiring anything of them, and EVERYTHING to do with protecting children from those who would kill them.

If it is against your will, yes. If you willingly allow the fetus to continue to feed off of your body then there is no issue. If you willingly allow the doctor to perform an abortion, there is no issue.

That's amazing. Is there ANY other killing of an innocent victim for which you'd say it's okay as long as the mother of the victim is the one arranging the killing?

So your point is that I have the right to violate MY OWN bodily integrity, but no one else has the right to violate MY bodily integrity. FINE. I AGREE with you. But the problem is, you don't agree with yourself. You think my right to bodily integrity only exists when my body isn't connected to anyone else's body. Oh, wait--even that isn't true. If my body is connected to my child's body, then my right to bodily integrity exists, but hers does not?

How can a right to bodily integrity have nothing to do with the existence of the body? How can a right to bodily integrity exist sometimes but not other times, when at all those times I have a body? You think someone else's right to bodily integrity trumps mine. You think my mom has the right to kill me, violating my right to bodily integrity and my right to live, because she doesn't feel like dealing with my existence. But isn't the basis of your thinking that because the unborn child is dependent upon the mother, the mother has the right to kill that child? It IS the dependence upon her, upon her body, that gives her that right, in your opinion, true? What of the mother who is breastfeeding, then? You can say, "Well, she can give the baby away, and someone else can care for him/her." But what if she can't? What if she's isolated with the baby, and she has enough to eat for herself and provide breastmilk for her child, but she just doesn't feel like breastfeeding, so she lets her child starve. Is that okay?

reply from: Sigma

That’s not what I was getting at. Abortion is legal, so it cannot be murder. Murder, by definition, is illegal. ‘Legal murder’ would be an oxymoron.

And we lost you again.

And you’re missing the POINT of the discussion that was going on before you came in. The POINT the poster I was responding to was making is different than the POINT you are making now. That may be because you don’t know a POINT from a hole in the ground. But thanks for playing.

Then you care about her sex life if you want to enforce consequences to her sex life by law.

There is a word for your thinking, Tam. “Doublethink”.

Your response to a woman having an abortion is that she has to take responsibility for her actions but taking responsibility for her actions is not why you would disallow abortion. Then that would not be an appropriate response, Tam, because that is not the reason you are disallowing abortion.

If the justification for disallowing abortion for their daughter is because she is old enough to accept the consequences of her actions then she is old enough to accept abortion, as that is a possible consequence as well. To cherry pick which consequences the daughter must endure is using that consequence to “teach her a lesson”.

If the justification for disallowing abortion is accepting the consequences, my claim has validity. You are attempting to change the focus of the discussion. I consider what you are doing intellectually dishonest.

What does killing the father have to do with the pregnancy?

They can be compared in certain senses, and one of them is that they are both possible consequences to pregnancy. Whether they are equivalent emotionally to the woman is completely individual to the woman.

And you persist despite evidence to the contrary People do have the right to kill you in certain situations. Your right to live ends where my body begins, Tam. You have no right to live attached to me.

You wish to require women, by law, to continue their pregnancies, Tam. You may phrase it in more pleasing ways to justify your beliefs, but my statement is also true.

If the “innocent victim” is attached to the woman against the woman’s will, the woman may kill the “innocent victim”, were that the only way to remove the “innocent victim”.

Well thank goodness. Now that you agree others have no right to violate your bodily integrity, you realize that the fetus does not have that right?

This is the first intelligent point you’ve made since I started posting on this board. Yes, there is a conflict here, but I do believe the woman is the most important participant. Her rights come first before any consideration of the rights of the fetus. The one doing the supporting has precedence, imo.

She has a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to find another to care for the unwanted child. In our society, virtually any amount of effort would relieve her of her burden without harming the child. During the pregnancy she does not have the option of another taking over care for the fetus within her.

You could come up with more and more extreme circumstances, as could I, but that would not allow our moral intuitions to compare that extreme circumstance with the vast majority of cases, which is what we generally talk about here.

reply from: Tam

Hey bradensmommy, let me just ask you this:

Is the REASON you would not permit her to have an abortion

1) because abortion kills a baby
2) to punish her for having sex, to make her suffer the consequences
3) both

I am arguing that it is #1 (see the entire exchange where I try to interpret to sigma that the point of preventing abortion is to save the life of a baby, not to punish his/her mother!), but maybe in your case I am wrong. Maybe your reason is to punish your daughter for having sex. That's what Sig thinks. Can you clear this up? Who is right?

reply from: Tam

That’s not what I was getting at. Abortion is legal, so it cannot be murder. Murder, by definition, is illegal. ‘Legal murder’ would be an oxymoron.

Well, then, I guess it's a good thing I didn't use that phrase. I understand what you are getting at--I have this whole time--what you fail to get is that your lack of comprehension created this tangent in the first place. When I use murder as a noun, I mean murder as defined by law. YOU made the assumption that I was using it another way. YOU proceeded to respond as though your assumption were true. You continue to respond as though I'd said something I didn't say. Having fun?

And we lost you again.

You think I don't know what words I'm using? LOL Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the fact that using murder as a noun implies the legal definition whereas using it as a verb has no such restrictions. I didn't misuse the word--are you falsely claiming I did?

And you’re missing the POINT of the discussion that was going on before you came in. The POINT the poster I was responding to was making is different than the POINT you are making now. That may be because you don’t know a POINT from a hole in the ground. But thanks for playing.

I wasn't making a general comment about the discussion, or trying to regurgitate something someone else already posted. I was trying to clear up your mistake. No matter how you try to duck that, I am still trying to clear up that same mistake. Do you have ANY IDEA what mistake I am talking about? Even if you don't think it was a mistake, do you have even the slightest idea?

Then you care about her sex life if you want to enforce consequences to her sex life by law.

Sorry, that's just not the way it is. Not all consequences are enforced by law. I don't want to enforce pregnancy. I want to protect children. There IS a difference. I have compassion for you in your ignorance, because I was once where you are. I have far more compassion for you than you think. Not much patience, though, I admit. I expect you to have a brain and to use it. I expect you to read what is said and comprehend it. But it seems that no matter how many times and ways I try to explain this to you, you will refuse to get it. That, to me, says that you aren't stupid, but deliberately pretending not to understand. So be it. If you want to think that prolifers are motivated by a desire to punish women and control them, then no amount of truth will penetrate.

There is a word for your thinking, Tam. “Doublethink”.

Wow, you are really good at being insulting! Too bad you actually have no answer and have to resort to cheap shots. Not that I expected a good answer from you.

Did you even READ my post? Holy cow, you either need a remedial reading comprehension course or a group therapy session for your pathological lying problem. Try again! I doubt you'll fare any better after you understand what was said, but at least then your efforts won't sound so ridiculous.

If the justification for disallowing abortion for their daughter is because she is old enough to accept the consequences of her actions

That isn't the justification. That is an aside. If you don't believe me, ASK THE PERSON WHO POSTED THAT. In fact, I'll ask. Ok, I just asked, let's see what she says when she logs in.

Only to someone for whom pregnancy and abortion are equivalent in every way (in other words, an idiot). This (hypothetical) daughter is the mother of a child. The natural, moral, relatively benign course of action is to proceed normally. The unnatural, immoral, relatively harmful course of action is to kill her baby, thereby setting her up for a lifetime of increased risk for cancer, suicide, etc. To recognize that abortion and NOT aborting are not equivalent is not "cherry picking" which consequences she must "endure." This is not a candy store where "kill the baby" is in one jar and "let 'em live" is in another jar, and we get to pick out which candies we like, and either way, they'll still taste sweet and still rot our teeth. This is NOT a question of two equivalent choices. Only a proabort thinks it is.

If the justification for disallowing abortion is accepting the consequences,

THAT ISN'T the justification.

And therefore, your claim has no validity.

Wow--I shouldn't be as surprised as I am to see that part of your intellectual dishonesty is to accuse me of the same, because of trying to correct your (growing list of) mistakes.

What does killing the father have to do with the pregnancy?

Well, what if his existence causes her stress and anguish? What if, were he dead, she would have a pleasant life, but as long as he's alive, she'll be miserable. What if killing him is the only way she can think of to make her life something other than a nightmare? Care to answer the question I asked?

They can be compared in certain senses, and one of them is that they are both possible consequences to pregnancy. Whether they are equivalent emotionally to the woman is completely individual to the woman.

Great proabort answer! You've really got the lingo down pat. To you, abortion is not really any different from not aborting--either way, it's all about what the woman thinks. A fine proabort you are.

And you persist despite evidence to the contrary

Evidence such as? Nothing you have offered so far has qualified as evidence of this so-called right.

You can keep saying that, but it doesn't constitute proof. Anyway, it all depends on whether a mom has the right to kill her unborn children. You say she does; I say she doesn't. One of us is wrong. It's you, but I don't expect you to admit that. Time will tell.

You wish to require women, by law, to continue their pregnancies, Tam. You may phrase it in more pleasing ways to justify your beliefs, but my statement is also true.

Actually, your statement isn't true. If it were, then in my perfect world, miscarriage would be against the law. It would also be the woman's fault if she were attacked and the attacker killed her baby against her will. I don't wish to require women to continue their pregnancies. I merely wish to protect children from being killed. You can pretend all you like that I have some desire to control your reproductive organs, put a rosary in your ovary, or whatever you think is happening, but no matter how many times you try to accuse me of wanting to control women, you will still be as wrong as you were the first time. It's as though you were saying I want to require murderers, by law, to save lives. I don't want to control the lives of murderers. I want to protect people from being murdered. It's different--but, it's subtle, so I can see why you can't understand it.

If the “innocent victim” is attached to the woman against the woman’s will, the woman may kill the “innocent victim”, were that the only way to remove the “innocent victim”.

Why is "innocent victim" in quotes? Do you deny that the child killed in abortion is an innocent victim?? What is his/her guilt!?

Well thank goodness. Now that you agree others have no right to violate your bodily integrity, you realize that the fetus does not have that right?

Oops, first of all, you don't mean "fetus"--you mean child. But since I know your inability to make that leap, I will have to rephrase. Do I realize that my child doesn't have the right to violate my bodily integrity? Sure I do. And when that child's presence is no longer part and parcel of my bodily integrity, then and only then will this become relevant. Until birth, there is no way my child can violate my bodily integrity, since my body is a pregnant body. In fact, ABORTION violates my bodily integrity and increases my risk for breast cancer precisely because of the way in which my bodily integrity is violated by killing my baby.

This is the first intelligent point you’ve made since I started posting on this board.

LOL That sentence, more than any other, indicates to me that you have yet even to comprehend most of what you've read here, posted by me or anyone else. I know you meant it as a terrible insult, or a left-handed compliment, but really, I found it tres amusant. It really highlights how little you've understood so far.

Yeah, we all know what you think. And you support abortion on demand, we know, we know. And we know it's only your opinion that you can't back up with any proof, because there is no proof since it's hogwash.

She has a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to find another to care for the unwanted child. In our society, virtually any amount of effort would relieve her of her burden without harming the child. During the pregnancy she does not have the option of another taking over care for the fetus within her.

You could come up with more and more extreme circumstances, as could I, but that would not allow our moral intuitions to compare that extreme circumstance with the vast majority of cases, which is what we generally talk about here.

In other words, you can't answer that question because it would highlight the inconsistencies in your stated position?

reply from: Sigma

Oh please. Like that’s real honest. Of course bradensmommy would agree with you, for a few reasons. First of all, you are both pro-life and I have seen that you will ignore logic and reason to agree with one another. Secondly, I am showing something that bradensmommy does not want to accept but are the logical continuation of her beliefs.

If bradensmommy wishes, I will continue my discussion with her and if I am wrong she will show that. To pull this stunt is just dumb on your part, especially the slanted way you worded things to lead her into agreement with you and the inclusion of your opinion on the subject.

Yes, you are, in my opinion, misusing the word. You are implying that the fetus was murdered, and this obviously is not the case. You are mixing legal and informal use, which is a misuse of the word in this debate.

To do one you must do the other. To protect the fetus within her you are requiring her to continue her pregnancy by law.

Willful ignorance, Tam, is shown by this statement. You do not understand my point at all.

I answered your point below that. I’m insulting? That’s rich. You’ve been nothing but insulting to me. I give what I’m given, Tam.

I read your posts, and apparently understand them more than you do yourself.

You said: When that excuse is trotted out, the appropriate response is to point out that she has to take responsibility for her actions. That doesn't make "she has to take responsibility" the motivation for preventing abortion.

You say “she has to take responsibility” is an appropriate response but is not why you would disallow abortion. That is not the appropriate response then. An appropriate response would be “despite that, we must save the fetus” because that is the reason you are disallowing abortion. In short, you are making stuff up trying to support your failing argument.

Or, how about you butt out and let us continue our discussion.

Which is the only course the mother will allow. This is not “enduring the consequences” on the part of the girl, this is enforcing the consequences on the part of the mother since abortion is legal.

It’s almost comical how little you understand.

It is not your place to correct my perceived mistakes here, Tam.

She has other options to remove him from her life that do not involve killing him. As long as those options reasonably exist, it is not justified to kill him.

A woman has no other options to remove the fetus from her care.

And I notice you cannot answer the point.

Then you do not believe there is any situation that you can be legally killed in?

Then you believe that you have the right to live attached to me against my will?

Oh, Tam. She is required to continue her pregnancy because you will not allow her to stop it. Whether fate or another person intervenes is irrelevant.

I consider innocence or guilt to require a mind or consciousness.

Ah, so you believe the fetus is a part of the woman’s body and is not a separate thing impacting her body?

Abortion does not increase breast cancer risk, according to all reputable organizations I've seen. Abortion is voluntary on the woman’s part, if she accepts it then it does not violate her right.

Proof... of my opinion?

I don’t believe making up extreme circumstances are fair questions. In our society virtually any amount of effort allows a woman to relieve herself of the burden of a child.

reply from: yoda

She doesn't need it there.

reply from: yoda

Spoken with all the purposeful coldness and dishonesty of a proabort:

Main Entry: in·no·cent Function: adjective1 a : free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil : BLAMELESS <an innocent child> b : harmless in effect or intention http://www.m-w.com

reply from: bradensmommy

Hey bradensmommy, let me just ask you this:

Is the REASON you would not permit her to have an abortion

1) because abortion kills a baby
2) to punish her for having sex, to make her suffer the consequences
3) both

I am arguing that it is #1 (see the entire exchange where I try to interpret to sigma that the point of preventing abortion is to save the life of a baby, not to punish his/her mother!), but maybe in your case I am wrong. Maybe your reason is to punish your daughter for having sex. That's what Sig thinks. Can you clear this up? Who is right?

Sigma acts like he is very immature anyway. But its #1 without a doubt. I would not punish my daughter for having sex but I would tell teach her what abortion is and what it does to a baby and the mother. I would try to talk her into 2 options: adoption or we take care of it. I would not want a dead grandchild unless it died from natural causes of course. I would hope that if I do have a daughter she will be smart enough to know what sex causes and hopefully she will wait.

reply from: Tam

Oh please. Like that’s real honest. Of course bradensmommy would agree with you, for a few reasons. First of all, you are both pro-life and I have seen that you will ignore logic and reason to agree with one another. Secondly, I am showing something that bradensmommy does not want to accept but are the logical continuation of her beliefs.

If bradensmommy wishes, I will continue my discussion with her and if I am wrong she will show that. To pull this stunt is just dumb on your part, especially the slanted way you worded things to lead her into agreement with you and the inclusion of your opinion on the subject.

LOL In other words: you think that Bradensmommy and I are both total liars and this is a big conspiracy to make you look stupid by lying about our true beliefs. You think that, deep down, both of us really oppose abortion in order to punish women for having sex, and don't really actually care about the fact that babies are being killed, but just falsely claim that our motivation is to save children's lives in order to fool everyone into thinking we really DON'T have this big agenda to control women. You further think that when I ask her, directly, what is the truth, she will lie, and that I am lying when I claim that I knew all along that her motivation for disallowing her daughter to have an abortion would be to save the life of her innocent grandchild, rather than to punish her sexually active daughter.

Well, you certainly have an active imagination, Sigma. I realize you don't trust anything we say and will assume, no matter how many times and ways the truth is presented to you, that we really don't care about the babies, it's about controlling women's bodies! I don't really care whether you get it or not, but I will continue to state the truth so as to avoid allowing your mischaracterizations to stand uncontested.

Yes, you are, in my opinion, misusing the word. You are implying that the fetus was murdered, and this obviously is not the case. You are mixing legal and informal use, which is a misuse of the word in this debate.

Gee, I am just sitting here in my normal world, not in a courtroom. I didn't realize you thought we were in a courtroom where we're not allowed to use words to mean what they actually mean, but must restrict ourselves to some legal definitions as determined by other courts.

The ONLY reason the noun form of "murder" doesn't include the murder of unborn children is that a bad court decision wrongly excluded unborn children from legal protection on the faulty reasoning that they are not "persons" under the law. I will concede just so much because of this nonsense. I will refrain from using "murder" as a noun to describe abortion, even though it clearly applies, in deference to the law of the land. But the verb form is still safe from these ridiculous machinations, and I will continue to use it appropriately.

In other words, your opinion that I am misusing the word is wrong. You just don't like that I'm using it correctly, because you don't like what it implies. Tough. If you dislike the inconsistency, I can start using "murder" as a noun to refer to abortion, but I doubt you'll like that any better (plus, I don't want to have to have this silly argument with everyone who sees it and says, "Oh but because of Roe, "murder" doesn't include abortion!"

To do one you must do the other. To protect the fetus within her you are requiring her to continue her pregnancy by law.

That's not true, no matter how many times you say it. Pregnancies terminate in a variety of ways. One of those ways is live birth, another is abortion--but there are several other ways pregnancies terminate. I am suggesting banning ONE way that pregnancies terminate--the murder of the unborn child--NOT mandating another one--the live birth of the child following a full-term pregnancy.

Put it this way: there are several ways you could get across a river. You could swim across, you could build some kind of bridge, you could swing on a vine, build a raft and float over, ride on an elephant's back, whatever. If you are halfway across the river and I support a law that says some sadist can't airlift you out of the river, cut you into tiny pieces, and throw all the little pieces of you over to the other side, that doesn't mean I'm making a law that says you have to cross the river and your mommy has to carry you over there. It means I don't support someone killing you. It's not that I want to control the sadist--I just want to protect you from brutal slaughter. I don't even really care that much about whether you reach the other side. It'd be sad if you got swept away in a flood or eaten by pirhanas, but I don't really know you (and what I know of you, I dislike anyway) so it's not that big a deal to me. But I wouldn't support a law that permitted someone to slaughter you.

If by refusing to support the idea that someone (your mom or anyone! doesn't matter!) can just slaughter you, you think I am forcing you to cross the river--well, think that if you want, but it just isn't true. I oppose violence. That's why I oppose abortion. No one has the right to kill you in the river, and no one had the right to kill you in the womb.

Willful ignorance, Tam, is shown by this statement. You do not understand my point at all.

Uh, I think I do. Your point is that we are dishonest about our motivation to end abortion. My point is that the willful ignorance is your own.

My argument is that the SOLE motivation for preventing abortion is to save children from slaughter. That it has NOTHING to do with punishing women. That every miscellaneous comment made by every prolifer might not explicitly mention that ("despite that, we must save the fetus" LOL) but that it is nonetheless true.

There are certainly sociopaths out there who might claim either side of the debate, and use it to justify unspeakable actions, but I am not concerned with them. Just as the pro-abortion side always maintains that there is no one who would advocate forcing abortions on people--and yet, abortions are forced on women all the time--the anti-abortion side maintains that there is no one who would advocate forcing women to get pregnant and bear children--when, of course, there must be at least one psycho out there who does believe just that. We're not talking about miscellaneous sociopaths with some perverse desire to punish women for having sex by forcing them to bear children. You were basically accusing bradensmommy of falling into that category, and I was trying to set you straight.

The pro-life argument is quite simple: it's wrong to kill children, born or unborn.

There's no part of the pro-life argument which is "and women must bear the consequences of their actions." That is an ASIDE that is perfectly appropriate as a response to the notion that abortion should be used to relieve young mothers of their burdens.

Which is the only course the mother will allow. This is not “enduring the consequences” on the part of the girl, this is enforcing the consequences on the part of the mother since abortion is legal.

This entire argument hinges on the fact that abortion is legal. Just because some activity is legal, does not mean I must permit my child to participate. If this hypothetical daughter wants to spend $300 on video games because she'd prefer to avoid the responsibilities of her schoolwork, I have no obligation to permit or support that simply because it is legal for her to do so! It is legal for her to torture and mutilate small animals for fun, too, but I don't have to permit it!

It is not your place to correct my perceived mistakes here, Tam.

Gosh, thanks for letting me off the hook! That should save me several hours a week!

LOL I'm sure you'd prefer that your mistakes stand without correction--but it's not going to happen.

And I notice you cannot answer the point.

Your point that TO YOU, abortion and NOT killing your child are equivalent? That it should be up to the woman? That simply because both are possible consequences, the two courses of action are equivalent?

It's utter nonsense! There are innumerable possible consequences to her predicament--the only one I oppose is killing a child. To me, that one just isn't equal to the others.

It's like that little Sesame Street game that used to be on. "Which of these kids is not like the others?" They'd have the four squares, and four kids doing things. To me, you're playing this little game where it's not the kid in the squares, it's the mom--and you first of all see only two squares: abort or don't abort, and you think "These moms are just alike!" Whereas I see four squares: a live baby kept; a live baby adopted; a miscarriage; and an abortion. In three of those squares, you have a mom who didn't kill her baby; in the other square, you have a mom who killed her baby. I'm saying that the square with the mom who killed her baby--that's the one who's not like the others. Why? Because she has to live with the fact that she killed her baby. To you, it's an equivalent choice to the "not killing your baby" option(s). I think there is ample evidence that you are wrong--that the physical and emotional effects on the mom are profound no matter which course she takes, but differ greatly from one to another. You may even agree that the effects are different, but you don't think they're different enough to change your position--that if she's old enough to handle option 1 (live baby kept), she's old enough to handle option 2 (killing her own child, or hiring someone to kill him/her). I disagree, and I think the evidence is strongly on my side.

But the wider point is: if I have any way to help save the baby, I'll help save him/her. So if it's my child and I can forbid her to kill that baby, forbid her I will. Parents forbid their kids from doing all sorts of stuff--killing babies would be on the list in my family.

Then you do not believe there is any situation that you can be legally killed in?

Of course there are situations in which I can be "legally" killed. The government can "legally" kill people in a variety of circumstances. Nothing you have offered so far has qualified as evidence that my right to live was null and void while I was in the womb.

Then you believe that you have the right to live attached to me against my will?

Attached to YOU? What the hell? We're talking about abortion. If I were attached to you, it would also be against MY will, trust me.

She is required to continue her pregnancy because you will not allow her to stop it. Whether fate or another person intervenes is irrelevant.

I will not allow her to kill a baby. If that has the effect of preventing her from killing her baby, good.

You act as though someone is suggesting imprisoning all pregnant women until they give birth. That's just not true.

Ah, so you believe the fetus is a part of the woman’s body and is not a separate thing impacting her body?

No--damn, you know that's not true and you would have to know that I know it, too. My child's body is her own; it is NOT part of my body. However, while her body is contained within my body, to remove her would violate both my bodily integrity and, if they harm her in the process, hers as well.

Abortion does not increase breast cancer risk, according to all reputable organizations I've seen.

LOL

Which right was that again? Her "right to bodily integrity"? First of all, what proof do you have that such a right exists? Second of all, what proof do you have that consentual violation of her body does not violate her bodily integrity, or, does not violate her right TO bodily integrity? Finally, is it possible to violate her bodily integrity without violating her RIGHT to bodily integrity, presuming such a right even exists?

Proof... of my opinion?

Proof that the rights of the mom come first before any consideration of the rights of the child. Or is it just an opinion for which you have no proof? You were stating it as though it were a fact. It was the only answer you could come up with to address the conflict you see in the rights of the mom and child.

I don’t believe making up extreme circumstances are fair questions.

ROFL Weren't you just asking me if I would have the right to live attached to YOU? Talk about extreme circumstances!!

That's right. I was asking about a hypothetical scenario in which she would NOT be able to relieve herself of the burden--precisely BECAUSE your whole argument seems to rest on the notion that if she can't relieve herself of the burden, she can outright kill the child--not just let the child die, but outright kill him/her.

reply from: Sigma

You both have a vested interest in disagreeing with me. Neither of you can give an unbiased opinion.

Incidently, you are the one calling bradensmommy a liar. She stated a point and when I began showing the logical continuation of that belief you come in and say “Oh that’s not what she really meant!”. Disgusting.

You have no real conception of what I am saying, nor can you honestly debate a point on its own merits.

When talking of legal matters, generally so. “Murder”, in this debate, has legal ramifications.

If you do not allow women to terminate their pregnancies of their own free will then you are requiring them to continue their pregnancies by law. You are trying to split hairs.

If I am in a boat on a river, and by law I am not allowed to stop the boat then you are requiring me to continue on the river. Whether I hit a rock and the sink does not negate that you are requiring me to continue boating by law.

No, that is not my point at all.

The reasoning put forth, before you began refocusing the discussion, was that the daughter must accept the consequences of her actions so abortion is disallowed.

I never said bradensmommy wanted to force women to get pregnant.

Nobody advocates killing born children. You are using that point as a propaganda tool.

If your daughter was fiscally irresponsible and you stated that she must handle the consequences of her actions, and then disallow her doing anything but declaring bankruptcy, then you are using that consequence as a punishment for her irresponsibility. Or at least forcing her through a certain consequence to “teach her a lesson”.

No, that abortion and continuing the pregnancy can both be chosen. I have not said they are equivalent.

There are only 2 options that can be chosen by the woman in question: continue or abort. They are both choices.

What evidence is this that says “a girl can be old enough to continue a pregnancy and bear a child but is not old enough to choose an abortion”? Also, my point is that if she is old enough to choose the emotional consequences of one, she is old enough to choose the emotional consequences of the other. How well one handles it is highly individual, but both are adult decisions to make.

That is because you have no right to live while in the womb. Whether someone can kill you depends on the situation you are in.

Avoiding the question.

I do not mean to intimate that, though I have no doubt you would were you to believe you would prevent abortions that way.

I am suggesting that by disallowing abortions women are required to continue their pregnancies.

It violates yours only if it is against your will, and the fetus has no right to bodily integrity.

You said: when that child's presence is no longer part and parcel of my bodily integrity. This suggested that your body includes the fetus.

... You should research the subject.
Except in certain narrowly limited cases, the Court repeatedly has stated its 'insist[ence] upon probable cause as a minimum requirement for a reasonable search permitted by the Constitution.' Chambers v. Moreny, 399 U.S. 42, 51 ('70). Because '[t]he integrity of an individual's person is a cherished value in our society,' searches that invade bodily integrity cannot be executed as mere fishing expeditions to acquire useful evidence: 'The interests in human dignity and privacy which the Fourth Amendment protects forbid any such intrusions on the mere chance that desired evidence might be obtained.' Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 772, 769-70.
And
[T]he Supreme Court in Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 ('85), recognized that Schmerber's threshold standard was a requirement of probable cause 'where intrusions into the human body are concerned,' which implicate 'deep-rooted expectations of privacy.' Id. at 761, 760.
And
The Court contrasted this lesser bodily invasion, which the Schmerber Court had upheld upon demonstration of probable cause, with the more drastic measure of dangerous surgery to recoup criminal evidence, which the Winston Court concluded would violate the individual's Fourth Amendment rights even when supported by probable cause. Thus again, the context of the quotation demonstrates that the Court places blood extraction squarely within the probable cause requirement because it is an invasion of bodily integrity, while at the same time acknowledging that it is a less extensive imposition on dignitary interests than surgical removal of a bullet.
And
Fourth Amendment protects the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.' The essence of that protection is a prohibition against some modes of law enforcement because the cost of police intrusion into personal liberty is too high, even though the intrusion undoubtedly would result in an enormous boon to the public if the efficient apprehension of criminals were the sole criterion to be considered. 'The easiest course for [law enforcement] officials is not always one that our Constitution allows them to take.' Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 595 (Stevens, dissenting).
And
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997):
The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right to marry, to have children, to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, to marital privacy, to use contraception, to bodily integrity, and to abortion. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment.

A right to bodily integrity is accepted to exist, where there is an expectation of privacy and discretion on the part of the owner around the use of one’s body. It is not used as justification for abortion at this point because abortion is simply a protected liberty.

I view it as similar to the difference between consensual and non-consensual sex. If it is done with your consent then there is no problem. Only if you did not choose it is there a problem and violation of your rights.

Similar to my point above, a woman’s bodily integrity is impacted, but whether it violates her right to the same depends on if she desires or consents to such.

It is my opinion of such. It is possible to give the fetus consideration before the woman, which is what happens were abortion disallowed. The ‘right to life’ of the fetus would be more important than the woman’s rights.

Such an extreme circumstance would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis to determine the morality. I cannot generalize morality for something that much outside of the general morality.

And no, it would not require her to kill the child, unless you wish to say disconnecting the fetus and “allowing it to die” is different than outright killing it.

reply from: yoda

A note to everyone who is posting extremely long posts: Even if your post is worthy of a Pulitzer Prize, a page long post is going to get ignored by a lot of readers. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

reply from: Tam

Interesting that a scenario in which sigma's cherished belief that no one has the right to live attached to anyone else is taken to a hypothetical point of attaching one adult to another adult involuntarily is seen as totally legitimate, and any attempt to point out that it is not at all the same thing as pregnancy dismissed as dodging, whereas a scenario in which sigma's cherished belief that no one has the right to live dependent upon another is taken to a hypothetical point of a woman and her dependent child in an isolated situation where she can't just pass off the child to someone else is deemed unworthy of consideration, as it is so farfetched.

I ask you: which is MORE likely to happen?

A) You are kidnapped, imprisoned, restrained, drugged, and surgically altered without your consent, to attach you to a violinist with a kidney disorder.

B) You are stranded in the wilderness with no other adults, only a child who is completely dependent upon you for his/her survival.

reply from: Sigma

It isn’t a question of which is more likely to happen. The one simplifies the moral question by assuming what pro-life people wish came to pass without extenuating circumstances with the same or similar circumstances that the fetus is in, while simply asking whether one has a right. The other has too many variables and differences to be comparable, as well as having extreme circumstances so any blanket moral statement is impossible.

reply from: Tam

It isn’t a question of which is more likely to happen. The one simplifies the moral question by assuming what pro-life people wish came to pass without extenuating circumstances with the same or similar circumstances that the fetus is in, while simply asking whether one has a right. The other has too many variables and differences to be comparable, as well as having extreme circumstances so any blanket moral statement is impossible.

Oh, no. That is utter crap.

First of all, the question of which is more likely to happen IS important. A hypothetical scenario in which aliens zapped away your right to bodily integrity with sparkly purple ray guns would NOT be worth considering. The chances of an adult human being being "hooked up" to another adult (or child) against his/her will and doomed to a lifetime of being used as a human incubator are practically nonexistent, and this has almost certainly never happened. The scenario of a woman finding herself isolated with no one but her dependent child is not only much more likely, but also has almost certainly happened.

Second of all, the fact that in that scenario, even to set up the scenario requires committing acts of abduction and violence, whereas the scenario of finding oneself alone with one's dependent child requires no lawbreaking, but can occur as the result of chance events, rather than intentional crimes.

Third: The "violinist" scenario is the complicated one. You make it sound as though the idea of a woman finding herself alone with only her dependent child is some sort of complicated scenario that requires many variables. It does not--it simply requires her to be isolated from others for a period long enough that the child would require her care to survive. That's not only uncomplicated, it almost certainly happened to some moms during natural disasters recently. Your "violininst" scenario is hopelessly complicated. You even resorted to saying, "If it makes it easier, imagine that she fell asleep in a park that is known to have roving bands of people doing this and that the connection involves no violence but simply plugs her into the violinist." LOL

Man, there are more ways that it is crap, but I'm tired of this for now.

reply from: Sigma

Whether that analogy is worth considering is not dependant on the likeliness of it happening. It would depend on how analogous the central question is.

Not requires, has. There are many variables that would change the morality of the situation, and few if any of those would allow a moral comparison to be made with the general morality, which is what we are considering. Extreme circumstances do not help either of us as what is moral in extreme circumstances may not be necessarily moral in general. Making a blanket statement is impossible; it would have to be decided on a case by case basis. The violinist argument has the same essential variables as the fetus in the womb, the variables that determine the morality of the situation (or at least that is the point of the analogy).

reply from: yoda

Wrong, Sig. An extremely unlikely hypothetical is not on the same level as an everyday, common occurance like human gestation. It's called "stretching", and that's what your hypothetical does, among other things. It also compares a totally contrived, aggressive assault to human gestation. All in all, it's a pukey, idiotic, assinine, illogical, ridiculous analogy.

NO "variables" are needed, you only throw them in to cloud and confuse the situation. NO human baby imposes itself on a woman, and no human baby takes an organ from anyone else. This idiotic analogy is so convoluted and moronic that it defies description.

reply from: bradensmommy

Seriously, Sig, I think you should shut up before you get "pwned" again. Your words are completely ridiculous. You sit there and talk like pregnant women have a tapeworm attached in thier insides and need to get it ripped out ASAP. I'm quite tired of your "noone has the right to be attached to anyone" nonsense, it is old and needs to be done with already. A baby is another being, another body, another soul. Yes, he/she feeds through something called an umbilical cord to get nutrients from his/her mother because the baby needs to grow before it can come out. You can't give birth to an egg and expect it to magically transform into a baby (that would be nice though).

I seriously don't know where the hell you come up with your analogies and "beliefs" but they are very juvenile.

reply from: Sigma

lol, it has to happen before it can happen again, and it has yet to.

Then show it to be wrong.

reply from: yoda

Still very much like the flea on the elephant's leg, I see..........

reply from: bradensmommy

Still very much like the flea on the elephant's leg, I see..........

I'm to the point where I'm going to ignore Sigma altogether. Heshe has no valid points and likes to act very juvenile. I'm pretty much done with himher.

reply from: Sigma

That you cannot answer them does not negate them. I'm juvenile yet you speak of me getting "pwned"... pot, kettle, black.

reply from: yoda

I'm having a terrible time cleaning all the sand out of my shoes where he/she has been sandbagging us with tons of innane, excessively trivial nonsense.

Shall we resolve to build our positions on solid ground, rather than his/her shifting sand?

reply from: bradensmommy

That you cannot answer them does not negate them. I'm juvenile yet you speak of me getting "pwned"... pot, kettle, black.

cannot answer what "high and mighty"?

reply from: bradensmommy

I'm having a terrible time cleaning all the sand out of my shoes where he/she has been sandbagging us with tons of innane, excessively trivial nonsense.

Shall we resolve to build our positions on solid ground, rather than his/her shifting sand?

agreed there!

reply from: bradensmommy

Yeah, couldn't agree more! I think h/she's points are basically for entertainment value as well.

reply from: yoda

If this weren't such a serious subject that he/she/it is distracting us from, I'd be rolling in the floor. As it is, I'm disgusted that such tactics are being used to support the killing of babies.

Let's all resolve to ignore the stalling, delaying tactics used by babykillers like Sig, as we would ignore a 4 year old throwing a tantrum.

reply from: Tam

I'm having a terrible time cleaning all the sand out of my shoes where he/she has been sandbagging us with tons of innane, excessively trivial nonsense.

Shall we resolve to build our positions on solid ground, rather than his/her shifting sand?

So wise you are!

reply from: Sigma

bradensmommy,

That no person has the right to live attached to others against their wills.

Concernedparent,

You misunderstood my position, concernedparent. My contention was that States would determine the legality of abortion, and it was my opinion that the situation of pregnancy justifies abortion’s legality. You were ignorant of the role the Constitution played on the State and Federal level, as well as ignorant of the fact that States determined what is justified killing. I had to give you a background in the relevant issues, which you resisted the entire way.

reply from: Tam

Yeah, reminds me of how Sigma first denied that "pro-choice" was a marketing slogan, then claimed that she'd known that all along but that it was irrelevant! LOL Typical.

reply from: Sigma

I claimed nothing of the sort. The one quote that forms the basis of your entire argument does not show what you believe it does.

I claimed that fetal personhood does not necessarily make abortion illegal. I did indeed back that up, you simply ignored the evidence. Tunnel hearing. The reason we went around and around was not my doing, concernedparent. I was trying to move the debate forward, you tried to retard progress.

reply from: yoda

Which is a really, really stupid argument.

Every "person" is entitled to legal protection of their life, under law, even illegal aliens.

reply from: Sigma

You're unequal to the task of defeating my argument, yodavater. It seems your only reason for poking your head in this forum is to be insulting.

Neither illegal aliens nor the fetus have full Constitutional rights, however, because neither are citizens.

reply from: Tam

You're unequal to the task of defeating my argument, yodavater. It seems your only reason for poking your head in this forum is to be insulting.

Neither illegal aliens nor the fetus have full Constitutional rights, however, because neither are citizens.

LOL No one is talking about giving unborn children the right to vote.

reply from: Sigma

You're right, no one is. So why even involve yourself in other's discussions?

reply from: Sigma

yodavater mentioned that illegal aliens had protection of law. I mentioned the limitations on this.

Get a grip.

reply from: Tam

You're right, no one is. So why even involve yourself in other's discussions?

If you actually want a private conversation (and can find anyone willing to have one with you), there's a very simple way to achieve that--start a private topic. I know, you probably don't know what I mean by "private" and "topic" and "start"--but I bet you can figure it out if you really want to. As for the public threads--you jump right in wherever you please, and so does everybody else. Get used to it. You keep complaining about it. It's called freedom. If you don't want to deal with responses, don't post. Grow up!

reply from: Tam

yodavater mentioned that illegal aliens had rights. I mentioned the limitations on this.

There is not a single person in this country, regardless of his/her immigration status or any other factor, whose life does not receive the protection of the law. If you don't believe me, plan a murder of an illegal immigrant, and let the police know of your plans.

Yodavater didn't say anything about "illegal aliens" and "rights". He said that every "person" is entitled to protection under the law, even illegal aliens. As usual, you mischaracterize your opponent's argument in order to appear as though you defeated it. LOL Really, if you think yoda is wrong, talk to the police about murdering illegals, see what happens.

reply from: Sigma

Yet I generally do not involve myself in others discussions, while it seems to be a chronic need for you. I start my own discussion with that person. It's called courtesy.

reply from: Sigma

yodavater also didn't mention the 'right to life' of the illegal aliens. Since it was a more general statement, I mentioned the limitations on this.

Get a grip.

reply from: Tam

Yet I generally do not involve myself in others discussions. I start my own discussion with that person. It's called courtesy.

LOL The day I take courtesy lessons from the likes of you will be a hilarious day indeed. I don't have the time or the inclination to go through the forum and come up with examples of you jumping in wherever you please, because a) it's not necessary to make the point; b) I don't even care when you do jump in, other than of course generally finding your posts to be crap; and c) it's a public forum, all discussions are public (duh!); there is a private topic feature for private discussions. I think there are only two reasons someone would be as upset as you seem to be about others joining into a discussion-- a) don't like it when others join in because the others tend to refute your lame points; or b) just generally having nothing worthwhile to say (or, in your case, both).

reply from: Tam

yodavater also didn't mention the 'right to life' of the illegal aliens. Since it was a more general statement, I mentioned the limitations on this.

LOL You are pretending you didn't understand yoda's statement? Okay, go ahead and play the "but, but, I don't know what you mean!" game again.

reply from: Sigma

You would not take them, certainly, but you do need them.

I generally do not answer for others, tam. You do this constantly.

I doubted yodavater knew the limits that illegal aliens have in terms of rights.

reply from: yoda

Boy, is my face red! I didn't realize who I was talking to when I wrote that, and I went back and changed it right away!

Now, this is to Sigma only, because I'm sure everyone else understood it.

The LIFE of EVERYONE in this country that is considered a "person" is PROTECTED by law.

Want me to use smaller words, Sig?

reply from: yoda

It's just more sand in our shoes, Tam.

He/she has nothing better to do than quibble over details that everyone else already understood, and hope he can divert our debate away from abortion a few minutes more.

reply from: Sigma

No, but more specific words help.

reply from: yoda

It wouldn't help. You knew that we were talking about "fetal personhood" making abortion illegal, so you knew I was talking about laws against killing people, which is what abortion does, by the way.

No, you would just throw more sandbags at us regardless of how many details we included. You'll find something to quibble about in every single post, I'm sure of that.

reply from: bradensmommy

That no person has the right to live attached to others against their wills.

This "belief" you have is really ludicris. So you think that pregnant women should all get abortions because they have leeches stuck in thier insides? OMG I am so done with your nonsense because thats all your talk is: NONSENSE!

I can't even discuss this crap to him anymore its like trying to have a conversation with my 6 month old. Sigma, once you grow some brains feel free to come back and debate like an adult, til then I seriously recommending STFU.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Ok, Sigma: so a child does not have the right to be connected to the mother. But whose fault is that? Here is where (s)he starts rambling on about rape. But just anwer my question: a teenager who had sex and got pregnant aborts her child because she's tired of it being there; why should she be able to abort this innocent child (who has done nothing, mind you) when it is her fault completely?

reply from: Sigma

bradensmommy,

If you have no desire to discuss it, then you can refrain from replying to me if you wish. I certainly have no desire to continue a conversation when you are insulting.

laurissamarcotte,

Why should she be able to? Because it is her body. She allows who she wishes to use it, and disallows who she wishes. She can be as selfish as she chooses, or as generous as she chooses with the use of her body imo. That is why she should be able to.

I don't believe I've ever brought up rape as justification for abortion in this forum.

reply from: dignitarian

Sigma:

You insist that since a woman must sustain a lesser harm in order to protect the life of her unborn infant; SHE THUS HAS THE FREEDOM TO KILL IT. This is NOT a reasonable argument for abortion.

ANY person's Right to Life is a moot issue if the members of society admit of no obligation to protect it. Rights must always reflect corresponding levels of obligation from others, otherwise, in any practical sense, they simply don't exist at all.

If you want to argue for abortion, stick with "the unborn human being is not a person" mantra. At least the ensuing debate could possibly have some merit.

Thanks.

Regards,

Dig

reply from: yoda

Sig wants to protect the "right to kill babies". That's called "probabykilling".

reply from: Sigma

Regardless of whether it is a "lesser harm", she should have the option not to go through it even during the pregnancy. It should not be a "must".

I don't believe any 'right to life' obligates (in the sense of requiring) us to sacrifice of our physical body. Certainly there is an obligation to protect the 'right to life', but it is not absolute; this obligation only extends so far. When its protection violates the rights of others, our obligation is in question.

reply from: yoda

But you DO believe in the absolute "RIGHT TO KILL", don't you Sig?

reply from: bradensmommy

Would the troll just shut up!?! He is sucking my will to live!!!

reply from: Sigma

You are not compelled to remain in this forum.

reply from: Tam

just put him on the low-tech "ignore" (in other words, ignore him!)

reply from: yoda

As they say at the zoo....... "Please do not feed the troll"..........

reply from: Sigma

I would not qualify as a troll, since I do not post merely to get a reaction. Both you and tam would qualify much more than I would.

reply from: dignitarian

Regardless of whether it is a "lesser harm", she should have the option not to go through it even during the pregnancy. It should not be a "must".

I don't believe any 'right to life' obligates (in the sense of requiring) us to sacrifice of our physical body. Certainly there is an obligation to protect the 'right to life', but it is not absolute; this obligation only extends so far. When its protection violates the rights of others, our obligation is in question.

Sigma:

All right, at least we are getting somewhere. You admit that there CAN exist an obligation for the sake of the rights of another. In addition, you claim that the specific level of obligation required though could reasonably be put to question. I agree to this much.

However, your insistence that this obligation necessarily stops at the burden of pregnancy begs to be legitimized. After all, the Right to Life is more crucial than all other Rights. In view of this, it would appear that a reasonable obligation to protect Life be rather exceptional. Thus, if you insist that the burden of a pregnancy is too great an obligation to protect life, it would appear necessary to first rationally legitimize such a position before the act to kill is committed.

Does this not seem reasonable?

Regards,

Dig

reply from: Sigma

It does indeed seem reasonable, but I do not agree that the right to life is more crucial than all other rights. Liberty is at least as important, as all other rights can stem from this, even a right to live. In fact, this is what happened. A 'right to life' is considered to exist because one of our liberties is freedom from a gov't that can take life away from us (without due process).

Liberty is included in the Preamble of the Constitution while life is not. Freedom and personal choice are the cornerstone of our society, not merely survival.

reply from: bradensmommy

You are not compelled to remain in this forum.

And I don't think you are mature or adult enough to remain in it either.

reply from: Sigma

If that is indeed your opinion you are more than welcome to it. I am not sure why you continue to reply to me then when it is obvious you have no wish to debate.

reply from: bradensmommy

Ok, y'all when Sigma is mature and adult enough to debate then I'm game!

Till then I think he should STFU, correct?

reply from: Sigma

Whenever you wish, then.

reply from: dignitarian

Sigma:

You have stated:

(Quote)

It does indeed seem reasonable, but I do not agree that the right to life is more crucial than all other rights. Liberty is at least as important, as all other rights can stem from this, even a right to live. In fact, this is what happened. A 'right to life' is considered to exist because one of our liberties is freedom from a gov't that can take life away from us (without due process).

Liberty is included in the Preamble of the Constitution while life is not. Freedom and personal choice are the cornerstone of our society, not merely survival.

(Unquote)

You may very well not agree that Life is a more fundamental Right than Liberty, but that's okay, after all some people might not agree that 1 + 1 = 2.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that LIFE IS A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF LIBERTY TO EVEN EXIST, not the other way around. Furthermore then, if we protect the Right to Liberty at the expense of Life, we ultimately end up protecting neither. Thus Life MUST be a more fundamental Right than Liberty.

The Right to Life was pronounced in our Declaration as the paramount and inalienable possession of all men. Its conspicuous absence, as you mention, in the preamble of the Constitution would merely reflect the founders' insistence that this Right, among all others, was absolutely inalienable, and thus could neither be granted nor removed by any government.

This, they declared as self-evident. Kind of like 1 + 1 = 2.

Regards,

Dig

reply from: Tam

I would not qualify as a troll, since I do not post merely to get a reaction. Both you and tam would qualify much more than I would.

LMAO You really are something. You drop your little troll droppings everywhere, and when anyone notices and realizes what you're up to and responds as you deserve, you pretend you're some kind of victim. I imagine you're counting on the fact that some people won't be astute enough to notice it. You're probably right--your peers will surely sympathize with you. Poor, misunderstood, victim Sigma.

reply from: yoda

I don't generally like to comment on your drivel, but this is the most ludicrous, preposterous nonsense I've had the displeasure to witness recently.

Without LIFE........ the can be NO other rights!

What "rights" can dead people exercise????????????????????????????????????

reply from: Sigma

Life is necessary, which is why liberty implies life. However, the right to life is not necessary for liberty to exist; in fact, the right to life is not necessary if liberty exists.

In what way do you mean protecting liberty at the expense of life?

And yet it can be taken away by the gov’t by due process. Life is not absolute. The founders did not believe that, and our society today does not believe that.

Its conscious absence reflected the founders belief in freedom above even life and that freedom gives us all the right to live we need. Live free or die; give me liberty or give me death.

reply from: yoda

"Give me liberty, or give me death", Patrick Henry said.

"Give me the liberty to kill babies", Sigma said.

reply from: dignitarian

Sigma:

You are a tough nut to crack.

Point by point:

1. "Life is necessary, which is why liberty implies life. However, the right to life is not necessary for liberty to exist; in fact, the right to life is not necessary if liberty exists."

This is convoluted nonsense. If I am dead, my liberty is a moot issue. Sigma, you are beating a dead horse here.

2. "In what way do you mean protecting liberty at the expense of life?"

Hello. Maybe legalized abortion?

3. "And yet it can be taken away by the gov’t by due process. Life is not absolute. The founders did not believe that, and our society today does not believe that."

By definition, the word "inalienable" is absolute. Due Process may justifiably (or unjustifiably) violate an inalienable Right, but it (again by definition) CANNOT be taken away. This concept of Rights is foundational to Western political philosophy, and yes, absolutely the founders believed this. (The extent to which society today understands these concepts is simply immaterial to the point.)

4. "Its conscious absence reflected the founders belief in freedom above even life and that freedom gives us all the right to live we need. Live free or die; give me liberty or give me death."

This is complete nonsense. Patrick Henry's statement was a battle cry not a succinct "Declaration" of political purpose. At the risk of boring the more informed reader, I offer the more correct reference associated with this particular issue:

"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."

Again at the risk of being a bore; the order in which these rights were presented was no accident, as THEY PRECISELY MATCH THEIR ORDER IN OBJECTIVE NECESSITY. Thomas Jefferson did not invent this concept of rights. They were widely known at the time, having lately risen out of the age of reason from a variety of influence including the Jesuits and John Locke. And they are ALWAYS listed in the proper order of their objective necessity; either life, liberty, and happiness or life, liberty, and property.

Sigma, if all I have written does not convince you, I suspect nothing will. After all, among those to whom nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proven. But that's alright, your diverse assertions have given us both ample opportunity to clarify our points for the sake of many other readers. Thus, I trust our time is not wasted here.

As always,

Dignitarian

reply from: yoda

Or among those too stubborn to admit the presence of their own nose on their face. "Prove it is there"...

reply from: Sigma

Apparently you don't see the distinction. A lack of a right to life does not equal death. We are arguing about whether liberty requires the right to life, not whether liberty requires life.

Is that your only example? You said if we protect the Right to Liberty at the expense of Life, we ultimately end up protecting neither.

This is patently untrue, since we would have protected the liberty of the woman in question.

I didn't say it was, I said it was a belief that the founders shared. Freedom above even life, and freedom protects life.

The right to life is not an objective necessity, as evidenced by the fact that they did not include it in the Constitution. The Declaration is not a legally enforcable document while the Constitution is. The Declaration was their letter to England telling them to piss off, while the Constitution established what rights we possess under this gov't.

They included liberty in the Declaration as an inalienable right, and included it again in the Constitution. Your reasoning is flawed.

reply from: dignitarian

Sigma:

I have explained the concept of the inalienability of the basic rights of human existence, their order in predominance, and the principle of objective necessity that requires it.

I have explained the political philosophy underlying a society that recognizes that these rights cannot be granted nor removed; only recognized and protected.

This is the concept of inalienability of rights; i.e. that the basic rights of existence are contained in the person and not the law and thus they are not separable.

I have explained that this concept is the foundation of our own political system and that regardless of how much we have abused it, it is absolutely imperative that we do not abandon it.

You say to me; "Your reasoning is flawed."

These various assertions I have made are actually more a matter of history and pre-existent political philosophy. They are not a result of my own reasoning. I have simply attempted to present these concepts as succinctly as possible. It is only in my ability to do so that I admit perhaps I may lack.

Yet you insist I am wrong, and you produce disjointed statements and "facts" that "prove" (for example) that life is not a predominant right over liberty, while all too obviously you ignore the preponderance of reason that demands otherwise.

One thing you might be right about though is that this won't be settled here. The fact is, the wisdom inherent in these concepts was settled on long ago by minds far greater than yours or mine. This wisdom is now for us to live up to.

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: Sigma

Your reasoning is deeply, deeply flawed, imo.

You have said that freedom requires one to be alive. Yes, this is true. Then you make the leap to say that life requires a right to life to make your point that the right to life is more fundamental. However, a right to life is not necessary for one to be alive, nor is a right to life necessary to protect one’s life. This is your first flaw.

You point to the Declaration, which is not legally enforceable, as evidence that a right to life is more fundamental. However, liberty is also in the Declaration and listed as a protected right in the Constitution, which is legally enforceable. A right to life is not even listed as an ideal in the Preamble even though the Preamble is not strictly enforceable. This is your second flaw. Your “hierarchy” is not Constitutionally supportable.

reply from: Tam

Apparently, these truths are no longer self-evident, at least not to abortion supporters. To some of us, they're still self-evident--but that's not the point, is it? Whether we agree or disagree, the context in which our founding documents were written was one in which those truths were self-evident to everyone with a head ... and still are. Dig, your reasoning is fine.

reply from: Sigma

Oh? So, is a right to liberty self-evident then? Why bother providing for liberty (and not life) in the Constitution then? There are no qualifiers in the quote you provided, yet the Constitution clearly allows for life to be taken away.

reply from: Tam

Oh? So, is a right to liberty self-evident then? Why bother providing for liberty (and not life) in the Constitution then? There are no qualifiers in the quote you provided, yet the Constitution clearly allows for life to be taken away.

Actually, yes, a right to liberty IS self-evident.

Furthermore, the Constitution is quite specific that NO person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without DUE PROCESS of law.

The ONLY reason unborn children don't get this Constitutional protection is that the SCOTUS falsely declared them "not persons" in Roe v. Wade--an error that shall eventually be remedied.

Ultimately, the ONLY pro-abortion argument is "the unborn aren't really persons"--without that lie on which to rest your case, there is NO WAY any due process could result in the unborn child's death, since s/he would have the right to be heard in his/her own defense, which would necessarily take place once s/he had reached at least the point of being able to communicate, "I want to live."

If only Terri Schindler (I refuse to call her Schiavo, for reasons that should be obvious) had been able to articulate "I want to live" more clearly, she might be alive today. All she could get out was "I wa...." and that wasn't good enough for those who held her life in their hands.

reply from: yoda

Well, our forefathers thought so, at least. But nowhere in their writings do we find any mention of a belief that the right to kill unborn babies was a "freedom".

No, that "freedom" is an invention of a flock of perverted psychopaths sometimes refered to as the Burger Court.

reply from: Sigma

And it is specifically a protected right in the Constitution while the 'right to life' is not. So what is your support that a 'right to life' is more fundamental?

Not quite. [N]or shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Read literally, Constitutional rights would be infringed only if the State took away the life of the fetus (if the fetus had Constitutional protection) and this does not happen in abortion. However, Constitutional protections would definitely be infringed upon if the State passed laws limiting the woman's liberty to get an abortion.

And even if this were not so, Due Process is procedural as well as substantive. As long as the States use established means of creating law then no Constitutional protection is infringed. Then it is up to SCOTUS as to whether the law violates the substantive portion as well (this is what happened in Roe). So no matter what the rights of the fetus can be infringed upon Constitutionally.

If her brain had not been mush by that point, that might be so. It was not so, however.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Her brain was not mush. She could react to things, move, almost talk, chew food (though not swallow it). Her husband wanted her dead so he could go off and marry another woman. He was always asking the nurses "When is that bi*ch gonna die?!" What does THAT tell you!??!?!

reply from: Sigma

She was in a vegetative state.

Evidence?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Let's see... He was anxious for her to die, he melted her wedding ring into some other kind of jewelry, he put her cats to sleep, he ranted on to the nurses how he was going ot spend the money he got aftyer she died, he had two kids with that other lady, she was often sweaty and nervous when he went out of her room (once a nurse found a needle in Terri's trash can containing a drug that could have killed her), he prevented her any type of medication or therapy, he ordered not to be given the Eucharist, and many more things he did to her. That enough proof for ya?

reply from: yoda

Getting a bit OFF TOPIC, aren't you, Mr. Topic Police Sigma?

reply from: bradensmommy

He wants to get off topic and wants proof (like most all left-wingers) this is what I found online from Terri's nurse that was fired by that piece of s*it who you are defending. If this isn't selfish and heartless I'd like to know what is.

Shocking Affidavit From
Terri's Nurse - READ THIS
3-20-5

5. I was very disturbed by the decision making protocol, as no allowance whatsoever was made for professional responsibility. The atmosphere throughout the facility was dominated by Mr. Schiavo's intimidation. Everyone there, with the exception of several people who seemed to be close to Michael, was intimidated by him. Michael Schiavo always had an overbearing attitude, yelling numerous times such things as "This is my order and you're going to follow it." He is very large and uses menacing body language, such as standing too close to you, getting right in your face and practically shouting.
6. To the best of my recollection, rehabilitation had been ordered for Terri, but I never saw any being done or had any reason at all to believe that there was ever any rehab of Terri done at Palm Gardens while I was there. I became concerned because nothing was being done for Terri at all, no antibiotics, no tests, no range of motion therapy, no stimulation, no nothing. Michael said again and again that Terri should NOT get any rehab, that there should be no range of motion whatsoever, or anything else. I and a CNA named Roxy would give Terri range of motion anyway. One time I put a wash cloth in Terri's hand to keep her fingers from curling together, and Michael saw it and made me take it out, saying that was therapy.
7. Terri's medical condition was systematically distorted and misrepresented. When I worked with her, she was alert and oriented. Terri spoke on a regular basis while in my presence, saying such things as "mommy," and "help me." "Help me" was, in fact, one of her most frequent utterances. I heard her say it hundreds of times. Terri would try to say the word "pain" when she was in discomfort, but it came out more like "pay." She didn't say the "n" sound very well. During her menses she would indicate her discomfort by saying "pay" and moving her arms toward her lower abdominal area. Other ways that she would indicate that she was in pain included pursing her lips, grimacing, thrashing in bed, curling her toes or moving her legs around. She would let you know when she had a bowel movement by flipping up the covers and pulling on her diaper.
8. When I came into her room and said "Hi, Terri", she would always recognize my voice and her name, and would turn her head all the way toward me, saying "Haaaiiiii" sort of, as she did. I recognized this as a "hi", which is very close to what it sounded like, the whole sound being only a second or two long. When I told her humorous stories about my life or something I read in the paper, Terri would chuckle, sometimes more a giggle or laugh. She would move her whole body, upper and lower. Her legs would sometimes be off the bed, and need to be repositioned. I made numerous entries into the nursing notes in her chart, stating verbatim what she said and her various behaviors, but by my next on-duty shift, the notes would be deleted from her chart. Every time I made a positive entry about any responsiveness of Terri's, someone would remove it after my shift ended. Michael always demanded to see her chart as soon as he arrived, and would take it in her room with him. I documented Terri's rehab potential well, writing whole pages about Terri's responsiveness, but they would always be deleted by the next time I saw her chart. The reason I wrote so much was that everybody else seemed to be afraid to make positive entries for fear of their jobs, but I felt very strongly that a nurses job was to accurately record everything we see and hear that bears on a patients condition and their family. I upheld the Nurses Practice Act, and if it cost me my job, I was willing to accept that.
9. Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death. Michael would say "When is she going to die?," "Has she died yet?" and "When is that bitch gonna die?" These statements were common knowledge at Palm Gardens, as he would make them casually in passing, without regard even for who he was talking to, as long as it was a staff member. Other statements which I recall him making include "Can't you do anything to accelerate her death - won't she ever die?" When she wouldn't die, Michael would be furious. Michael was also adamant that the family should not be given information. He made numerous statements such as "Make sure the parents aren't contacted." I recorded Michael's statements word for word in Terri's chart, but these entries were also deleted after the end of my shift. Standing orders were that the family wasn't to be contacted, in fact, there was a large sign in the front of her chart that said under no circumstances was her family to be called, call Michael immediately, but I would call them, anyway, because I thought they should know about their daughter.
10. Any time Terri would be sick, like with a UTI or fluid buildup in her lungs, colds, pneumonia, Michael would be visibly excited, thrilled even, hoping that she would die. He would call me, as I was the nurse supervisor on the floor, and ask for every little detail about her temperature, blood pressure, etc., and would call back frequently asking if she was dead yet. He would blurt out "I'm going to be rich!," and would talk about all the things he would buy when Terri died, which included a new car, a new boat, and going to Europe, among other things.
11. When Michael visited Terri, he always came alone and always had the door closed and locked while he was with Terri. He would typically be there about twenty minutes or so. When he left Terri would would be trembling, crying hysterically, and would be very pale and have cold sweats. It looked to me like Terri was having a hypoglycemic reaction, so I'd check her blood
sugar. The glucometer reading would be so low it was below the range where it would register an actual number reading. I would put dextrose in Terri's mouth to counteract it. This happened about five times on my shift as I recall. Normally Terri's blood sugar levels were very stable due to the uniformity of her diet through tube feeding. It is my belief that Michael injected Terri with Regular insulin, which is very fast acting.
12. The longer I was employed at Palm Gardens the more concerned I became about patient care, both relating to Terri Schiavo, for the reasons I've said, and other patients, too. There was an LPN named Carolyn Adams, known as "Andy" Adams who was a particular concern. An unusual number of patients seemed to die on her shift, but she was completely unconcerned, making statements such as "They are old - let them die." I couldn't believe her attitude or the fact that it didn't seem to attract any attention. She made many comments about Terri being a waste of money, that she should die. She
said it was costing Michael a lot of money to keep her alive, and that he complained about it constantly (I heard him complain about it all the time, too.) Both Michael and Adams said that she would be worth more to him if she were dead. I ultimately called the police relative to this situation, and was terminated the next day. Other reasons were cited, but I was convinced it was because of my "rocking the boat."
13. Ms. Adams was one of the people who did not seem to be intimidated by Michael. In fact, they seemed to be very close, and Adams would do whatever Michael told her. Michael sometimes called Adams at night and spoke at length. I was not able to hear the content of these phone calls, but I knew it was him talking to her because she would tell me afterward and relay orders from him.
14. While at Palm Gardens, I became fearful for my personal safety. This was due to Michael's constant intimidation, including his menacing body language, vocal tone and mannerisms.
15. I have contacted the Schindler family because I just couldn't stand by and let Terri die without the truth being known.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
CARLA SAUER IYER, R.N.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of September, 2003, by CARLA SAUER IYER, R.N., who produced her Florida driver's license as identification, and who did / did not take an oath.

reply from: dignitarian

Oh? So, is a right to liberty self-evident then? Why bother providing for liberty (and not life) in the Constitution then? There are no qualifiers in the quote you provided, yet the Constitution clearly allows for life to be taken away.

Sigma:

Still beating that dead horse I see.

As much as I hate to be so long winded, you asked for it. So here it is.



First of all, the primary reason for the existence of the Constitution was not to delineate the fundamental rights of human existence. Rather, the original purpose of the Constitution was to establish the form and limits of the powers of the Federal Government. (The Federalist Papers are a wonderful source to examine the sensibilities in place at the time.) If you will recall, the Bill of Rights was added because it was insisted upon by the individual states as a guarantee they would be free from a tyranny of a centralized federal government and that the individual citizens of each state would be guaranteed certain rights against an all powerful federal authority. For example, the freedom of religion clause originally was meant to prevent the Federal Government from imposing a certain religion against the individual states, but it had no authority whatsoever to prevent any state from forming its own religious authority. As a result if Maryland wanted to establish a Roman Catholic state, they were perfectly free to do so. Of course if Georgia wanted to permit human slavery, they were perfectly free to do that also.

A lot has happened since then, and when the smoke cleared a large part of the Bill of Rights had largely been turned around 180 degrees such that it now more resembles an imposition against the authority of the individual states rather than against the Federal Government. (Is this ironic or what?) This is largely the result of the 14th Amendment which was necessary due to the human rights violations in the former slave states. In short, the Constitution was compromised to reconcile states that simply would not accept the notion that all men are created equal. For anyone who would like to know why the original intent of the US Constitution to limit federal power has suffered so much over its 200 year history, only two words are necessary; HUMAN SLAVERY. (No need to mention the failure to recognize intrinsic human worth here.)

But here’s the point; certainly some arguments about what is constitutional or not have immense merit, but constantly referring to the Constitution as a foundational document responsible for establishing the fundamental rights of human existence is absurd. Our nation wrote the Constitution in the first place and it can re-write the Constitution all over again whenever it so desires (it is called the amendment process), and none of this would have a single iota to do with the reality of the inalienability of the fundamental rights of human existence. We either believe it to be true or we do not; the content of any national or international constitution notwithstanding. To insist otherwise would be irrational and would deny the very definition of the word inalienable.

Sigma, your insistence upon embracing the Constitution to lend weight to your contentions reminds me of the tactics employed by the ACLU; exploiting the good faith of the Constitution in order to undermine the moral principles upon which the Constitution was originally founded upon in the first place.

The other aspect of your game plan is even simpler; just avoid a principle based dialogue all together. After all, no coherent set of fundamental principles can ever be relied upon to justify abortion. Neat trick huh?

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: Tam

Another great post, Dig.

reply from: galen

I hate to be devil's advocate... but as long as we are on the topic of Teri.... has anyone looked at her autopsy results, and or seen what had happened to her brain..?? There was NO cortical function there... whatever she was she was not a thinking individual when she died. No matter what our personal belief system. Please please please stop putting into this topic what was not there in the first place. \

What ever happened to the 13 yo girl who was pregnant. I have not vbeen able to find any updated info on this particular story.

mary

reply from: Sigma

bradensmommy,

lol. You say this like wanting proof is a bad thing.

He refused resuscitation and antibiotic treatment for her, and hospitals have those forms for a reason. So the patient can die a natural death. I can’t dispute the contents of the affidavit, but I do not believe that things happen the way the nurse has said. I do not know the truth of it, however. I don’t know why he didn’t just divorce her; maybe he felt some responsibility to make sure her wishes were fulfilled. I can only judge him by his actions and they seem honorable.

He has already been exonerated of any abuse allegations, offered to donate Terri's inheritance and court awarded winnings to charity and examinations by both the husband’s physicians, and non-partisan court appointed physicians who provided affidavits stating that Terri is in a PVS contradicting those filed by Terri's parents.

He moved on with his life, but still had enough integrity to stick around and fight so her wishes can be carried out when it would have been easier not to. He is not after it for the money as well, since he has turned down offers of money to allow her to live. The original award of one million was not enough therapy, rehabilitation efforts, and maintaining her (I’m surprised any of the money is left honestly), nor would they do any good in her condition. There was nothing short of a miracle reconstructing her brain that would improve her condition. The swallowing therapy and such would improve her reflex actions but nothing would improve her state. You do not “wake up” from PVS, she had little but brain stem activity left.

From an appellate court decision:
[T]he Schindlers argue that the testimony, which was conflicting, was insufficient to support the trial court's decision by clear and convincing evidence. We have reviewed that testimony and conclude that the trial courthad sufficient evidence to make this decision. The clear and convincing standard of proof, while very high, permits a decision in the face of inconsistent or conflicting evidence. See In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So. 2d at 273.

The testimony in this case establishes that Theresa was very young and very healthy when this tragedy struck. Like many young people without children, she had not prepared a will, much less a living will. She had been raised in the Catholic faith, but did not regularly attend mass or have a religious advisor who could assist the court in weighing her religious attitudes about life-support methods. Her statements to her friends and family about the dying process were few and they were oral. Nevertheless, those statements, along with other evidence about Theresa, gave the trial court a sufficient basis to make this decision for her.

In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the trial court was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few weeks in a coma, but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives. After due consideration, we conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this question as he did.

He managed to convince something like 10 different courts (I think 8 refused to retry it) and 2 Federal courts that he knows her wishes better than her parents. Every time an appeal was considered, both sides had the opportunity to argue their case in front of a whole new court. The entire case was essentially re-tried each time and every court found that the original ruling was correct.

dignitarian,

As Tam said, a good post with quite a bit of good info. I should not be your target with this however; I have pointed out these very facts to other pro-lifers such as concernedparent only for him to deny that this is so. I believe he said that I would have to think the founders were idiots to set up such a system.

In what way does this support your assertion that the right to life is required or somehow more fundamental?

I do not believe I am trying to establish fundamental rights of human existence, that’s what you’re doing. I am arguing that a ‘right to life’ is not required to protect our life, nor is a ‘right to life’ necessary in general. In this way I am arguing that a ‘right to life’ is not more fundamental than freedom. Freedom is the theme, if you will, of the Constitution and the Constitution is part of the foundation for our laws.

The ‘moral principle’ of the Constitution is, as you have shown, freedom from an oppressive gov’t.

If you wish to discard our discussion of legal rights in exchange for a discussion of moral principles I would be willing to. I am avoiding nothing.

reply from: yoda

You're WAY, WAY off topic, Mr. Topic Police!

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Sigma, why do you think he said "When is that bi*ch gonna die?!"

reply from: Sigma

I don't know the context and I have not heard him justify it, and I'm not even sure I believe he did.

reply from: bradensmommy

I don't know the context and I have not heard him justify it, and I'm not even sure I believe he did.

I really feel sorry for your future wife especially if she was in the same predicament as Terri. BTW when did Terri say she wanted to die a painful death? You must really be heartless to defend an a**hat like her husband.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

So you assume the nurses who said he inquired that are all lying?

reply from: Sigma

bradensmommy,

Why? I would try to respect what my significant other's wishes would be. Terri did not die a painful death. She was pumped full of morphine, and the method was not painful anyway. Her heart simply ran out of the energy needed to pump and stopped.

laurissamarcotte,

"Nurses"? I saw only one, and given that what she says contradicts the findings of the courts I do believe she is lying. Abuse charges were dropped.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

So the courts are the ABSOLUTE truth? They were the ABSOLUTE truth when they said blacks weren't human?

reply from: Sigma

No, I didn't mean to intimate that. When 12 different courts fail to find abuse, I would tend to believe them over the word of one person. While that one person may be absolutely right and the courts may be absolutely wrong, I do not know myself and must rely on the best evidence available.

reply from: dignitarian

Sigma:

You have asked me; "In what way does this support your assertion that the right to life is required or somehow more fundamental?"

It doesn't.

My previous response was obviously addressing your insistence that the Constitution is somehow the instrument responsible for establishing the fundamental rights of human existence. It isn't.

However, in other threads I have taken the time to carefully and objectively substantiate that the Right to Life is in fact the most fundamental of all other Rights. When I get an extra moment, I promise to find one and re-post.

As always,

Dignitarian



reply from: dignitarian

Sigma:

Here is an earlier post from this same thread, but you didn't get it then and thus you probably won't get it now.

Dig

Sigma:

You have stated:

(Quote)

It does indeed seem reasonable, but I do not agree that the right to life is more crucial than all other rights. Liberty is at least as important, as all other rights can stem from this, even a right to live. In fact, this is what happened. A 'right to life' is considered to exist because one of our liberties is freedom from a gov't that can take life away from us (without due process).

Liberty is included in the Preamble of the Constitution while life is not. Freedom and personal choice are the cornerstone of our society, not merely survival.

(Unquote)

You may very well not agree that Life is a more fundamental Right than Liberty, but that's okay, after all some people might not agree that 1 + 1 = 2.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that LIFE IS A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF LIBERTY TO EVEN EXIST, not the other way around. Furthermore then, if we protect the Right to Liberty at the expense of Life, we ultimately end up protecting neither. Thus Life MUST be a more fundamental Right than Liberty.

The Right to Life was pronounced in our Declaration as the paramount and inalienable possession of all men. Its conspicuous absence, as you mention, in the preamble of the Constitution would merely reflect the founders' insistence that this Right, among all others, was absolutely inalienable, and thus could neither be granted nor removed by any government.

This, they declared as self-evident. Kind of like 1 + 1 = 2.

Regards,

Dig

Text

reply from: yoda

Dig,

Some folks are not too good at higher math.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I don’t know why he didn’t just divorce her; maybe he felt some responsibility to make sure her wishes were fulfilled. I can only judge him by his actions and they seem honorable.

He didn't want to divorce her because she was worth MONEY (as long as he was her legal guardian). Oh yes, the lust for money is such an honorable intent. He sued for a huge settlement because Terri's doctors "weren't taking care of her", and then used hardly money to treat her. Again, so honorable.

Do you know what else? Friends of Terri said he didn't know what she wanted if she happened to become "vegatative." He has been witnessed to say "I just don't know what she wants." To then go out and say she wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death is not only honorable but fantastic to mainstream media, (most) Democrats, and Judge Greer (but then again, the hypocritical idiots want us to keep trying to feed the poor people in Africa and other undeveloped countries, because starvation hurts for them, but not Terri).

And any moron could see she wasn't in any kind of "persistant vegatative state" before she died. There are videos of her before she died; Terri's parents and nurses said she responded to stimuli. Even a journalist experienced her "apparant" vegatative state when she said "I want..." in response to his question "do you want to live?"

In conclusion, Terri not only died a terrible and tragic death, but that bastard of Michael-ish properties took away something that was not rightfully his to take. HENCE, we have the whole issue of the "right to die" and "right to an abortion", because there are people out there will fight tooth and nail just so they can kill people for any reason.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Whoops, that was me, as in tabithamarcotte that posted right up there. Sorry, Laurissa was using my laptop about 10 minutes ago and didn't log out...

Anyway, sorry for getting off topic.

reply from: Sigma

dignitarian,

I get it, I simply don’t agree. There is a difference.

Come now, I thought you were going to link or repost your inescapable logic on why the ‘right to life’ is more fundamental.

Saying Nevertheless, the fact remains that LIFE IS A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF LIBERTY TO EVEN EXIST is meaningless to the point, unless you can prove a ‘right to live’ is necessary for the condition of life to exist.

Your reasoning is flawed. Liberty was pronounced in the Declaration as an inalienable right as well, and it was also included in the Constitution. Without actual evidence, your reasoning that it was assumed because it was “absolutely inalienable” doesn’t wash. Sorry.

That someone like yodavater agrees with you should give you cause to reconsider.

tabithamarcotte,

The original settlement of 1 million was used for treatment. There was not much left by the time the tube was removed. Your argument is that he endured demonizing, death threats and negative media attention for... how much? 50k that he has already stated he will donate to charity? Yet he was offered multimillions to allow her to live. Your argument does not seem reasonable.

He, theoretically, would know more than any other. That is why he had the legal right to decide; that’s why the surviving spouse has the legal right to decide if the other is incapacitated. Every court who reviewed the case saw no reason to deny him this.

I’m sure you’re intelligent enough to see the difference. Assume for a moment that all of the court-appointed doctors were correct and she was in a PVS. She would not have wanted to eat, nor would she have tried to eat no matter how long she went without food. The swallowing therapy that so many point to in order to show how cruel her husband is would have improved her swallowing reflex. Eating for her is a reflex at best, there was no desire behind it. PVS is not like a coma, where the patient is aware but cannot or for some reason will not respond. There was little to nothing left of the person who was Terri remaining.

She was also pumped full of morphine. She would not feel anything anyway, she simply ran out of energy and went to sleep.


Every court who heard the case and every doctor responsible for determining this fact agreed that she was in a PVS. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159733,00.html should lay to rest claims that she could recover and the claims that she was abused.

The long-awaited report Wednesday found Schiavo's brain had shrunk to about half the normal size for a woman her age when she died March 31 after her feeding tube was disconnected. The autopsy also determined she was blind.
...
The findings vindicated Schiavo's husband in his long and vitriolic battle with his in-laws that engulfed the courts, Congress and the White House and divided the country. Michael Schiavo and court-appointed doctors have said she had no hope of recovery. She died at age 41.
...
The autopsy counters a widely seen videotape the Schindlers released of Schiavo in her hospice bed. The video showed Schiavo appearing to turn toward her mother's voice and smile. She moaned and laughed. Her head moved up and down and she seemed to follow the progress of a brightly colored Mickey Mouse balloon.
...
The autopsy included 274 external and internal body images and an exhaustive review of Schiavo's medical records, police reports and social services agency records.

Let the poor woman rest, tabithamarcotte. She was not killed for the fun of it. It was a horrible tragedy and her parents turned it into a media circus. They have an excuse since it is their daughter, but the rest of the country does not have that excuse for buying into their garbage.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Death threats? All I heard was "Michael's a loving angel." Lol! Donate to charity? The charity to himself, possibly?

No, doctors have the right to decide whether a person's spouse is incapacitated.
The same courts who have made incredibly stupid decisions before, and the same courts who don't have all the power.

So Terri chose not to respond when she smiled at her mother entering the room, or with distress wehn Michael left.

She was not pumped full of morphine. Her parents, sister, and brother said she looked as though in pain after her feeding tube was removed.

Not all doctors said she was in a PVS. There were doctors who said the complete opposite. Only one court actually decided whether Terri was in a PVS: Greer's. Every other court just kind of ignored that factor and passed it on.

Her parents did not turn it into a media circus; the media turned it into one.
Their garbage? How about the doctors', nurses', other friends' garbage? I suppose their majority counts too. It was allllll just a conspiracy, you guys, because Terri parents countered St. Michael's statements. Oh yeah, and a detective.

But really, I don't want to get off topic, so I'll just stop. There's a topic discussing Terri, so I guess if this has a great need to be continued, it can be done there?

reply from: dignitarian

I get it, I simply don’t agree. There is a difference.

Come now, I thought you were going to link or repost your inescapable logic on why the ‘right to life’ is more fundamental.

Saying Nevertheless, the fact remains that LIFE IS A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF LIBERTY TO EVEN EXIST is meaningless to the point, unless you can prove a ‘right to live’ is necessary for the condition of life to exist.

Dear Sigma:

Your responses are consistently stupefying.

I don't need to prove that a "right to live" is necessary for life to exist any more than you need to prove that a right to liberty is necessary for liberty to exist. This is complete nonsense.

The criteria on which I rely for judging whether one right is more fundamental than another is based upon a clearly defined and well known philosophical criterion called the principle of objective necessity; i.e. that which establishes a necessary condition for possibility of the other must be more fundamental.

Life is objectively necessary for the possibility for liberty to exist. Thus life is a more fundamental right than liberty. (Most people can recognize the self-evidence of this anyway.)

Nevertheless, and incredibly, you continue to insist that liberty is a more fundamental right than the right to life. At best, this is a very tenuous position to hold. If you must insist on supporting abortion rights, this position will more easily drag you over the cliff than say, for example, claiming that the unborn are not legal persons deserving of protection under the law. (I can't believe I am doing this - actually helping Sigma with his argument for supporting abortion rights.)

Look, I don't know where else to go with this. On one hand, I present a clear and understandable case for Life based on objectively logical criterion, and on the other hand you say; "I simply don't agree."

I did read your earlier responses, but I have to be honest; I couldn't make a lot of sense out of them.

At this point, just for the sake of conversation; what exactly then is your criteria for judging that one right might be more fundamental than another?

Or better yet, what is your justification for asserting that the unborn should not be considered persons deserving of respect under the law?

Either one will do (or anything that could possibly make any sense to anyone at all).

I'm easy to please.

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: Sigma

tabithamarcotte,

If you wish to stop, so be it. It is somewhat ridiculous to suggest that all the court appointed doctors, judges, and the media were a part of some conspiracy to kill this woman, imo. There seems to be little more to discuss, so I suppose we can just stop here.

dignitarian,

Look, dignitarian, there’s obviously something you don’t understand. Let’s take this slowly.

You say: Life is objectively necessary for the possibility for liberty to exist.

I agree. Life is a necessary condition for someone to be free.

Then you say: Thus life is a more fundamental right than liberty.

This is a non sequitur. You are missing a logical connection between the necessity of life and the necessity of a ‘right to life’. Unless you establish the necessity of a ‘right to life’ for life to exist, your conclusion simply does not follow. ‘Right to life’ and life do not equal each other.

This is what you are insisting: x > z.
As evidence you are saying: y > z.
To prove your conclusion you need to establish that: x = y.
X = Right to Life
Y = Life
Z = Liberty

I am not trying to insist that liberty is more fundamental than a ‘right to life’. I am arguing that the hierarchy you are suggesting is not Constitutionally supportable, nor is it necessary.

reply from: yoda

45 million babies have died in this country since 1973 BECAUSE they did NOT HAVE a "right to life". The ones that lived were given a "right to life" by their mothers!

I'd say that makes it a "necessity" wouldn't you?

Oh wait, I forgot, because you've already been born you don't really care, do you?

reply from: dignitarian

"I am not trying to insist that liberty is more fundamental than a ‘right to life’. I am arguing that the hierarchy you are suggesting is not Constitutionally supportable, nor is it necessary."

Sigma

Dear Sigma:

You appear obstinate in your position that the Right to Life is not more fundamental than the Right to Liberty. At least you are consistent in this, but what is interesting here is that I looked back through your posts in this thread, and (though please correct me if I am wrong) I find no instance where you actually declare the Right to Liberty to be more fundamental than the Right to Life.

What a weasel; I provide positive arguments that include clear criterion and rational assertions, but you go no further than to make feable attempts to "debunk" them. Nowhere do you even try to construct a remotely valid argument on your own to support the opposing position. What do you want me to do, come up with one for you just to make this interesting?

And another thing; I thought we put this "Constitutionally supportable" thing to bed two or three posts ago. Are you back to implying that the US Constitution is the ultimate authority for the delineation of the fundamental Rights of human existence? I thought you gave that one up?

You also claim; "nor is this necessary". My response is that the concept of the objective ordering of rights is absolutely necessary. The Dred Scott decision basically claimed that the white man's property rights were more fundamental than the black man's liberty rights. I'll give you one guess as to where they went wrong.

If you happen to be someone who believes that intangible truths simply don't exist; and thus nothing at all can be "proven" anyway, let me know. At least I'll better understand perhaps the level to which we must go to communicate.



Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: Sigma

What do you think my position is? It is not that liberty is more fundamental than a 'right to life'. I am not trying to argue that either is more fundamental. I am arguing that any 'right to life' is not more fundamental than liberty, nor is it necessary for liberty to exist.

The Constitution is an important consideration when discussing our legal rights. If the hierarchy you suggest is not Constitutionally supported you have little to no basis to suggest that the 'right to life' of the fetus is superior to or more fundamental than the woman's liberty.

Then show how a 'right to life' is necessary for liberty to exist. If your only evidence of this is that one must be alive then I'm afraid we are at an impasse. Unless you can show that 'right to life' is necessary for one to be alive that is not acceptable evidence.

reply from: galen

A reminder to those out there on the web, Re: TS Abortion Pictures and any other proof offered up by laymen. If you have someones edited version of the truth then you only get part of the story. To take anyones good name and publicly slander it because of what you think you may know is one of the most Immoral things you can do. I personally have not posted much to this site in recent days because I can not stomach what has been passed around recently as fact, especially when it has been obvious hearsay. IMHO gossip has no place in this debate as it makes the person or persons who perpetuate the gossip look like fools.

i add a link http://www.reason.com/0602/co.cy.smears.shtml

Mary

reply from: dignitarian

Dear Sigma:

Point by Point:

1. Sigma: “What do you think my position is? It is not that liberty is more fundamental than a 'right to life'. I am not trying to argue that either is more fundamental. I am arguing that any 'right to life' is not more fundamental than liberty, nor is it necessary for liberty to exist.”

This is EXACTLY my point. Nowhere do you posit an opposing argument in an affirmative perspective. Is there NOT ANYTHING that you can even "prove" to yourself? In the real world, rights do frequently conflict with one another, and adjudications MUST be made, and they will be made largely on the basis of the comparative necessity of the particular rights in conflict. In the meanwhile you mumble to yourself that no one right can be "proven" to be more fundamental than another while the REAL world makes REAL differences in REAL lives.

2. Sigma: “Then show how a 'right to life' is necessary for liberty to exist. If your only evidence of this is that one must be alive then I'm afraid we are at an impasse. Unless you can show that 'right to life' is necessary for one to be alive that is not acceptable evidence.”

For a demonstration of the necessity of an objective order of rights, I gave you the example of its denial in the Dred Scott Decision. You offered no response.

As for a "proof" of its objective truth; it can be said that for whom nothing is self-evident NOTHING can be proven. Thus I can offer you no more than what I have already written in this regard.

3. Sigma: “The Constitution is an important consideration when discussing our legal rights. If the hierarchy you suggest is not Constitutionally supported you have little to no basis to suggest that the 'right to life' of the fetus is superior to or more fundamental than the woman's liberty.”

Permit me to introduce you to the concept of INTRINSIC Rights verses EXTRINSIC Rights. The fundamental rights of human existence are considered (by those lucid enough to make such a distinction anyway) as inalienable. That is, they cannot be separated from any human existent regardless of written law. Thus these kinds of rights are understood to be INTRINSIC. EXTRINSIC rights are all others necessarily based upon written law. Anyway Sigma, I thought we essentially covered this in quite some detail in earlier posts where I introduced you to inalienable rights; no?

Look, don't get me wrong, I could certainly play along with you on this "Constitutionally supportable" thing, but why not confront our differences upon their foundations in principle? I think this is more productive as we certainly must embrace principles of some sort (don't we?), and if nevertheless we discover that we must absolutely disagree anyway, at least we will know precisely the principles upon which we do so.

The alternative is to quibble endlessly about your interpretations of the law (or whatever else) verses mine; and to go nowhere; and to understand nothing. Which is precisely the path necessary to make your “point” isn’t it? After all, if you can “prove” that nothing can be proven, then even killing the unborn can’t really be wrong.

Ah-ha! Maybe Dignitarian is on to something here after all.

4. I notice that you have posted 500 times in the last month. You apparently have a lot to say while you affirm nothing and "disprove" everything. However, regarding my request below you had nothing to say at all:

"If you happen to be someone who believes that intangible truths simply don't exist; and thus nothing at all can be "proven" anyway, let me know. At least I'll better understand perhaps the level to which we must go to communicate."

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: Sigma

I am not attempting to prove anything in this thread to you, dignitarian. You are claiming fundamental rights, I am pointing out the errors in your reasoning.

Rights do indeed conflict with each other, but you offer little evidence that it is resolved solely or even largely based on which right is more 'fundamental'.

There was nothing to respond to. With this example you seem to be saying that there should be an objective ordering of rights. Whether or not we should is irrelevent to this point.

I understand the concept of intrinsic rights, but thank you. Unless they are legally enforcable, they have little bearing on this discussion. Unless, of course, you wish to abandon our discussion of legal rights. I offered this before, but you did not respond.

So, because you cannot logically show that a 'right to life' is more fundamental or required for any other rights, nothing can be proven? I am not quibbling about interpretations of law. The point put forth was that a 'right to life' is somehow required for other rights to exist. I disputed this. Perhaps you had a different notion of exactly what the discussion was.

reply from: dignitarian

Sigma:

It doesn't work.

Let me ask again. Does truth exist?

Dig

reply from: Sigma

I'm not sure what truth you mean.

I'll say yes, however.

reply from: dignitarian

What do you base that on?

reply from: dignitarian

Sigma:

Gotta go to bed for now. I get up at 4:30.

Perhaps I can catch you tomorrow.

Dig

reply from: Sigma

It depends on what kind of truth you are talking about. Analytic truth, logical truth, observable truth, subjective truth?

reply from: yoda

I betting you'll get something like "It all depends on what the definition of "is" is."

reply from: dignitarian

It depends on what kind of truth you are talking about. Analytic truth, logical truth, observable truth, subjective truth?

Sigma;

You are stalling. You well know the kind of truth in question here.

Dig

reply from: Sigma

I honestly believe you do not, however. You brought up "self-evident" truths and compared them to the expression 1+1. Is this what you wish to discuss? Why mathmatical equations are true, or why subjective beliefs are true, or do you want to compare subjective beliefs to mathmatical equations?

reply from: dignitarian

I honestly believe you do not, however. You brought up "self-evident" truths and compared them to the expression 1+1. Is this what you wish to discuss? Why mathmatical equations are true, or why subjective beliefs are true, or do you want to compare subjective beliefs to mathmatical equations?

Sigma:

Yea right, I want to discuss 1+1.

Look Sigma, I 've posed my questions. You know precisely what I mean. Nevertheless you insist on quibbling on and on about nothing. Sorry, I don't have the patience or the time for it.

Get a life with real people doing real things.

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: Sigma

That is the most recent point regarding "self-evident truth". When you began asking if I believed in truth, I could only assume you were coming back to that. If this is not the case I truly do not know what you are referring to.

I am more than happy to discuss truth.

reply from: Tam

One by one, we all come to this same conclusion. Now Sigma will start calling YOU dishonest. LOL

reply from: Sigma

I doubt that. Dignitarian seems a great deal more intelligent than you, so I doubt he will resort to such tactics.

reply from: Tam

I doubt that. Dignitarian seems a great deal more intelligent than you, so I doubt he will resort to such tactics.

LOL Oh man, I totally walked into that one. I should have guessed you'd say something like that. Amusingly, the "tactics" to which you refer apparently consist of "pointing out Sigma's BS"--and I can see why you are so unhappy about that--but unfortunately for you, pretty much everyone here has figured out at this point exactly what Dignitarian just pointed out about you. You go out of your way to be especially nasty to those of us who figured it out first (simply by virtue of being the first to try to reason with you)--but hey, I won't mind if you spare Dig from more of your prevarication, even if you throw in a few lame insults towards others, including me, in the process. Best of all, why don't you spare everyone, and actually start being honest and upright? I'll be right here, not holding my breath.

reply from: SurvivorsINDIANA

If anyone needs evidence that you are a bad mother Buddhist this statement of yours should suffice. Good parents don't leave decisions up to 13 year-olds. Especially when it involves sex and murder.

reply from: SpiritualisticBuddhist

If anyone needs evidence that you are a bad mother Buddhist this statement of yours should suffice. Good parents don't leave decisions up to 13 year-olds. Especially when it involves sex and murder.

It's people like you who cause abortions, my dear.

I'm going to be a bad mother, am I? Better abort any forthcoming children, else I will be a bad mother to them.

Idiot.

reply from: SurvivorsINDIANA

Pointing out that you are a bad mom does not cause anyone to murder their baby.

And you just showed that your thinking is all gay - that you can't even think straight - by claiming that its better to murder a child if they might end up being raised by mediocre parents.

reply from: SpiritualisticBuddhist

My thinking is 'gay'?

Are you a homophobe or a child?

Pointing out that someone is a bad parent/person does cause them to 'murder' their children. Has. And probably will continue to.

You're THAT sort of prolife! You don't care about how women feel, so why claim to know them?

If someone thinks they are going to be a bad mother, and they are a good person, they will not have a child in any way possible.

Oh and your wording was 'bad' not 'mediocre'... and I didn't claim anything. I was merely pointing out how you can contribute to these so called murders.

reply from: SurvivorsINDIANA

I was born homophobic and am proud of it. I celebrate the fact that I was born homophobic and others should too.

Pointing out that someone is a bad parent does not cause them to do anything bad. If anything, it encourages them to act like a better parent in the effort to prove wrong those who pointed out that they are a bad parent.

Its the bad parents that people just leave alone and never confront to their face that end up doing horrible things to their children.

You are my definition of a bad parent: someone that let's their 13 year-old make their own decision concerning sex and murder. You're a child sexual predators dream parent.

reply from: SpiritualisticBuddhist

How do YOU know I'm a bad parent?

How do you know my child will be having sex and will be pregnant at 13?

This is what is called a scenario! It didn't happen. If it did, yes, I'd let my child make her own decision about her pregnancy, mainly because it's her life. Intruding on it in any way could cause all sorts of problems.

Thing is I wouldve given my child all the information before this would happen. If abortion is really the worst way to go, surely she would choose to keep or to adopt?

Pointing out this does make people abort. I've seen it. Heard of it. Low self esteem is exactly the sort of thing to cause this. Like i've said before. You don't know or care ONE bit about women. Therefor, you don't know a thing about them when they're in this situation.

So what horrible things am I to do to my child, if I ever have one? Come on, what do you see in your crystal ball?

And don't you dare say a thing like that to me. You know nothing. You really don't! It would be laughable if you hadn't said something so disgustingly slanderous.

reply from: SurvivorsINDIANA

Thank you for showing all that you are without a doubt a bad parent.

reply from: bradensmommy

No offense to anyone who is Christian/religious but JESUS DID NOT GIVE ANYONE THE RIGHT TO USE HIS NAME FOR AN EXCUSE TO BE A BIGOTED NARROW-MINDED A$$HOLE.

Thank you.

reply from: SurvivorsINDIANA

Being born homophobic does not make anyone bigoted or narrow-minded. I am not open-minded when it comes to morality just as Jesus commanded.

Born homophobic and proud of it!

reply from: bradensmommy

Jesus commanded people not to be open-minded? No wonder there are alot of people like yourself in this world who claim to be Christian. Last time I went to Sunday School (like centuries ago) we were taught to believe that Jesus loves everyone.

Another reason why I took the Pagan path, too many Christians are hypocritical. And yes, I think you are narrow-minded.

reply from: SurvivorsINDIANA

Cite where Jesus taught anyone to be open-minded.

Love and hate are not mutually exclusive and neither are they opposites. The opposite of love is not hate but indifference. In the end Jesus will lovingly accept those into His kingdom who loved Him and send those who did not love Him into everlasting Hell. Its the most loving thing He can do.

Jesus actually hates the sinful person, He hates their heart. He doesn't hate "the sin" because sin is not a thing. For example, Jesus both hates and loves buddhist. He hates her allowing her children to make decisions about sex and murdering their babies on their own. Jesus loves her enough to work through people like me and others on this forum that point out that its evil to let 13 year-old children make their own decisions on sex and murder so that she comes to the realization that she is an evil sinner in need of God's salvation and guidance in her life.

reply from: bradensmommy

Cite? Um, no. I don't really prefer to read a book written by a bunch of men who didn't even live in Jesus' time thanks. I think you are getting your nonsense "truths" by other people's "beliefs". If you actually thought for yourself you'd know better. I don't feel that I should be close-minded to other peoples ways. My best friend is a gay man and he is a very good person inside and out. If you homophobes actually got to know a gay man maybe your predjudice would change...hmm...maybe not actually. I don't understand why people are so scared of gay people, but the ones who are will not think twice about girl on girl porn.

reply from: SurvivorsINDIANA

I understand gays very well. Thats why I would re-criminalize sodomy.

The Bible was written by people who knew Christ personally. Paul encountered the risen Christ. Peter knew Christ beginning at Christ's earthly ministry. The Apostle John knew Christ being one of The Twelve. James the Lord's brothers grew up with Jesus. The New Testament was written by people who knew Jesus.

The Bible is more credible and trustworthy than you are.

reply from: bradensmommy

wow, I can't believe I read that without laughing.

reply from: SpiritualisticBuddhist

Sorry, but I'm not going to turn into a religious nutcase dictator to my children when I have them (anyone would think I have 10 of them already, the way this guy is going on)

I'm actually going to be a good parent and treat them like a human being, not like a computer.

I'm also not going to listen to him, as not only does he make no sense, but to listen to someone who knows nothing about anything that he's preaching would also make no sense

I have spoken to plenty of Christians to know that good ones do exist (especially that lovely spiritual one I met) as far as I see, this is the type of religious my parents warned me about.

My friend was brought up by very liberal parents who gave him all the information available on sex and he is the best person I know. Open, honest, faithful, oh and not the father to a million children.

So before you slam my plans for parenting... actually, just go away. It's obvious you're so set in your ways you probably dont even read my posts. You are dismissed.

I'd never have guessed he was a homophobe though. It sounded so childish, it reminded me of when I was thirteen myself and school bullies were calling me gay...

Oh and if giving me the awesome gift of SurvivorsINDIANA to me is an act of love, i'd hate to think of what Jesus would do if he completely hated me. xD

reply from: yoda

This is all very entertaining, but what does it have to do with "When a Parent Doesn't Know", or abortion for that matter?

reply from: SurvivorsINDIANA

When you say that your "friend was brought up by very liberal parents who gave him all the information available on sex and he is the best person you know" I take that to indicate that he is another idiot liberal like yourself who thinks that allowing 13 year-old girls to make their own decision on whether or not to be sexually active is "good parenting".

Children need parents who enforce strict moral rules. They need a tyrant dad. They need parents who teach them and pass along their faith and don't let their children decide what sort of belief system they ought to adopt when they are 10 years old.

reply from: SpiritualisticBuddhist

You know, I think I'll definitely leave you to pretend that I'm a bad person who said this and that and whatever you like to believe. Perhaps it turns you on, thinking that I'm a bad girl and that your iron fist will tame me and any unfortunate children who happen to be beneath it.

I'm happy and confident in the knowledge that I'll raise my children to be decent and caring people... people who aren't like you.

reply from: Sigma

A lesson on parenthood: Children don’t turn out the way you want. Your children are not your children, wrote the poet Kahlil Gibran. You may give them your love but not your thoughts, for they have their own thoughts.

reply from: NewPoster1

Let me guess, you're one of those right-wing whackos who think it's their god-given right to beat their children.

reply from: SurvivorsINDIANA

The major reason why children do not turn out to be Christian children is because their alleged Christian parents give their kids to the government school system so they can raise them. These parents relinquish their responsibility of raising their children and subject their children to the anti-Christ curriculum of the publik skools and all of the abuse (mental, sexual and otherwise) that occurs within them.

Read http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48001 article for more info

reply from: dignitarian

To anyone who might be interested at this point:

I'm going to go out on a limb here.

I would like to suggest that SurvivorsINDIANA is not only misrepresenting the Christian faith, but he also knows full well that he is doing so.

Like we haven't seen this one tried before?

Regards,

Dignitarian

PS: Not only that, but when Sigma is giving out lessons on parenting, something has really gotta be wacko.

reply from: SurvivorsINDIANA

And yes, I do strongly support spanking children (done the right way) as a very effective form of discipline. Those who use spanking correctly hardly ever have to resort to spanking their children.

reply from: SurvivorsINDIANA

What makes you think I am "misrepresenting" the Christian faith dignitarian? If you believe that I am doing so then surely you can provide some evidence that I am doing so. I won't hold my breath.

reply from: dignitarian

Try: "Jesus actually hates the sinful person"

If this is true, I'm really out of luck here.

Dig

reply from: dignitarian

Glad I'm not holding my breath either.

reply from: SurvivorsINDIANA

Jesus taught that the person was evil. That their heart was evil.

God will send Hitler to Hell. He'll send the person to Hell.

You evidently have a hard time understanding how anyone can both love and hate the same person. Spend a few days thinking about it and you may understand. Or just think of anyone you love. Surely you hate them to some extent because of the evil things they do.

reply from: bradensmommy

Can we say Carrie's Grandfather, or possibly a close relative of Carrie's mom?

reply from: yoda

Geez. I hope we can get back to saving babies soon.

reply from: dignitarian

All right yodavater, I don't disagree. Looks like this Indiana guy has dissappeared for the moment anyway, so I won't entertain this inane dialogue any longer. (Unless he shows up again.)

Regards,

Dig

reply from: teddi

Yeah, actually you can die in childbirth, about as many women still die from childbirth as die from abortions (however, there are more births than abortions).

I *really* *really* have to say I take big exception to the "get a C-section" comment. Honestly, c-sections aren't the cure all and I've seen them tossed around occasionally as easy answers. Please understand that as the c/s rate hits and all time high (nearly 30%) it carries many of the same risks as an abortion does. A c/s leaves your uterus with a scar. That scar leaves a woman at an increased risk of a uterine rupture (which can be life threatening for both mom and baby) in subsequent pregnancies. It, like abortion, increases infertility rates and also increases the risk of ectopic pregnancies.

Abortions can cause depression and post traumatic stress, so can c-sections (so can traumatic vaginal births).

My point in this post is: please reconsider flippant comments. Obviously, an abortion for a 13 yr old is just as bad as an abortion at any other age, and at any age a women/teen can experience birth complications. I'm 100 % rabidly, zealously, etc etc etc pro-life, but having endured two very complicated pregnancies, the last one which saw me life threateningly ill, it's a bigtime bother when pro-lifers make comments like that. Childbirth is a major and important event in any and every woman's/teens life - we need to treat it that way.

reply from: SurvivorsINDIANA

I take your comments as conceding my point then dignitarian. That you concede that loving and hating the same person is good and right. That hating what is evil is good and loving what is good is good and that the opposite of love is indifference.

reply from: dignitarian

Quinn:

Any representation of Christianity that tends to diminish the dignity of the human person rather than uphold it can not be accurate.

Christian Faith respects the writings (sacred and otherwise), traditions, and revelations from over the thousands of years of its history. If you want to focus your faith perspective upon a few specific selections of biblical quotations without regard to a greater comprehensive context you are certainly free to do that, but you won't be very persuasive to anyone with an interest in learning more about Christianity, and you certainly won’t be telling the truth.

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I'm sorry if I sounded flippant or offended you due to your complicated pregnancies. As a teen, I cannot personally know these thihngs. I was trying to prove a point to the proaborts who were making childbirth sound oh-so-dangerous as compared to the ever safe, ever loving and caring abortion. But I really didn't mean to be flippant, and if you read my other posts, you can see I take pregnancy very seriously.

reply from: SurvivorsINDIANA

I didn't say anything or make any kind of argument that diminished the dignity of persons in any way dignitarian. If you believe that I did so then quote what I said and show that I did what you claim. You're claiming that I did something does not in any way establish that I did so.

If you do not make a coherent argument to demonstrate that I am mistaken or going against one of traditional views that the church has held over the past couple thousand years then that will show that you either lack the will to put the small amount of effort needed to engage in intelligent discussion or that you have no arguments to bring forth to show I am mistaken.

Another passage for you to consider regarding this discussion since you have accused me of only basing this belief on "a few specific selections of biblical quotations without regard to a greater comprehensive context".

By the way, how would "a greater comprehensive context" have any effect on whether anyone believes whether God hates a non-entity such as "sin" instead of hating the actual person (their "heart"). I guess thats the explanation I am asking you to bring forth if you can indeed supply some sort of evidence from Scripture or church tradition that does indeed teach that God only loves all people and hates no one at all ever. That is what you are arguing, right? That God hates no one at all? Don't leave me speculating.

reply from: battynatty2003

if my child fell pregnant i would sit her down and speak to her first. id ask her if she wants to keep it or abort it. if she chose to keep it i would support her no matter how i feel bout the situation the same if she said she wants to abort it. i would not FORCE some1 to have an abortion and i would not FORCE someone to keep the baby. if you care about them that much you will support their decisions.

reply from: yoda

So in other words you think that "supporting their decisions" is more important than the life of an innocent baby?

Well then you're probabykilling, aren't you?

reply from: Tam

It isn't a question of which is more likely to happen. The one simplifies the moral question by assuming what pro-life people wish came to pass without extenuating circumstances with the same or similar circumstances that the fetus is in, while simply asking whether one has a right. The other has too many variables and differences to be comparable, as well as having extreme circumstances so any blanket moral statement is impossible.
Oh, no. That is utter crap.
First of all, the question of which is more likely to happen IS important. A hypothetical scenario in which aliens zapped away your right to bodily integrity with sparkly purple ray guns would NOT be worth considering. The chances of an adult human being being "hooked up" to another adult (or child) against his/her will and doomed to a lifetime of being used as a human incubator are practically nonexistent, and this has almost certainly never happened. The scenario of a woman finding herself isolated with no one but her dependent child is not only much more likely, but also has almost certainly happened.
Second of all, the fact that in that scenario, even to set up the scenario requires committing acts of abduction and violence, whereas the scenario of finding oneself alone with one's dependent child requires no lawbreaking, but can occur as the result of chance events, rather than intentional crimes.
Third: The "violinist" scenario is the complicated one. You make it sound as though the idea of a woman finding herself alone with only her dependent child is some sort of complicated scenario that requires many variables. It does not--it simply requires her to be isolated from others for a period long enough that the child would require her care to survive. That's not only uncomplicated, it almost certainly happened to some moms during natural disasters recently. Your "violininst" scenario is hopelessly complicated. You even resorted to saying, "If it makes it easier, imagine that she fell asleep in a park that is known to have roving bands of people doing this and that the connection involves no violence but simply plugs her into the violinist." LOL
Man, there are more ways that it is crap, but I'm tired of this for now.
bumping this thread because of this argument, which is also taking place http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=1561&enterthread=y


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics