Home - List All Discussions

Killing a healthy unborn baby is the worst thing you can do to it

Comments?

by: yoda

How can there be anything that we can do to a healthy unborn baby of a healthy mother that is worse than killing it?
Regardless of whatever pain it may or may not feel, regardless of how bloody and messy the procedure might be, killing it takes away the rest of it's natural, normal life expectancy. It shuts the door on any future for that child before it even sees a single ray of light.
What can be worse than that?

reply from: AmericanPie

Um...decades of life in a persistent, vegetative state?

Yes. I think so. Sometimes living can be worse than dying. Haven't you ever heard that axiom before?

reply from: yoda

Umm... if you will read the question again, it involves a "healthy" baby of a healthy mother.

Try again?

reply from: AmericanPie

Oh I get it. Each person gets to define what "healthy" means, right? Healthy for some is ten fingers, ten toes, and scrambled eggs for brains. Healthy to others means healthy head to toe, inside out.

The Terri Schiavo case comes to mind. A distinctly "unhealthy" girl, wasn't she? Yet why were all the pro-lifers screeching to let her live?

reply from: ChristianLott

Yes. Let's define 'health'.

reply from: Tam

Oh I get it. Each person gets to define what "healthy" means, right? Healthy for some is ten fingers, ten toes, and scrambled eggs for brains. Healthy to others means healthy head to toe, inside out.

The Terri Schiavo case comes to mind. A distinctly "unhealthy" girl, wasn't she? Yet why were all the pro-lifers screeching to let her live?

Let's agree on "healthy" as "having no physical or mental defect" aka "normal". We can discuss any other contingencies later, of course, individually, but I think it's fair to group all babies with no physical or mental defects as "healthy" babies. Mothers is another story--I suppose a pimple could be considered a "physical defect" and so for the sake of discussion let's assume that "healthy mother" also means "mother with no physical or mental defect". This is not to say "perfect, superhuman person with no faults or shortcomings" but simply "healthy"!

As for the Terri Schiavo case, I am pretty sure no one tried to call Terri "healthy" so I guess there are some of us for whom "healthy" isn't a prerequisite for "worthy of not being put to death by starvation and dehydration"--but since THIS thread isn't about Terri, and since there are already several threads on this forum about Terri, let's not go there. If you want to resurrect one of those threads, be my guest--if you can think of anything to say that hasn't been said already ad nauseum.

For the sake of this discussion, sure, let's adopt "healthy head to toe, inside [and] out" as a definition. Yoda--you ok with that?

reply from: yoda

How about this: healthy means no major diseases and/or birth defects? Can you work within those parameters, or would you rather quibble over terminiolgy?

Yeah, that's pretty much it. The general idea is that they are healthy enough so that the mother isn't considering abortion due to "health reasons".

reply from: AmericanPie

Hookay, whatever you say, Yod. I certainly wouldn't want to quibble over terminiolgy.

But you already know my stance. That being, for those who errr...forgot: that government should never interfere in the private lives of Americans. So why do you keep nibbling at the bait? Instead of allowing strangers you don't even know to follow their own paths, you'd rather have a big, bloated, expensive government who will dictate your "morals" for you and tell you where to squat and excrete. I do not want that. I do not need that. I can squat and excrete on my own without government assistance, thanks.

reply from: sarah

I've always been curious as to how people who feel as strongly as you do about the government intruding in our personal lives can reconcile the fact that without laws we would live in utter chaos?

I'm not particularly found of a huge government, however we do need a certain amount of "morals" dictated to the population. If murder, theft, cheating, rape, abuse, arson, well the list goes on, wasn't managed by the governing authorities you wouldn't be able to go out of your house. You may not even survive inside your house.

So, where do you draw the line, or do you?

reply from: ChristianLott

AP

When their path intersects with mine, it's not just my or his personal life now is it? It's both of ours.

What do you think abortion is about other than murdering a baby. See? No more just a woman's life - it's the baby you're murdering.

Get a clue you baby murdering butcher.

You advocate it - you take the rap.

reply from: AmericanPie

No, we do not. "Morals" should never be mandated by government. They are a personal thing, interpreted differently by different people. One set of "morals" will not fit all, like a T-shirt. The Christian Right's morals include the criminalization and eventual extermination of homosexuals in this country. Don't they have a right to live their lives they way they wish? They're adult, taxpaying Americans. According to the CR, they do not have that right. A fetus has more rights than they do. Which is ridiculous.

These aren't "morals", they are "laws". All of the above deal with the destruction or abuse of another person's "property". Murder and rape deals with the destruction or violation of personal property as well...in this case, a person's body. Morals have to do with, for example, a woman deciding whether or not to get down with the cute guy in the supermarket who came onto her, even though she's married...notice this does not violate anyone's personal property and there are no laws against it. But it is frowned on just the same as being "immoral".

Don't tell me...you're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you, Lott?? Hint: They aren't helping you.

reply from: yoda

Well that's certainly one way to look at it. So of course, you're going to tell us why abortion isn't the destruction of an unborn baby's body...... right?

reply from: AmericanPie

Now how was I so sure that one of you were going to make this statement? LOL!!!

Well, if a pregnant woman was forced into having an abortion, I'd agree with you. Such an act would be intruding on her right to her personal property. But if a pregnant woman wants nothing more than to be UNpregnant, then I do not agree with you. The mother's rights, as an adult taxpaying American, takes precedence before a fetus's to a Libertarian. That's just the way it is.

Look. You're a crusader for the embryos and feti of the world. Very noble of you, but I'd rather be concerned with those children who are already here and suffering from various unimportant things like starving to death, no health care, being murdered and tossed into dumpsters by resentful mothers who didn't want them in the first place, etc., and I'd rather be concerned with seriously educating young people as to the perils of indiscriminate, unprotected sex so as to avert the beginnings of unwanted bambino(a)s baking in ovens, so as to someday avert abortion altogether.

Government control of what personal choices people can make is not the way to do it, and I will never support that option.

Sorry.

reply from: yoda

I don't know..... how did I know you were going to dodge it completely?

Now you've completely changed the subject from "body" to "property"..... hmmmm..... how did I know you would change the subject?

That's nice, I'm glad to hear you're concerned about something. But what does that have to do with calling an unborn human "property"? Another change of subject?

Well, since you insist on abandoning your "body" statement in favor of "property" and "what you'd rather be concerned with"..... I guess this is going nowhere.

I'm almost sure that you won't be willing to discuss how a human being can morally be called "property" without invoking visions of slavery, will you?

reply from: Tam

Children in the womb *are* already here.

reply from: AmericanPie

Read it again, brilliance.

An unborn baby's "body" IS property to a Libertarian. Property that belongs to the woman carrying it in her uterus. It only becomes a person with individual rights when it is BORN.

I see things have to be consistently spelled out for you. Very well, I'll remember to do that.

reply from: sarah

"Thou Shalt Not Kill", is a Judeo/Christian moral value that is regualted by the government. Unhappily, it does not extend to the defenless child in the womb. But, hopefully it will once again. The efforts of the pro-life advocates in this nation will never be stopped and will one day pay off.

That is patently false. And nothing more than hyperbole. I know of no sincere Christian who advocates any such thing. But, apparently you must think it gives your side of the debate some weight, even though it is transparently wrong.

No matter how you try and couch it, these are laws stemming from moral values.

reply from: Tam

Ah, slavery. I see things have to be spelled out for you. Very well--
when someone OWNS someone else, that's called "slavery".

(No, I don't expect a rational response to this. I've ascertained that pie is not here to debate. I'm just pointing out the errors.)

reply from: yoda

Good plan.

reply from: AmericanPie

Indeed. When that someone else is actually a person who can survive outside it's mama's belly. When it cannot, then it is property. That's just the way it is to a Lib, and I stand by it.

The methods of "debate" demonstrated by anti-choicers include browbeating, humiliation, patronization, name-calling (like "babykiller"), etc.

Just how would you like me to respond to that? With an offer of tea and crumpets? You're in dreamland, if you think so.

reply from: yoda

"That's just the way it is"???? WOW! From your mouth to God's ears!!

Now then, how many links do you have to any documentation that supports your assertion? Hey, you didn't just make that up, did you? You didn't just repeat some proabort slogan, did you? OH NO!

Surely there must be some documentation that says a person "must be outside it's mama's belly, and be able to survive there"...... right? And when it isn't that, it MUST BE PROPERTY.... right?

While we are waiting on your documentation, here's some, with links, that show how an unborn human being IS a person (sorry, none of them mention viability or "property", must have been an oversight):

per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human’s body: a human being’s body
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html

per•son Pronunciation: (pûr'sun),-n. 2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. 6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person. http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0584644.html

Main Entry: per·son 1 : HUMAN: 4 b : the body of a human being; http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=person&x=16&y=16

Person: Pronunciation puhr sEn Definition 1. a human being. Definition 2. the body of a human being. Example the clothes on his person. http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=person&matchtype=exact

reply from: Tam

Hey, yoda, nice debating! Would you like some tea and crumpets?

reply from: AmericanPie

Happy to oblige.

http://pro-choicelibertarians.net/Libertarian_Party_Convention_2002.html

Another:

http://www.de.lp.org/election2004/larsen/drtl.html

I can provide more if for some reason this isn't "enough" for you, which I'm sure it won't be.

reply from: AmericanPie

In case those aren't enough for you, here is another, different, Libertarian perspective, which looks upon the unborn as a “trespasser” instead of “property”:

http://daniel.franke.name/index.php?m=20041223

reply from: Tam

Ok, I would LOVE to handle this one.

No one is saying that, actually. That would be more like--did you see Steve Martin and Lily Tomlin in "All of Me"? That's different. Abortion DOES involve two individual persons (or more, in the case of twins or other multiples), they DO have equal rights, but they do NOT exist in the same body. They each have a separate body. For a period of time, the body of one is wholly contained within the body of the other. Not the same thing as sharing a body. An important distinction.

The Libertarian principle of non-initiation of force - when applied to anyone - directs us to oppose laws which would permit the ripping to shreds of a human being.

It's kind of like all those pesky "don't abuse your child" laws that are so inconvenient to those parents who want to rid themselves of a child in the most violent manner conceivable. And yet--opposing a system that permits violence against children in the womb does not require supporting a system that mandates violations of the freedom of other people. Talk about straw men! No one is talking about mandatory pregnancy testing! Anyone who cared about individual liberty would oppose such an infringement. But once a baby is present in the womb, anything you wouldn't be permitted to do to that baby were s/he out of the womb should be forbidden while s/he is in the womb, as well. It's just extending child abuse laws to protect the unborn. Do you, perchance, oppose child abuse laws?

S/he is not a "potential child"--s/he is a child. That is true. Anyone who understands the meaning of the word "child" understands that from the moment of conception, by definition, we are dealing with A CHILD. This child is a separate, individual human being. S/he is not the property of another human being (that is called slavery). In fact, one could consider her conception of the child, in all cases save rape, as a "prior contract with the child" to give him/her life!

How would it be if we allowed women to judge for themselves whether to allow their born children to continue to live, since only they (why? why only they?) are competent to judge whether or not they and their children will be loved or unloved, cared for or abandoned, etc? And does this mean that it's ok for a mom to just decide, "I will not love my child. I will abandon him. So it's better I should kill him now."

The child in the womb is not a "potential life"--this is a travesty, a joke.

Ever heard the expression, "That was when you were just a twinkle in your daddy's eye." (or mommy's, depending) THAT is "a potential life". Ok? My kids are potential lives. They're not alive yet, they're just a twinkle in my eye for now. Once I conceive one, s/he is no longer a "potential" life. Yet in order to support killing him or her, you'd have to use that silly phrase, even though it justifies nothing.

This is why I prefer anarchy. All laws are regulation of morality. But until we evolve to a place where laws are no longer needed to regulate morality, we should use laws. A law is a group decision, nothing more. Every law regulates morality. Why is there a law against stealing? Fraud? Murder? It's regulation of morality. Get used to it, if you are not an anarchist like myself.

Yeah, tell that to the SCOTUS. They're the ones who prevented the will of the people from being followed. They're the political elitist dictatorship. Wake up and smell the blood.

This has to be one of the silliest things I've ever encountered. Don't libertarians OPPOSE welfare? Two wrongs making a right working for you yet?

Well, I agree with the part about not subsidizing it, anyway.

reply from: Tam

Wow! He gets All Three of these premises correct. But let's see where he takes it...

Too funny! An unwitting trespasser. Cute, but not very clever, since it ONLY applies in the case of rape. Further, being drawn and quartered isn't the penalty for trespassing, is it?

It's not the woman's right to kill her own child, that she created and caused to be in a relationship with her such that separation would mean certain death to the child. She is the one who set the entire situation up, unless she was raped. We can deal with rape separately (there are still plenty of good arguments against killing children of rape!) but this argument doesn't hold water unless it's applied to rape victims and only rape victims.

It follows that: if there is ANY chance at ALL that the child will NOT die simply as a result of being removed from the womb, then the woman may NOT abort. In other words, that all abortions of potentially viable children should be prohibited. Is that what you mean?

reply from: AmericanPie

Tam...pick these articles apart, shake, scream and shout, to your little heart's content. I didn't write them. Yod asked for links proving that mainstream Libs (not the L4L splinter group) believe the fetus to be the "property" of the mother, and I provided them. That's it. No need to get yourself in a twist.

reply from: AmericanPie

No. That is not what I mean. That is what the author of this ARTICLE means. Read the beginning of the post. I said it was a different Libertarian perspective, not necessarily my own.

reply from: Tam

No. That is not what I mean. That is what the author of this ARTICLE means. Read the beginning of the post. I said it was a different Libertarian perspective, not necessarily my own.

Well, do you agree with him or not?

reply from: Tam

Why, thanks for your sanction. I don't need it, of course, because I already know I'm free to pick these ridiculous articles apart, but thanks for your support.

I agree--you provided the links to the specious arguments. Thanks! It made picking them apart so much easier.

reply from: AmericanPie

I like that. LOL!! You people ask for proof, and when it's provided, you trash the articles because they're not to your liking.

Typical behavior of fanatics.

At one time, I said on this "forum" that I believed a fetus was not a "person" until it was viable, i.e., able to live outside the mother's body, thus I believed that abortion should remain a choice until such time. And I was eviscerated for that statement.

No matter what I say, what I think, what I support, if I do not support the complete and utter outlawing of abortion at any and all times, no matter the circumstances, no matter the health of the mother, no matter WHAT...I get eviscerated by you fanatics.

So eviscerate away!!! You won't ever get me to see things your way. A woman's body is her own. Not yours. Not Yod's. Not Lott's, not any of you militants. It's HER OWN. And EVERYTHING IN IT.

Now, play nicely, children. I have other things I must attend to before this day turns to night.

reply from: Tam

I like that. LOL!! You people ask for proof, and when it's provided, you trash the articles because they're not to your liking.

Typical behavior of fanatics.

Yes, I suppose opposing the violent death of children IS seen as fanatical to anyone who supports it only under "certain circumstances" such as if the child is too small and vulnerable to survive outside the womb.

I don't even remember whether/why yoda asked you to supply some evidence that Libertarians consider the unborn child to be a piece of property, I just felt compelled to respond to the actual text you posted, because it was so riddled with error. In other words, you are acting as though you have somehow proved that the unborn child is a piece of property! Do you think that by quoting some random nonsense you have proved anything? Then when I rip apart your "proof" you complain that it's not to my liking--yes, that's why I ripped it apart. Keep posting nonsense, and I'll keep ripping it apart. Why? Nonsense is not "to my liking" as you say.

At one time, I said on this "forum" that I believed a fetus was not a "person" until it was viable, i.e., able to live outside the mother's body, thus I believed that abortion should remain a choice until such time. And I was eviscerated for that statement.

ooh, not answering the question, now, are you? Well, that's something I guess we should come to expect from you. Remember the question? Here it is again:

Do you agree that if there is ANY chance at ALL that the child will NOT die simply as a result of being removed from the womb, then the woman may NOT abort--in other words, that all abortions of potentially viable children should be prohibited?

I hope the other things you have to attend to are very, very, very time-consuming. So time-consuming that you never, ever again have time to come here to be picked on by those fanatical pro-lifers. You poor thing. Go away.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, I'd love some! Care for some curds and whey?

reply from: yoda

That's your "documentation" that proves "that's the way it is"???? You thought I asked you for that? You actually think that some POLITICAL PLATFORM proves something???? NO WAY, JOSE!

No, no, I want YOU to document that a human fetus IS "property", either legally or morally. Is that the best you can do?

And BTW, ten volumes of Libertarian dogma means aboslutely zip, nada to me.

reply from: yoda

Wow, yeah, it's radical, fanatical, and extremist to oppose the dismemberment of unborn humans!

How could you be so far out?

reply from: Tam

Wow, yeah, it's radical, fanatical, and extremist to oppose the dismemberment of unborn humans!

How could you be so far out?

This is why I absolutely LOVE the LDI motto:

PRO-LIFE
Without Compromise
Without Exception
Without Apology

It so nicely sums up my own views that I liked it immediately when I first heard it. I realize that for some people, pro-life doesn't really mean that they oppose all killing (without exception, without compromise)--but I do, so I just love that motto.

reply from: yoda

Ditto. LDI exemplifies fidelity to the belief in the worth of the lives of the innocent unborn. And they are not armchair ProLifers, they are "activists".

reply from: AmericanPie

Yodavater:

I said:

To which you replied:

You asked me for proof that the Libertarians (not the L4L kooks, but mainstream Libs) believe that the fetus is the property of the mother. I provided that proof. In their PLATFORM, no less.

And NOW that you have been proved wrong, you say....

Oh this is too funny. This board is full of STRAW-MAN LOVERS!!! Because none of you have half a leg to stand on otherwise.

It's what you ASKED ME FOR. Read your quote above. You are, quite ineffectively I might add, twisting the question around to suit your own purpose. Again, typical of fanatics. And might I add that the Libertarian platform speaks volumes to me. Do I care whether it speaks volumes to you? Not really. You'd make a poor Lib anyway...you're too used to whining and crying to the government to intervene in your "crusade".

reply from: yoda

Are you having a stroke, or what? There was ABSOLUTELY nothing in my request about "what the Libertarians support". YOU submitted that as "documenation that supports your assertion". And YOUR ASSERTION had noting to do with "what Libertarians support", it was YOUR rationalization for why a human fetus is "property"..... where is your legal proof to support that claim?

Oh wait, I know......... YOU HAVE NONE! In point of fact, I believe you are (probably) intelligent enough to know that ownership of a human being is defined as SLAVERY....... aren't you?

reply from: AmericanPie

Give it up, Yod, Your militants-in-waiting will take your side. But anyone with a speck of rationality will see that I gave you exactly what you asked for.

Who's having the stroke now, fool?

reply from: AmericanPie

Whoever's in charge of this place, do me a favor and ban my ass, k? I'm expected to sit back and behave like a good little LADY while you all sling your crap my way. Well, that ain't gonna happen, dearies, so if you can't take it as well as you dish it, you better just ban me NOW.

Militants, that's what you all are. You blow clinics up, murder doctors, you don't blink an eye. It's perfectly acceptable to kill people as long as they're not in the womb, that's your credo. I find it difficult to talk with militants when all they want to do is put a bullet in my head because of my opinion.

You'd all do real well in a totalitarian state. So why don't you do us a favor and go start one and leave the U.S. for the rational and the sane?

reply from: yoda

My money is on you.

reply from: Hereforareason

wow, somethings been going on here.

Hold it. You are making a generalization. Are there people who claim to be pro life and blow up clinicsm, murder abortionists and shoot people like you because of your opinion? Yes there are. Do we do that? You are accusing us of doing that. For the record, NO. Don't bunch us together.
If I wanted to bunch all pro aborts together, do you have any idea what I would come up with? Not a post I would post! Take a deep breath and cool down. Think about it. If you want me to generalize pro aborts, I'll try it without any language. And please watch yours.

Amber

reply from: Tam

To which you replied:

You asked me for proof that the Libertarians (not the L4L kooks, but mainstream Libs) believe that the fetus is the property of the mother. I provided that proof. In their PLATFORM, no less.

And NOW that you have been proved wrong, you say....

It was clear to me at the time, even if it wasn't clear to pie then or now, that what yoda wanted was proof of the assertion in bold above. pie said she stood by it because of being a Libertarian but that is hardly of particular interest to yoda--he didn't want pie to prove she was a Libertarian or prove what Libertarians believe, he wanted her to prove her unprovable, wrong assertion. She didn't, she can't, she won't, because it's unprovable (wrong things tend to be).

reply from: AmericanPie

You forgot this quote, Tam:

To which Yoddie replied:

*chuckle* And I proved that that's the way it is, that the fetus is looked upon as the property of the woman carrying it, to a Lib. Of course, I didn't really expect you to take my side. Nor do I even want you to.

You guys are aces at word manipulation, if nothing else, lol.

reply from: Tam

To which Yoddie replied:

*chuckle* And I proved that that's the way it is, that the fetus is looked upon as the property of the woman carrying it, to a Lib. Of course, I didn't really expect you to take my side. Nor do I even want you to.

You guys are aces at word manipulation, if nothing else, lol.

No one missed the fact that you used your so-called Libertarian views to justify your unprovable position. It's not that we didn't notice the "to a Lib"--it's that we didn't care (and still don't). What caught the attention of thinking persons was the assertion that an unborn child is a piece of property. That was all you were being asked to prove. We assumed you were using the Libertarian dogma in an effort to prove your point--not in an effort to prove that Libertarians believe it (you had already made that clear--what's left to prove?).

In short, I think everyone gets it that this is a Libertarian point of view, according to you. That's not what needs proving. Really, if there had been a misunderstanding about it, we could just say, "oops--that's not what I meant" or "that's not what I thought you meant" or whatever. But you are apparently unable to say "oops--I thought you meant to prove that Libertarians think that, not to prove that it's TRUE"--and everyone would say, "oh, well ok. so can you, then, prove that it's true?" Instead you are acting as though we are deliberately trying to make you look foolish. Sorry, pie, you're doing a great job of that all on your own.

Now, since you've already shown that some Libertarians think the unborn child is property, and already stated that you agree with it, I think we'll all agree--you've proved THAT! Now, would you mind giving a crack at proving that the unborn child is a piece of property? That's what we're interested in seeing proven. You can't do it, because false contentions are tricky to prove. But you can dodge the question some more. I wonder which you'll try to do...

reply from: yoda

Tam, do you suppose this gal is another lawyer? She certainly seems to be hiding behind technicalities to avoid the issue, doesn't she? Could this be bobo in disguise?

Telling me what "Libs think" is like a Moselm telling me what the Quoran says..... it means nothing to me. And she considers that "documentation"?

I guess we better watch our punctuation, or she will refuse to address issues because a period was out of place.

reply from: AmericanPie

Read my posts for the fifth time.

I never said the fetus was the property of the woman carrying it. I said that that's the way it is to a Lib, and as a Libertarian, I stand by it.

I can't help it if you interpreted my question incorrectly, or if you just deliberately read it incorrectly. Probably a little of both, eh?

The question has been answered as you had asked it. You can understand that, but you refuse to. Do I care? Not in the least.

reply from: Tam

Tam, do you suppose this gal is another lawyer? She certainly seems to be hiding behind technicalities to avoid the issue, doesn't she? Could this be bobo in disguise?

who knows...who cares...they're interchangeable

yup. if all you wanted to know was "what do some random Libertarians think?" then she documented THAT, anyway...

Hey! No more of those little comments about our monthly cycles, yoda.

reply from: Tam

The question has been answered as you had asked it. You can understand that, but you refuse to. Do I care? Not in the least.

It's actually getting kind of funny, don't you think, yoda?

Ok, pie, let me use small words to try to get this point across.

When you say

"X is the way it is to a Y, and I'm a Y, and I stand by X"

that is the same thing as just saying

"X"

So when someone says, "prove it"--chances are, the person means, "prove X" as opposed to "prove that you think X" or "prove that all Ys think X" or "prove that you're a Y" or whatever you think we care about other than X. we don't care, pie.

now, are you trying to say you DON'T consider the fetus property now? if so, why did you say you stand by it? and if you DO consider the fetus property, why are you making such a big deal about saying that you never said, "I, pie, solemnly swear that I believe the fetus is property." Don't you get it that "X is the way it is to a Lib, and I stand by it" means that you believe "X"?

reply from: AmericanPie

Tam, haven't you had enough of this childish nonsense? I guess not.

Interpret/manipulate the question the any way you wish. It has been answered.

reply from: Tam

Oh, believe me, I'd had enough of you (aka "this childish nonsense") 24 hours ago.

So what you're saying now is that you believe the posts you already made prove the fetus is a piece of property? Or that you don't believe the fetus is a piece of property?

To me, that says "pie considers the fetus a piece of property belonging to his/her mother".

And although you have proved this:

"pie considers the fetus a piece of property belonging to his/her mother"

you have not proved this:

"the fetus is a piece of property belonging to his/her mother"

I'm not sure what question you think has been answered, but "prove it" is not a question, first of all, and second of all, whether you've "proved it" depends on what the meaning of "it" is, slick willie.

You've proved something, all right. You've proved you're not worth debating with. But, again, that was yesterday's news. What have you proved to me today? That you can tenaciously refuse to understand something very simple in order to avoid something (although I'm not sure whether it's that you're trying to avoid taking a stand, backing up your stand, or what).

In short:

reply from: AmericanPie

Then do me a great big favor and just ignore me. I don't relish dealing with smooth operators like yourself any more than you like hearing the truth.

LOL, I'm STILL waiting for proof from you that an embryo has a consciousness, as you had stated so emphatically in a previous thread!!! LMAO!!!!!!

So do me the favor and pretend I ain't here. K?

reply from: Tam

So do me the favor and pretend I ain't here. K?

Why don't you help by leaving?

reply from: AmericanPie

LOL. You guys can never take the heat when your arguments fail.

I'm waiting to be banned, dearie. When oh when will it happen? Hmmm. Should be very soon.

reply from: Tam

LOL. You guys can never take the heat when your arguments fail.

I'm waiting to be banned, dearie. When oh when will it happen? Hmmm. Should be very soon.

Unfortunately, idiocy is not a bannable offense. Didn't you notice? Even a veiled threat isn't enough. You apparently have to make a direct threat. So since I really don't care to be threatened, I won't invite you to do anything that would get you banned. But if you *want* to be banned, why don't you just use a bunch of foul language or something? It hardly seems beneath you.

reply from: AmericanPie

Look, Tam. I'm an "idiot" to you simply because I don't mollycoddle you and agree with your every utterance and you don't like it. Simple as that. I don't threaten people. But then again, you guys seem to see threats in your soup. When will you grow up and realize that there are people in the world who are just as adamant about things as you are? You can't have the whole cookie jar to yourself all the time. You have to share. Most Americans support legal abortion in some form. So what will you guys do if Roe v Wade is never overturned? Nuke the country? And even if it is overturned, the decision will revert back to the states (unless some fascist move by our glorious government denies states' rights), which means that some states may outlaw it, others may not.

I tried using foul language. There's a damned automatic censor here. But it should happen soon. You guys just can't bear to hear an opinion that doesn't hold with your dogma.

reply from: Tam

Look, Tam. I'm an "idiot" to you simply because I don't mollycoddle you and agree with your every utterance and you don't like it. Simple as that.

Right. Everyone who doesn't mollycoddle me and agree with my utterance (at last count, this included every person alive) is an idiot to me.

(It's this sort of "logic" that prompted the "idiocy" comment, you realize.)

You see it as "sharing is caring and caring is sharing" that big ol' cookie jar. I see it as "caring is speaking up for innocent children being brutally, violently killed by the thousands every day". To each her own, I guess.

LOL If you're trying to get banned, why don't you just skip the middleman and ban yourself?

Which opinion? We can't seem to figure out what yours are. If we refute them, they're not your opinions, and if we ask for your own opinions, you claim you already told us. I no longer care about your opinions.

reply from: Hereforareason

Really!
That's nice to know.

Hey if you are waiting to be banned why answer some questions while you are waiting.
(Maybe I should start a new thread for this. hm. If you want it moved let me know)

How late should abortions be legal? Why should they be legal?
Should there ever be a forced abortion? What do you think about the investigation going on into Planned parenthood covering up pediphiles/

Amber

reply from: yoda

What a perplexing, amazing statement!

1. Does that mean you will not tell us what you REALLY think?

2. Does that mean you endorse everything that "Libs" put in their platform, regardless? Kind of a robotic, lock-step stance?

3. Will you ever answer the question "Why is a human fetus property?"

reply from: yoda

Hmmm...... hadn't thought of that.... do you suppose pie is offended?

reply from: yoda

And all those are lawyerish qualities, aren't they?

reply from: AmericanPie

I don't get offended easily, folks. Unlike you guys.

Damn. I wish I were a lawyer. I'd be rolling in dough. Sadly though, no. I'm not.

reply from: yoda

Don't know about the dough, but you're rolling in flippancy..........

reply from: Tam

I came across this old thread while looking for an old argument (not this one) and thought it worth bumping. Does any other babykilling advocate care to attempt to prove that an unborn child is the property of his/her mother?

reply from: nsanford

The mother has the right to control her body. The fetus is using the mother as support. The mother has the right to stop giving her support.
She does not "own" the fetus, but she can control her own body.

reply from: yoda

Then the mother in the desert scenario can STOP GIVING HER SUPPORT! And if she's miles away from any other people, too bad for the baby, right?
You don't discriminate against mothers in deserts, do you?

reply from: nsanford

Have you ever heard of the term "cruel and unusual punishment"?
That is unreasonable. In that case, there are other options. With abortion, there are not. There is only one way the women can remove her support.

reply from: Tam

Ok, if you were a mom stranded in the wilderness with your child, you are claiming that there are a variety of ways to stop supporting that child. I say, sure there are--you could leave the child in a tree, throw him off a cliff, bury him in the sand, hack him to bits with a sharp rock, etc. And likewise there are a variety of ways in which unborn children can be abandoned/killed--starting with the ways that kill them before implantation and going all the way through to late term, partial birth abortions. But in both cases, the mom is removing her support!

reply from: yoda

NOT for a week, there isn't? WHO are you to say she has a WEEK LONG OBLIGATION to that child?
WRONG!
She can remove her support by letting the child be born alive!

reply from: yoda

Exactly. Remove the support for a live baby, or for a dead one. That's the choice.

reply from: Alexandra

No, we do not. "Morals" should never be mandated by government.
So should it be legal to steal?
Your ignorance is showing. We Christians merely wish to warn homosexuals about their lifestyle, and we'd like to see them repent of it. Where do you get this "extermination" nonsense from? I don't believe in killing someone for being gay, sorry.
These aren't "morals", they are "laws". All of the above deal with the destruction or abuse of another person's "property". Murder and rape deals with the destruction or violation of personal property as well...in this case, a person's body. Morals have to do with, for example, a woman deciding whether or not to get down with the cute guy in the supermarket who came onto her, even though she's married...notice this does not violate anyone's personal property and there are no laws against it. But it is frowned on just the same as being "immoral".
It's immoral to rape or steal or destroy someone's property. The Bible teaches that, and our laws are largely based on the Bible, believe it or not.

reply from: ThunderKitten

Technically, AmericanPie did answer the question. It would have been faster to re-ask it, saying, "Whoops, my bad! I meant to say, 'Can you prove that an unborn baby is property, in fact and reality, NOT just "to a libertarian"?'" In fact, AP, consider the question asked!
I guess yodavater did ask, after all. My bad!
Now, about this morality thing. Many laws are based on what is moral (laws against killing, theft). Others don't have a direct, if any, moral componet (tax laws). A lot of things that are immoral are not illegal, and rightly so. Other immoral things should be illegal. And some things that shouldn't be illegal are.
Now, my question to AP, and anyone who thinks morality isn't a basis for law, is: if a law is based on some moral value, does that automatically make it a bad law? Must a law be defensible for non-moral reasons for it to be just? If so, give us an example of a law you agree with, and explain why you think it should be a law.
Another question, do you think "rights" is a concept having to do with morals? Further, is the "right" to abortion a moral concept? Why or why not?

reply from: missymae

Good points everyone. But why so much debate on what somebody is or isn't goint to do with their baby? You are certainly are not going to take care of the child. But it was just wrong to say that a woman is not sharing her body with her unborn child. If the child is not sharing the mother's body, tell him or her to use their own, so maybe a woman can sleep comfortably at night. Or bend over and tie her shoes. Even do a cartwheel or two! Get the point, whatever that woman eats or drinks, that child will to. So whose not sharing a body? Lady have you ever had a kid? Tell me how you did it without sharing your body so I will know how to do that for future reference?

reply from: yoda

What an absolutely assinine statement!
I oppose the slaughter of 10 year old boys too, even though I'm not going to take care of them.
Does that upset you too? Do you view the killing of unborn babies as nothing more serious than getting a tooth pulled? What is your problem exactly?

reply from: lilshortyoc714

there is nothing worse then killing a baby

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, lilshorty. And I agree.

reply from: didee4life

oh.....missymae,
The biggest privilage in my life was to give my whole being to all my unborn babies. We, as woman, were created to nurture and protect our children. I can't think of anything more precious than the first flutters, the first kick and the view of MY baby growing inside of me. I would trade one hundred cartwheels, wear slippers and endure sleepless nights just to keep my babies safe. Some people see it as a burden to carry a life, to actually be held responsible for a life. For me, and others it is the greatest joy I've ever know. (and I threw up for 5months straight throughout 5 pregnancies!!!)

reply from: missymae

Actually, everyone,
I was responding to someone who mentioned something along the lines of ( I"m not quoting here because I don't exactly remember, I was pulling an all nighter trying to get some papers done) pregnant women don't share their bodies with their children. It was just scarcastic on my behalf because as a parent on my third child, I believe that I have shared my body in the most intimate way, three different times now. And for some reason (I think it may be because it's a boy this time [Happy Dance ] this pregnancy is uncooperative, it's hurting almost everything below my waist! And I would not exactly call that not sharing. That's all, not throwing any blows at mothers out there!

reply from: didee4life

That's good to hear missymae, that you didn't feel that way!!! Good luck with the pregnancy and I hope it's a boy!!


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