Home - List All Discussions

Is The Religious Right Retarded?

by: LiberalChiRo

No. "Retardation" is an outdated medical term for someone who is developmentally delayed. This is a clinical diagnosis. Simply having faith does not make you developmentally delayed; and you do a grievous insult to the students I teach every day by implying their condition is something to ridicule.

reply from: scopia19822

Liberal I have a cousin who is mentally retarded due to brain damage from the old DPT vaccine. I use the term mentally retarded more often than developementally disabled, which for some of us can be a mouth full. I do not do it to be demeaning or deragtory.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Scopia, it does not matter if you do not find the term offensive. I do these days. And furthermore, the OP was using it in an insulting way. The burden of respect falls on YOU to be polite, not on me to "get over it". Ask Lukesmom if she's "ok" with you saying retarded just because you don't find it offensive. That excuse didn't work for me and it's not going to work for you either. I think it's shallow to use an insulting term just because the proper term is a "mouthful".

reply from: fetalisa

So you find abortion to be offensive and you find the word 'retarded' to be offensive. Is there anything you do not find to be offensive or do you merely thrive on political correctness?

reply from: scopia19822

You and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this matter. I can understand giving your line of work why it may be touch a nerve. However, I do not think it is demeaning to describe someone like my cousin as mentally retarded. Because that is what he is. I certainly think it is wrong to poke fun at people with disablities , physical or mental. Retard in French means "slow", but I have and never would go up to a mentally retarded person and call them a retard. Down here in the South, we just usaully say that such a person is "slow".They are human beings and deserved to be treated with dignty and respect. But I am not a fan of political correctness and will not walk around on egg shells and be told what I can and cannot say. It is all about context and meaning. Any word or term can be made to be insulting or demeaning, that doesnt mean that people should not be allowed to use it in its proper context.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Go disagree with Lukesmom about it.

reply from: churchmouse

My husbands brother is mentally handicapped, thats the term I use.

reply from: fetalisa

I have a cousin who is 45 years old, with severe downs syndrome, still in diapers, etc. Dealing with her has done both parents in. They are like the walking dead. They would have been far better off aborting her, in my opinion, but only because her case of Down's is so terribly severe. Unfortunately, abortion wasn't yet legal at the time she was born. I call her severely retarded, which is the correct phrase to use.

reply from: sheri

fecalisa, Why dont you just do away with your retarded cousin now? If it would improve life so much for her parents why wouldnt you be in favor of getting rid of her now?
Your sick view of the mentally handicapped is nothing new, every Nazi in Germany would recognize and agree with it.

reply from: fetalisa

Awwwwww, a pretty term of endearment from a loved one. I feel so special!
Odd as this may sound, we have this thing in America called law, which is like a rule of sorts. One of those laws is a law against killing people, which we call murder. Strangely enough, every human society in history have had laws against murder. It has to do with evolution and propagating the species. So you see, I couldn't kill her even if I wanted to, because that's against the law. I know it sounds strange, yet it is very true!
1. See above
2. Killing her now would not undo the toll she has taken on their lives for the past 45 years.
Gee thanks! I feel so terribly ashamed of myself now that I have been put in my place by someone so obviously morally superior to myself. You must be feeling really good about yourself now that you have proven your moral superiority to all who read here. I am so impressed, I wish to know how I might also become such a morally superior being as yourself. Must I now believe in an invisible sky daddy in order to progress to the level of moral superiority that you have achieved? Just asking.

reply from: fetalisa

You got it, although it is more like an untrained ox. She is that strong.

reply from: lukesmom

Why should two people destroy their lives for another human being who will never be anything more than a giant, unhousetrained pet?
Same reason your parents desroy their lives for another human being who will never be anything other than a nasty angry woman wanna be. Could it be they love this person you consider a house pet? and you don't want to be discriminated against. All the homosexual people I know would be embarassed by you and your behaviour. Vexing, you are imploding and we are catching the fallout. God help you.

reply from: lukesmom

Thank you lib. Our society has changed the meaning of the word retarted into an insult. An intended insult in the case of this thread. An insult based on the fact that someone learns differently or developed slower than others. Most of the people that use this word wouldn't dream of saying ***** and vexing is insulted by names he/she is called and although putting on the insulted "poor pitiful trans me" he/she turns around and randomly discriminates also. It isn't the words that are "bad" it is the intent behind them and unfortunantly the intent in most cases is to insult. The backlash of that insult falls on innocent people who can't help how they were formed and the families who love them.

reply from: lukesmom

I have a cousin who is 45 years old, with severe downs syndrome, still in diapers, etc. Dealing with her has done both parents in. They are like the walking dead. They would have been far better off aborting her, in my opinion, but only because her case of Down's is so terribly severe. Unfortunately, abortion wasn't yet legal at the time she was born. I call her severely retarded, which is the correct phrase to use.
Does your cousin's parents want her dead? Her living and their caring for her is none of your business. You opinion is just that. This is their daughter, I wonder if you would say what you said here to their face instead of spewing this crap about your own family here. You are a disgrace to your family while your cousin is not.

reply from: fetalisa

How would I know?
You've got it backwards. The contents of another woman's uterus is not your business, nor what she does with those contents. My family IS my business. You must be out of your mind to suggest my family is not my business.
Really? Funny how my opinion is shared by so many others in the family?
I think the mother could take the honesty and looking back, admit it could have been handled differently, not by abortion, since that was illegal at the time, but most certainly institutionalizing her would have been far better for the family. The father didn't want to institutionalize her though, because he wanted that monthly government check. Had she been institutionalized at a young age, she could have at least been potty trained, according to the doctors, but her father liked 'spreading the wealth,' so that never happened and now she can never be potty trained.
The dad cashed the checks while the mom got stuck with her. On those rare occasions where the dad would 'watch' her, she would end up with 3 toes cut off by a lawnmower, or something similar. He was never one to pay attention and I personally wouldn't let the man keep an ant farm, much less kids, retarded or not.
That left the stress and strain of caring for her on the mom, who had several nervous breakdowns as a result over the years. They have other kids, all of which have emotional and psychological issues as a result. The next born after the retarded daughter, would not speak for years and was labeled 'shy.' Small wonder, given the lack of normal kids for interaction for so many years in the beginning. The other kids have assorted problems as a result as well.
My father got to the point where he no longer invited them to the house. Given her father was so awful at 'wathcing' her, my father got tired of finding rooms turned upside down and utterly destroyed by her, and having to replace screen doors that she would decide to swing on like a monkey. I won't even tell you what their house smells like and has smelled like for years. Just imagine a 45 year old in diapers and you can figure that out for yourself.
But carry on with your fantasy that all is peace, light and love because 'life' was given the chance to live. I guess the fact they are a 'good Christian family' makes it all ok.
Who died and made you King of all that is Moral? I am surprised your ego can fit anywhere on the internet at all.

reply from: fetalisa

Deleted due to posting error

reply from: fetalisa

I keep confusing the 'edit' button with the 'quote' button - sorry

reply from: sheri

fecalisa, I do feel morally superior to Nazi's! Killing the inferior, because they are less then perfect is so ugly that it is normally packaged as concern for the person on the chopping block, we dont want them to suffer etc. you cut the crap and let the light shine on your Nazi beliefs! I suppose i should feel respect for your straight forward speaking, maybe after i get over being sick from it.

reply from: fetalisa

I would be willing to place a bet you feel morally superior to more than just Nazis.
Get over yourself. There is nothing nazi about admitting a hydrocephalus fetus won't live beyond 3 hours if it is birthed, so we might as well kill it now since that hardly qualifies as a 'life.' There is nothing wrong with aborting the severe Down's syndrome either. I mean I suppose if you get off on having your house smell like excrement for 45 years, that's your thing. It certainly isn't everybody else's thing.
Your opinion of me matters not one bit.

reply from: lukesmom

I don't have it backwards. This person/human being my be part of your family but she is their daughter and if they have chosen to care for her you have no say and your opinion doesn't count. Why don't you go tell them their daughter should be dead because she impacts their life? Could it be they actually brought her home because they loved her and didn't want to see her institutionalized? You are speculating on why they brought her home and why they continue to care for her. Unless she is your child it ain't your business as you are so fond of saying. Your extended family isn't your business same as my extended family isn't my business ie: my aunt is sick and her children are making medical decisions for her I don't necessarily agree with but my opinion doesn't count because I am not her daughter. Same goes with your cousin and her family. Not your business and you are a busybody bringing your comments about wanting your cousin dead to this forum. Your aunt and uncle would be understandably horrified if they knew.
Now, as for the contents of another's womans uterus, I could care less as long as she doesn't try to kill the child that is actually the contents. It then becomes my business because killing another human being is against the laws of humanity, same as murdering a born human.

reply from: lukesmom

Where did you get such a stupid idea that babies born with hydro only live 3 hours? You really need to do your reseach and I think I gave you a link to inform yourself on another thread.

reply from: sheri

Now your going bassackwards, your supposed to say its for the betterment of the child (to have it killed) first, then if that doesnt work start raving like a heel tapping loon. come on, just defend your Nazi propaganda as best you can so we can point you out to the newbies and say, "look, see how evil perverts the mind."

reply from: fetalisa

If you think people don't talk about their families and their family members, gossip, share opinions, you are out of your mind.
You are defending a father who refused to institutionalize her because he wanted the monthly government check. Every doctor she has seen has agreed had she been institutionalized at a young age she could have at least been potty trained and possibly learned more. The father wouldn't have it because he wanted a monthly government check. This is what you defend.
You are talking about a man who would poke holes in bags of sugar when he worked at a grocery store, in order to get a discount on a ruined bag of sugar. Do you think it possible this man is motivated by money beyond all reason and common sense?
How is it speculating when I have heard it straight from horse's mouth? You are the one speculating, since you've not a clue of what you speak here.
My family most definitely is my business. I have learned much from watching this situation deteriorate and the other kids be robbed of the chance to ever have a normal life. If I ever run into anyone with a severe Down's fetus, this is precisely why I would strongly recommend they abort.
1. Where is a direct quote of mine where I have ever said I wished her dead? I argued it would be pointless to kill her now, even if that was what I wanted. What does that tell the readers here who actually have reading and comprehension skills?
2. I doubt very seriously either would be horrified. They are walking zombies at this point. The years have taken it's toll and you can see this in their eyes, their faces, the way they carry themselves, etc.
You can't kill a child in the womb, although you can kill a zygote, embryo of fetus in the womb. Children are counted in a census, whereas zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not. But then why would we count non-persons in a census anyway?
Our laws are not based on the hair-brained ideas of the crackpot minority fringe such as yourself. In other words, none in our society are obligated to pay any heed whatsoever to your personally chosen, personally held crackpot ideas of what murder is and is not.

reply from: lukesmom

Why? What do you expect women with hydrocephalus fetuses to do? They can't birth them because their heads are too big. They won't live more than 3 hours once outside of the womb anyway. That is precisely what D&X is for. Now that the Supremes have banned D&X, the only option these women have are procedures that cost more money and have more risk. Why would you be against a medical procedure with lower costs & lower surgical risks, which results in lower insurance premiums? Is it because a waterhead fetus is somehow 'owed' no more than 3 hours of life? What kind of a life is that anyway?
fetalisa, your ignorance is monumental. Children with hydro are born c-section and after birth can have surgery to correct the condition and go on to live normal lives. You may very well have encountered these very normal people without even knowing it. Hydrocephaly is a treatable condition NOT a death sentence for the child.
many children diagnosed with the disorder benefit from rehabilitation therapies and educational interventions and go on to lead normal lives with few limitations.Treatment by an interdisciplinary team of medical professionals, rehabilitation specialists, and educational experts is critical to a positive outcome. Left untreated, progressive hydrocephalus may be fatal.
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disor...halus.htm#125333125

Now, as a mother to a child who had an actual fatal prenatal diagnosis and died 45min after birth, I can tell you personally, 9 months and 3 hours is a wonderful life with purpose. I wish my son would have had at least that much life but he was loved and cherished every minute of his 36 weeks and 45 mins of life. Actually, isn't that perfection in life?

reply from: fetalisa

Facts are not stupid:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm#why

reply from: fetalisa

Why would I operate from the playbook of the crackpots on the outer fringes of society?

reply from: CharlesD

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/hydrocephalus/detail_hydrocephalus.htm

reply from: fetalisa

The only monumental ignorance demonstrated here is your own assumption that hydro comes in one degree, instead of numerous. There are varying levels of hydro, just as there are varying levels of Down's. Not all cases of hydro can have surgery to correct, nor live for long after birth. Don't you think it is a bit absurd to assume every case of hydro is curable? Is every case of cancer curable? Is every case of staph curable? Think before you post.
Did you bother to read the quote you yourself provided? Does the first word above, in bold, say 'all?'
I am sorry for your loss. At the same time, we must admit all people are not you, so will of course make different choices and want different things than you do.

reply from: lukesmom

Amongst the family, yes, strangers on the web? No, only if you are a busybody.
I am defending no one but your cousin and am giving you another less gossipy reason for her parents to have brought her home as an infant.
I wouldn't know but being you are related, I wouldn't be suprised at any weird behaviour. Then again I only have your gossipy word for it.
Now they are "horses" with a mentally handicapped daughter who should be dead according to the family gossip.
You have learned to be the family gossip and judgemental to boot. If you run into a person with severe Down's, I highly doubt it would be a fetus yet unborn. I also doubt anyone would abort on your highly uniformed opinion. You think pretty highly of your knowledge which appears to be pretty sketchy by what you have written on this forum.
Does this ring a little bell? "They would have been far better off aborting her, in my opinion, but only because her case of Down's is so terribly severe. Unfortunately, abortion wasn't yet legal at the time she was born" and "I couldn't kill her even if I wanted to, because that's against the law." so if it weren't against the law, you would have agreed to killing her?
But yet they continue to care for her eventhough she could be placed into a nursing home. Could it really be they want her home? Who are you to judge them and who are you to say she didn't deserve to live?
But if they are born say at 21 weeks and are breathing they are then concidered a person just because they can be counted for the census? What about the unborn who are wanted by the mother and killed through an abusive act on the mother or by a car accident and the person who killed them is charged with their murder? Actually there should be no murder charge because this unborn child is not a person? Hate to tell you but there are a lot of people "missed" intentionally or unintentionally by the census. Are you telling me these people really aren't people because they aren't listed on the census? You need to do better than that.
Ooooo, I am just cut to the quick! LOL! Actually the abortion law was passed by a handful of old men and not the majority. Do you actually need to read the definition of murder? YODA! WE NEED YOU HERE! The notion that the unborn is alive (scientific fact btw) and abortion kills the unborn and the unborn doesn't get a say in any of this decision made for him/her. Hmmmm who has the crackpot ideas????

reply from: lukesmom

Say it isn't so! Then why did you make the statement that a hydrocephalus fetus won't live beyond 3 hours if it is birthed, so we might as well kill it now since that hardly qualifies as a 'life.'
Did you actually learn something from the link I gave you? think before you post and do a little research before you make ignorant, uniformed statements like the above.

reply from: lukesmom

How about facts from an unbiased medical reference instead of a proabort site. The link I gave you is from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke which is a government site with unbiased medical facts. The link I provided didn't go so here it is again: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/hydrocephalus/hydrocephalus.htm

reply from: CharlesD

So you would say that since there is a chance that such a child might not turn out perfect, that you might as well kill it?
I read the entire article, along with a few others on the topic because I wanted to educate myself. But wait, I'm a Christian, so not only am I not capable of being educated, I'm a retarded, ignorant, backwards, woman hating, neanderthal who hasn't left the Middle Ages. Let's see, I'm probably also intolerant, homophobic, and bigoted as well. Have I left anything out? For those who want to question the intelligence of Christians, or of pro lifers in general, I have an IQ that puts me in the top .01% in this country, but you don't see me going around pointing that out all the time or trying to belittle the intelligence of others. I try to debate the issues here rationally and in a cordial manner only to be called a liar, a bigot, and retarded.
I have shown an incredible amount of restraint these last couple days with the amount of outright stupidity and bigotry I've seen around here. I've been an active pro lifer for over 20 years, so I guess I should be used to it, but I've seen it go to a whole new level around here recently. There are a few here I disagree with on the abortion issue or on matters of theology who have remained polite with me and our debates have been intellectually stimulating and interesting. That is why I came to this board to start with, to have mature discussions about this issue and to hopefully persuade a few people along the way. I have worked for years to try to present the pro life arguments in a way that gives dignity to the unborn, but also dignity to those of us who are standing up for the unborn. I know there are some who employ harsher methods and rhetoric and if that works for you, that's fine, but it's never really been my style.
I really don't ask for a whole lot from the pro choice crowd, especially on the internet. What I do ask for and expect is respect. I have tried to be respectful to you when I disagree with you and poke holes in your arguments. I don't call people names or degrade their religious beliefs, even when I disagree with those beliefs. I disagree with your views and I frankly find some of those views sickening and repulsive. I frankly can't stand the positions you hold, but I try to present my side in a manner that doesn't stoop to personal attacks and name calling. I expect the same in return.
This issue is not a religious issue. Yes, many of us oppose abortion on those grounds, but many oppose abortion who don't give allegiance to God. Some don't even believe in Him at all but they still believe in the basic right to life of all humans, born and unborn. Those people are my brothers and sisters in this movement. They might not be my brothers and sisters in the Lord, but I will proudly stand by them in this struggle. Trying to discredit the pro life viewpoint as simply a matter of religious belief does not do justice to the many pro life people who hold to no religious belief at all. In light of that, I try my best to present secular arguments for the right to life of all people. I might debate theology when people want to bring it up, but I don't argue against abortion from that angle. If you think that you discredit the pro life cause by discrediting Christianity, then you're barking up the wrong tree.
This issue really is ridiculously simple. It's not complicated at all, even though many of us have tried to complicate it in an effort to either confuse the other side or to dodge the real issue. I have made these points so many times over the last 20+ years that I sometimes feel like a broken record. (large vinyl things that played music, for you younger folks)
1.The unborn are fully human. Person is simply another word for human, not a human that has reached a certain stage in development. The unborn are not members of any other species. They are not potential humans and their humanity is not defined by their level of awareness, their ability to feel pain, or their knowledge of what is going on around them or to them.
2. Throughout history it has been universally accepted, with a few scattered exceptions that were judged harshly by others, that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being. I emphasize the word innocent here so you can't come back and ask, "But what about the death penalty?" Certain societies have from time to time taken innocent life, sometimes in great numbers, and they have always taken great pains to attempt to justify the killing in one way or another. The simple fact that they go through the effort to justify it is evidence enough of the fact that there exists a universal standard that it is wrong. If they had no knowledge of the wrongness of their acts, there would be no effort to come up with justifications. You don't excuse something if deep down you have absolutely no belief that there is something wrong with it.
3. Abortion takes the life of innocent humans. There is no way around this. You can't argue that it doesn't take life. Science has already determined the humanity of the unborn and the fact that an unborn child is growing is evidence that it is indeed alive. Abortion ends that life.
These are the three irrefutable facts of this issue. The unborn are human, killing innocent humans is wrong, and abortion kills innocent humans. Anything else you can attempt to bring up is secondary to those three points. Who is going to pay for the upbringing of the child, what hormonal changes the woman's body is going to go through, how much pregnancy will mess up your social life, the fact that you aren't ready to start a family, or the inconvenient fact that you just didn't want to get pregnant right now are all irrelevant to whether or not it is right to kill innocent human beings. It either is or it isn't right. If it is right to kill them when they're still in the womb, then by extension it should be right to kill people after birth for the same reasons. That is the logical end to that line of thought. If it's wrong to kill innocent humans, then it is wrong to kill them regardless of location or developmental progress.
So if you want to argue any of those points, have at it, but the minute you stoop to the level of calling me names, calling me a liar, or belittling my Christian faith, then you have already lost the argument. In fact, if you can't argue your position without personally attacking your opponent, your argument isn't strong enough to stand on its own and then maybe you need to re-evaluate where you stand. Some around here have been intellectually honest enough to do that and have made some pretty drastic changes. Doing that requires a mind big enough to look at the issues and think them through seriously. It's only the small minds that resort to personal attacks.

reply from: fetalisa

I know you detest the truths I have revealed about a family living with severe Down's. It is completely against your crackpot fringe views so all you have left is to respond with the feeblest attempts at insult.
You wish to continue the pretense that living with a child with such severe limitations leads to light, happiness and love. Everything about this family utterly contradicts the lies you wish to foist on the public.
Having no other means to respond to my points, you result to insults.
It is sad that you are too ignorant to understand well understood colloquialisms, such as 'straight from the horse's mouth.' Much like a fool, you wish us all to pretend I am referring to my relatives as horses, instead of simply turning a descriptive phrase. It is precisely this kind of disingenuousness, that leaves you forced birthers so marginalized on the outer fringes of our society.
I have repeatedly stated they couldn't abort, because it was illegal at the time. Luckily for us all, no family has to go through this today. Given the circumstances at the time of her birth, she could have at least been potty trained had she been institutionalized and possibly could have learned even more, according to the doctors.
That means much coming from a whacko who believes abortion is the same as murder.
Reading and comprehension pays. I clearly stated if I ever met a woman who found out she was carrying a severe Down's fetus, I will most definitely tell her this story and strongly advise she save herself, as well as well as the lives of her other children, by aborting.
All you have revealed here is your assumption that others SHOULD act based on your own opinion. Unlike you, I will tell this story and give advice, yet also say I can not make this decision, since it is not my choice to make anyway. I am not the one here who wishes to force my opinions down the throats of all in our society by means of law.
Go look up the word 'colloquialism' and get back to me, ok?
Abortion doesn't kill a person. If she were killed now, at the age of 45, that IS killing a person, which is an entirely separate issue from abortion.
I wouldn't murder even if it were legal. I have no desire, much less the will, not even for those I have hated. Make murder legal tomorrow and I still will not kill.
Oh sure, dealing with a 45 year old, strong as an ox, severely retarded person who tears up everything she touches, rips doors off of hinges, wears diapers, leaves the house smelling like excrement for 45 years, etc should obviously be a bed of posies, according to the forced birthers. Maybe they will keep her even longer, until the mother has another dozen nervous breakdowns.
See above.
I will see if I can put it into terms simple enough for you to understand:
21 week fetus= not a person
30 week old fetus=not a person
zygote/embryo/fetus inside a womb=not a person
21 week old preemie=person
outside the womb=person
Is it really so difficult to grasp the concept that personhood isn't recognized until birth? I mean, it has pretty much been the standard for almost every society in human history. Do you count your age from the date of conception or your birthday? Use your brain for a change. Pretending ignorance on the issue doesn't help your cause, it only makes you appear ignorant or biased due to your own agenda. In a census we count persons, which means anything counted in a census must be outside of the womb. This is hardly news. It has been so for millinia, so why the feigned confusion and ignorance on your part for such a simple and easy to grasp concept?
What about it?
There is a murder charge, obviously. If you look at these laws you will see they are titled fetal homicide laws, with no mention whatsoever of the killing of persons.
HAHA! This is how you argue? Gee, I have NEVER seen this line of argumentation EVER IN MY LIFE! HAHA!
I am telling you a census serves to count persons, whether it counts those persons perfectly or not. Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not counted in a census, because they are not persons, whether the census itself is counted perfectly or not. Is that clear enough for you dear?
You could at least give me somewhat of a challenge by constructing your strawman arguments in such a way that they are not so easily answered.
Who cares? It's immaterial. It's the law. You can pretend all you wish the court decisions of the Supremes have no sway in this land. It won't be truth outside the confines of your own mind.
It's the killing of a person. What part of that do you not understand?
It is scientific fact the bug I step on is alive before I step on it. That isn't murder either, is it?
Which is not a person, so abortion is not murder.
How can an unborn have a 'say' about anything?
It is you who have just suggested that a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person has no 'say' as to whether it be killed or not. That is as crackpot as complaining that a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person in the form of a weed in my garden has no say about being killed or not. How can a weed have a 'say' about anything? How can a zygote have a 'say' about anything? How can an embryo have a 'say' about anything? How can a fetus have a 'say' about anything? Can the rock in your back yard have a 'say' as to whether it be moved to the front yard or not? By what means do you suggest we divine the wishes of non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons, such as rocks, weeds, zygotes, embryos or fetuses? Lacking sentience, you can't even demonstrate they have ANY wishes!

reply from: fetalisa

It is called a mistake on my part, with the specific error being omitting the adjective 'severe' before 'hydrocephalus.'
I don't need to read what I already know. See above.

reply from: fetalisa

How is a website that show both prolife and prochoice sides of the issue, without leaning towards one of the other side, a 'proabort' site?

reply from: CharlesD

It would seem that we have to put the cookies on the bottom shelf so everyone can reach them.
Person/human being=automobile/car
Two different words for the same thing. You cannot find anywhere in the constitution that being born is what defines you as a person. And before you do it, don't even waste your time trying to bring up the 14th amendment. I'll save you the effort. It's not in there. Birth is a prerequisite for citizenship, not personhood. And by the way, some societies do count age from conception. They are not in the majority, but the practice is not unknown.
By the way, something is a law if it was passed by a legislature. Decisions of the Supreme Court are rulings, decisions, cases, etc. When court decisions start carrying the weight of law, you have an abuse of judicial authority, but that is a different argument for a different time. Bottom line is that throughout history there have been unjust laws and unjust court decisions. Were black people at any point actually only 3/5 human? Well, the court said so at one point, but that didn't make it so. I know if was for representation purposes, primarily to keep the slave states from being able to use slaves to boost their population levels to get more proportional representation and then push their agenda in Congress. It was a pretty shrewd move, but it still didn't reflect the reality of what a black person really is. News flash here: Laws can be wrong. Slavery was still wrong even when it was legal, so the law of the land isn't something you can hide behind. You need better arguments than that.
The weed in the garden or the rock in the back yard never were and never will be human beings. They are not moral equivalents to an unborn child, regardless of stage of development. Having a say or the ability to express those wishes is not what qualifies one as human and is not the standard by which we should judge whether that person has the right to live. An infant can't express those wishes either. Bottom line here: Murder is the taking of innocent human life. Abortion does just that.

reply from: fetalisa

BZZT! WRONG!
A corporation is a person, even though a corporation is not a human being:
"In 1886, . . . in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person."http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html
So your claim that a person=human being is UTTERLY FALSE!
You can not show where ANY of the 48 instances where the words 'person' or 'persons' appear in the Constitution, could possibly be construed to reference the unborn, no more than you can demonstrate that it is physically possible for an unborn to participate in constitutional rights such as freedom of religion or free speech. Why are chimpanzees not persons? It is physically impossible for chimpanzees to participate in constitutional rights such as free speech or the practice of religion.
Why would I bring it up? Given the 14th Amendment was written to address the rights of black people post freedom from slavery, from intent alone, it becomes obvious the 14th Amendment does not address the unborn, for whom it is physically impossible to participate in rights such as liberty or ownership of property, as outlined in the 14th Amendment. So you are correct. The 14th Amendment does not address the unborn, no more than the numerous other mentions of 'person' or 'persons' as found in the Constitution addresses the unborn.
Yet NONE of those societies equate the contents of a woman's womb with a person, because to do such is insane.
You can pretend all you wish the decisions of the Supremes have no sway whatsoever in the US. That will only be a truth in your mind, because corporations will still be persons and abortion will still be legal, whether you deny the legal authority of the Supreme Court or not.
Black people have ALWAYS had the abilities necessary to participate in constitutional rights, such as free speech or practice of religion. It is physically impossible for the unborn to participate in ANY constitutional rights. That is precisely why it is crackpot to suggest they are persons, just as it would be crackpot to suggest a rock or weed is a person. For rocks, weeds and the unborn it is physically impossible to participate in constitutional rights, which is PRECISELY why none of them are persons.
Except our law is ENTIRELY correct in the case of the unborn. If an unborn is a person due constitutional rights, when it is physically impossible for the unborn to exercise constitutional rights, then weeds and rocks are also persons, because it is physically impossible for weeds and rocks to exercise constitutional rights, as is the case with the unborn.
Whether the unborn are human beings is not the issue. Whether the unborn are persons IS the issue. Weeds and rocks have numerous similarities with the unborn, in that all three, weeds, rocks, and unborn are non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons and it is physically impossible for weeds, rocks, or the unborn to participate in the exercise of constitutional rights. This is PRECISELY why weeds, rocks and the unborn are NOT persons.
Then you admit the unborn, no different than rocks or weeds, have no ability whatsoever to have a 'say' in anything. Gee, do you think maybe that is why it is absurd to recognize a constitutional right such as free speech for the unborn, given that it is physical impossible for them to say anything at all?
An infant most certainly can. The cry IS the alarm that let's the parents know the baby needs something, whether it be food, a changed diaper, etc. This IS communication or speech. Without that, the chances of infant survival would be drastically lower, as the parents would have no way whatsoever to know the baby needs attention.
Murder is the killing of a person. The unborn are NOT persons, therefore, abortion is not murder.

reply from: CharlesD

Where in the Constitution does it state that birth is a prerequisite for personhood? It isn't there. It does not state that in order to be a person, one has to have been born. The word "person" is used in the Constitution, but it is not defined by the Constitution. The Constitution cannot be used to support the idea that certain human beings are not persons. The personhood argument is nothing but a diversionary tactic. Person=human.

reply from: BossMomma

Why should two people destroy their lives for another human being who will never be anything more than a giant, unhousetrained pet?
Same reason your parents desroy their lives for another human being who will never be anything other than a nasty angry woman wanna be. Could it be they love this person you consider a house pet? and you don't want to be discriminated against. All the homosexual people I know would be embarassed by you and your behaviour. Vexing, you are imploding and we are catching the fallout. God help you.
Indeed, I wonder how vex would feel if it became the trend to abort intersex fetuses with the same vigor Downs Syndrome children are aborted? After all, who wants that confusion in their lives. I have vex on ignore as she really is just taking her issues out on everyone else and trying to hurt as many people as she can. You might want to spare yourself her rants and do the same.

reply from: fetalisa

There is no need for the Constitution to state such.
Sure it is. The meaning of the word can be determined by the context of usage within the document. That's exactly why you can't point to ANY instance where the words 'person' or 'persons' appear in the Constitution that could possibly be construed to reference the unborn. The context of the usage of the words clearly shows the Constitution had no intention AT ALL to address the unborn.

It most certainly can and has been, to the point that we now have a legal precedent of 35 years standing.
Do you not think it foolish to attempt to argue abortion, when you have not even bothered to read the Roe decision, much less understand it?
How can the above be true when I have clearly proven a corporation is a person, but not a human being, even to the point of supplying documentation which makes this quite clear? Instead of ignoring the documentation I have supplied, did it ever occur to you to instead REFUTE the documentation supplied?
Or does your argument rest entirely on ignoring whatever evidence I present? Because if that is the case, there is no point in continuing further here.

reply from: CharlesD

You likewise cannot find any instance where the Constitution specifically excludes the unborn from personhood. You cannot find language in there, court decisions aside, that specifically states that personhood only applies to people who have already been born. It just isn't there. The Constitution does say that states can't deny any person the right of life, liberty, or property without due process. It doesn't define what a person is. I don't need to reference flawed court decisions that mis-interpret the Constitution or find things in it that aren't explicitly there. I am talking about the explicit meaning of the words written in the Constitution. It DOES NOT define what a person is because then it was understood that a person and a human were one and the same. That was the way the word was understood during the time the Constitution was written. I try to read the Constitution in light of the intent of the people who wrote it, and no reading can come up with the idea that the writers intended to apply birth as a requirement for personhood.
Likewise, you can use other legal definitions of person all you want, such as the example of a corporation, but even those definitions don't make a case for any individual humans not being persons. Nice try.

reply from: fetalisa

Sure I can. I already have. The Constitution was not intended to address the unborn, which is why there is not a single instance where the words 'person' or 'persons,' as found in the Constitution, could possibly be construed to apply to the unborn. It's no different than stating the Declaration of Independence does not cover the finer details of oral sex. It wasn't intended to address oral sex, so why expect it to discuss it?
Then please explain how the unborn can participate in the right of free speech.
Sure it does. The Constitution outlines the rights of persons, using the words 'person' or 'persons' 48 times.
The highway speed limit of 65 mph is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Does that make it legal for me to drive 120 mph on the highway?
Sure it does. A person is one who can participate in rights such as free speech or participate in the practice of religion. We can use the 4th Amendment as an example:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
How do we unreasonably search an unborn, unreasonably search an unborn's house, unreasonably search an unborn's papers or unreasonably search an unborn's effects? Do you seriously expect me to believe the 4th Amendment has any application AT ALL to the unborn? Do you seriously expect me to believe the INTENT of the 4th Amendment is to apply to the unborn? Or is the intent to apply to persons, you know, those who have already exited the womb?
It was also understood that women were the property of their husbands and that people could be owned like cattle, in the form of slaves. What is your point?
Does the use of the word 'people' in the 4th Amendment show any INTENT to address the unborn at all?
A corporation is a person, but not a human being, in spite of your claim that person=human being. Nice try though.
Then please explain the following:
1. How can an unborn participate in constitutional rights due persons, such as the freedom of speech?
2. Did the authors of the Constitution INTEND for the right of free speech to apply to the unborn? (You were the one who claimed to read the Constitution in light of the intent of the people who wrote it, so step forward and do it here.)

reply from: CharlesD

You still haven't made a case that the Constitution excludes the unborn from personhood. If it isn't there, then we are left to assume that when the Constitution talks about people, it simply refers to humans. You keep saying that it doesn't specifically include them, but that does not automatically exclude them from personhood. There simply was no need at the time. People understood that the word person meant a member of the human race. If you say that a corporation can be called a person for legal purposes, that still does nothing to show that an unborn child cannot be called a person as well. Until it can be shown explicitly that the Constitution specifically states that the word peson only applies to humans post birth, we have no case for denying them personhood.
Nowhere does the Constitution specifically state the the unborn ARE NOT persons. Period. Case closed. Let's move along now.

reply from: Antibigot

If you think people don't talk about their families and their family members, gossip, share opinions, you are out of your mind.
You are defending a father who refused to institutionalize her because he wanted the monthly government check. Every doctor she has seen has agreed had she been institutionalized at a young age she could have at least been potty trained and possibly learned more. The father wouldn't have it because he wanted a monthly government check. This is what you defend.
You are talking about a man who would poke holes in bags of sugar when he worked at a grocery store, in order to get a discount on a ruined bag of sugar. Do you think it possible this man is motivated by money beyond all reason and common sense?
How is it speculating when I have heard it straight from horse's mouth? You are the one speculating, since you've not a clue of what you speak here.
My family most definitely is my business. I have learned much from watching this situation deteriorate and the other kids be robbed of the chance to ever have a normal life. If I ever run into anyone with a severe Down's fetus, this is precisely why I would strongly recommend they abort.
1. Where is a direct quote of mine where I have ever said I wished her dead? I argued it would be pointless to kill her now, even if that was what I wanted. What does that tell the readers here who actually have reading and comprehension skills?
2. I doubt very seriously either would be horrified. They are walking zombies at this point. The years have taken it's toll and you can see this in their eyes, their faces, the way they carry themselves, etc.
You can't kill a child in the womb, although you can kill a zygote, embryo of fetus in the womb. Children are counted in a census, whereas zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not. But then why would we count non-persons in a census anyway?
Our laws are not based on the hair-brained ideas of the crackpot minority fringe such as yourself. In other words, none in our society are obligated to pay any heed whatsoever to your personally chosen, personally held crackpot ideas of what murder is and is not.
"Where is a direct quote of mine where I have ever said I wished her dead?"
Well, if you believed she should have been aborted, then YES, you wished her dead. Abortion causes a DEATH!
"If I ever run into anyone with a severe Down's fetus, this is precisely why I would strongly recommend they abort."
Oh, so you're not really pro-choice. That's good to know.
By the way, does your cousin have the ability to communicate? Can she speak? Does she laugh? How severe is her condition? Why do you talk about her as if she isn't a human being? Why do you talk about her as if she isn't your relative? Do you know her? Have you ever interacted with her?

reply from: Antibigot

I know you detest the truths I have revealed about a family living with severe Down's. It is completely against your crackpot fringe views so all you have left is to respond with the feeblest attempts at insult.
You wish to continue the pretense that living with a child with such severe limitations leads to light, happiness and love. Everything about this family utterly contradicts the lies you wish to foist on the public.
Having no other means to respond to my points, you result to insults.
It is sad that you are too ignorant to understand well understood colloquialisms, such as 'straight from the horse's mouth.' Much like a fool, you wish us all to pretend I am referring to my relatives as horses, instead of simply turning a descriptive phrase. It is precisely this kind of disingenuousness, that leaves you forced birthers so marginalized on the outer fringes of our society.
I have repeatedly stated they couldn't abort, because it was illegal at the time. Luckily for us all, no family has to go through this today. Given the circumstances at the time of her birth, she could have at least been potty trained had she been institutionalized and possibly could have learned even more, according to the doctors.
That means much coming from a whacko who believes abortion is the same as murder.
Reading and comprehension pays. I clearly stated if I ever met a woman who found out she was carrying a severe Down's fetus, I will most definitely tell her this story and strongly advise she save herself, as well as well as the lives of her other children, by aborting.
All you have revealed here is your assumption that others SHOULD act based on your own opinion. Unlike you, I will tell this story and give advice, yet also say I can not make this decision, since it is not my choice to make anyway. I am not the one here who wishes to force my opinions down the throats of all in our society by means of law.
Go look up the word 'colloquialism' and get back to me, ok?
Abortion doesn't kill a person. If she were killed now, at the age of 45, that IS killing a person, which is an entirely separate issue from abortion.
I wouldn't murder even if it were legal. I have no desire, much less the will, not even for those I have hated. Make murder legal tomorrow and I still will not kill.
Oh sure, dealing with a 45 year old, strong as an ox, severely retarded person who tears up everything she touches, rips doors off of hinges, wears diapers, leaves the house smelling like excrement for 45 years, etc should obviously be a bed of posies, according to the forced birthers. Maybe they will keep her even longer, until the mother has another dozen nervous breakdowns.
See above.
I will see if I can put it into terms simple enough for you to understand:
21 week fetus= not a person
30 week old fetus=not a person
zygote/embryo/fetus inside a womb=not a person
21 week old preemie=person
outside the womb=person
Is it really so difficult to grasp the concept that personhood isn't recognized until birth? I mean, it has pretty much been the standard for almost every society in human history. Do you count your age from the date of conception or your birthday? Use your brain for a change. Pretending ignorance on the issue doesn't help your cause, it only makes you appear ignorant or biased due to your own agenda. In a census we count persons, which means anything counted in a census must be outside of the womb. This is hardly news. It has been so for millinia, so why the feigned confusion and ignorance on your part for such a simple and easy to grasp concept?
What about it?
There is a murder charge, obviously. If you look at these laws you will see they are titled fetal homicide laws, with no mention whatsoever of the killing of persons.
HAHA! This is how you argue? Gee, I have NEVER seen this line of argumentation EVER IN MY LIFE! HAHA!
I am telling you a census serves to count persons, whether it counts those persons perfectly or not. Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not counted in a census, because they are not persons, whether the census itself is counted perfectly or not. Is that clear enough for you dear?
You could at least give me somewhat of a challenge by constructing your strawman arguments in such a way that they are not so easily answered.
Who cares? It's immaterial. It's the law. You can pretend all you wish the court decisions of the Supremes have no sway in this land. It won't be truth outside the confines of your own mind.
It's the killing of a person. What part of that do you not understand?
It is scientific fact the bug I step on is alive before I step on it. That isn't murder either, is it?
Which is not a person, so abortion is not murder.
How can an unborn have a 'say' about anything?
It is you who have just suggested that a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person has no 'say' as to whether it be killed or not. That is as crackpot as complaining that a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person in the form of a weed in my garden has no say about being killed or not. How can a weed have a 'say' about anything? How can a zygote have a 'say' about anything? How can an embryo have a 'say' about anything? How can a fetus have a 'say' about anything? Can the rock in your back yard have a 'say' as to whether it be moved to the front yard or not? By what means do you suggest we divine the wishes of non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons, such as rocks, weeds, zygotes, embryos or fetuses? Lacking sentience, you can't even demonstrate they have ANY wishes!
Wait, so, murder is only the killing of a born person, but homicide can apply to fetuses? Why IS it considered homicide to kill a fetus in some places if it isn't a person?

reply from: JRH

Don't worry, there are plenty of Christians who are nothing like you. Its not a Christian things.
You've failed
You haven't earned it.
So since a Hela culture is human it is a person?
An innocent man needs my kidney to live. Do I have to give it to him?
Masturbation ends the life of sperm.

reply from: CharlesD

In what way have I failed to debate this issue cordially and respectfully? Have I resorted to name calling or calling pro choice people liars? Have I personally attacked anyone on here? Open your eyes.
Read the above comment. So do you think that anyone who disagrees with you hasn't earned your respect? That's pretty darn narrow minded, if you ask me. Other pro choice people who have sent me PMs stating that they find me respectful to them and enjoy the discourse would maybe disagree with you on that.
A skin cell can be a human skin cell but it is not a human being. Do I have to explain the science here?
By not doing so, you have not taken deliberate action to end his life. There are willing donors he can get the kidney from. You deciding not to give yours is not an act of deliberately ending his life.
So does intercourse. They don't all reach the egg. A sperm is a human sperm cell, but it is not a human being. A part of a human is not a separate human being. An unborn child is a separate human being. Very basic science here, nothing that complicated.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

When discussing the Constitution, we must remember WHEN it was written. In the late 18th century, abortion and personhood were not even in the minds of the Founding Fathers, nor did they have any idea that some day the right to bear arms would allow citizens to possess deadly automatic weapons and cheap, "throwaway" handguns used not in the defense of the nation, but as instruments of crime and murder.
Would a constitutional amendment determining the legal status of the fetus be possible? I honestly doubt it. There is the matter of being unable to determine the exact date of conception, no possible way to name the place of birth (or even actual birth) until the child is delivered and legalities galore. How could we get around those problems?
Even in the twentieth century, the simple facts of a woman being pregnant or giving birth were couched in polite terms such as "in confinement", "lying in" or "in the family way" and pregnancy and childbirth were simply not spoken of in public.
It will take some very wise women and men to make this decision of when "personhood" begins.

reply from: fetalisa

If you are going to ignore everything I have posted, there is no point in continuing here.
Please explain how the rights of persons, as outlined in the Constitution, such as the right of free speech or to a fair trial, can possibly be construed to have any application at all to the unborn, or could possibly be construed as having the INTENT to address the unborn. It is so funny that in your responses here, you thoroughly REFUSE to answer these questions. How many times will you pretend these questions have not been posed to you?
It is legal FACT the unborn are not constitutional persons, unless you have some way to demonstrate the right of free speech could possibly have any application AT ALL to the unborn, and unless you have some way to demonstrate the INTENT of the authors of the Constitution was to INCLUDE the unborn, when discussing constitutional rights such as free speech or the right to a fair trial.
If the above is true, then why is it that abortion was legal in most states at the time the Constitution was penned?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10297561
A corporation is not 'called' a person for legal purposes. A corporation IS a person for legal purposes. You can call an unborn whatever you wish. That doesn't make it so. Legally, the unborn are not persons, unless you can demonstrate the unborn have the ability to participate in constitutional rights such as free speech or exercise of religion.
Then why is abortion legal? Oh, that's right. It is physically impossible for the unborn to participate in a single right outlined in the Constitution. Therefore, the unborn are no more persons, than a rock or a weed is a person, since rocks or weed have no more ability to participate in the exercise of constitutional rights than the unborn do.
How can you close a case when you do not even have a case? You earlier claimed you read the Constitution with the intent of the authors in mind. Why don't you answer the question as to whether the authors of the Constitution INTENDED to address the unborn with respect to the right of free speech (or any other right discussed within the Constitution)?
It is legal FACT the unborn are not constitutional persons, just as it is legal FACT weeds and rocks are not constitutional persons. How crackpot would it be to recognize personhood for entities which lack any ability whatsoever to participate in constitutional rights, such as rocks, weeds or the unborn?

reply from: fetalisa

What fetal homicide law can you cite which proves a fetus is a person? (Not that it really matters, since any law which states a fetus is a person would directly contradict the Constitution and be struck down.)

reply from: fetalisa

Those are your words, not mine.
Don't be so hard on yourself. Many believe in imaginary characters such as Allah, Bugs Bunny, Zeus, Jesus, Winnie the Pooh or Jehovah, so you are hardly alone in your irrationality.
How would I know when I don't even know you? All I know is what you have already told me, which is that you believe in the fictional characters of your faith.
You must not be a forced birther then. I have been called the same and much worse.
You must be new here, or you would know what to expect in this particular venue.
The feeling is mutual on my part, but only because it is both sickening and disturbing that some wish to turn women into brood mares.
Then why does the phrase 'life (really a synonym for personhood in usage) begins at conception" comes from the Catholic Church?
Or Her or It or They.
Agreed. One must be able to address the absurdity of religious arguments which favor forced birthing, as well as the secular arguments which favor forced birthing.
Agreed. Christianity, like every other religion, discredits itself well enough on its own, without dragging abortion or forced birthing into it.
But not persons.
Yet a corporation is a person, even though it is not human.
Sure they are. They could spontaneously abort at any point in the pregnancy. It is only potential until it has exited the womb, at which point, it becomes a person.
Their humanity is not the issue.
How can a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person zygote, embryo or fetus be 'innocent?' Can the non-conscious, non-sentient, non-person in the form of a weed or rock in your garden be 'innocent?' If a zygote, embryo or fetus can be 'innocent,' then they could likewise be 'guilty.' How do we charge a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person with a crime or try them in court?
Do you see the absurdity of claiming a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person is 'innocent.' They can be neither innocent nor guilty of anything, since their is no sentience. Innocence or guilt implies the existence of sentience, which non-conscious, non-persons such as weeds, rocks, zygotes, embryos and fetuses lack.
But not persons, so it can't be murder. Tell me again how non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons such as rocks, weeds, zygotes, embryos or fetuses can be "innocent' or 'guilty' of anything?
There's no need. The argument is very simple:
Abortion kills non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons. Our society feels no guilt nor remorse whatsoever, when non-sentient, non-conscious life in the form of non-persons is killed, whether it be a mosquito that dies, a potato that dies, a weed that dies, a zygote that dies, an embryo that dies, or a fetus that dies. In ALL of these cases, the life lost is non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons. So who cares?
And just like pulling up a weed in your garden, abortion also kills non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons, so no guilt for the killing is necessary nor desirable. Otherwise we would be mourning the loss of life every time we pull out the can of Raid!
We'll see about that.
But not persons.
Killing non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons is RIGHT in American society. It's the same reason we do not mourn when we pull up a weed or step on a bug.
You have not demonstrated that non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons have any ability whatsoever to be either 'innocent' or 'guilty' no more than you can demonstrate the non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person in the form of the weed in your garden can be 'innocent' or 'guilty.'
1. The unborn are indisputably not persons.
2. The killing of non-persons, particularly those non-sentient and non-conscious is routinely done in our society without guilt nor mourning.
3. You have not demonstrated that non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons have any ability whatsoever to be either 'innocent' or 'guilty.' How can that which lacks sentience be 'innocent' or 'guilty?' Sentience is necessary for guilt or innocence. Could Terry Schiavo be 'guilty' or 'innocent' once her brains had liquified? Of course she couldn't. She was no longer sentient.
How can non-sentient, non-conscious life in the form of non-persons be either guilty or innocent? In order to be guilty, one must take wrong action. In order to be innocent, one must take right action. Since 'right' or 'wrong' actions can only exist where sentience exists, how can an unborn possibly be either of innocent or guilty?
Surely someone with the IQ you claim to possess have heard of 'false dichotomy.'
Only if one very stupidly wishes to pretend personhood is recognized at birth. Do you count your birth date from the date of your conception or the date of your birth?
So then it is now 'logical' to deny the fact that all societies throughout history have acknowledged personhood begins at birth?
How can a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person in the form of rocks, weeds, zygotes, embryos or fetuses, be either guilty or innocent, since ALL lack sentience?
Are you THAT thin skinned? You must not have argued such a volatile topic as abortion much.
Oh if you tell a lie, I will call you on it.
Don't use it to support your argument, if you do not wish it to be addressed.
Hardly. See above.
Save it for your cronies here who resort to insult rather than address the points raised.

reply from: scopia19822

"Don't be so hard on yourself. Many believe in imaginary characters such as Allah, Bugs Bunny, Zeus, Jesus, Winnie the Pooh or Jehovah, so you are hardly alone in your irrationality."
Actually Jesus did exist. Roman records of trial and execution have been found. The historian Joesphus wrote of him as well.

reply from: scopia19822

"You mean a person called 'Jesus' existed (and I'm sure there was more than one person called that).
Just because a man had that name, doesn't mean he was the avatar of God on earth. "
Joesphus wrote in the book "the Jewish Wars" about Jesus and his followers . His trial is also mentioned in the Talmud. Some believe him to be a mortal man, a great teacher and others believe like me that he was God incarnate.

reply from: CharlesD

Just a few quick points here. The Constitution does not specifically mention unborn people, probably because there was no need. In that day, the words person and human being were synonymous. If a corporation can be called a person, that doesn't exclude the unborn from that label. That's like saying that an orange is not a fruit because an apple is a fruit. Refer to CP's post above for the definitions.
People who hold differing views with yours aren't liars. I don't call you a liar for disagreeing with me, so please don't refer to me as such.
Also, I'd like you to point out where on this forum have I used my religious beliefs to argue my point of view. I use secular arguments here because there are plenty of them without having to even resort to the religious ones. Besides, as has been pointed out here, you don't even buy into any of the basis for the religious arguments anyway, so I would be wasting my time. So if I am using secular arguments to back up my positions and then people feel it necessary to tear down my religion, how is that consistent? It certainly doesn't help your argument.
And lastly, what other pro lifers do on here is not a reflection on how I conduct myself. I am not answerable for them. I have not resorted to personal attacks on here and I expect the same treatment in return. If I'm not using religious arguments, then don't go there either. If I'm not calling you a liar, don't call me one. Fair enough?

reply from: fetalisa

Then why is there no contemporaneous historical evidence? If thousands of people turned out to see him, surely someone would have written SOMETHING about it during the time he lived and most especially considering these alleged miracles. Yet, the contemporary historical record is totally blank!
PROOF?
Those passages are proven to be interpolation, unless you have some explanation as to why a lifelong practicing Jew would refer to Jesus as 'the Christ.' Further, Josephus did not write until YEARS after Jesus was dead.

reply from: Antibigot

What fetal homicide law can you cite which proves a fetus is a person? (Not that it really matters, since any law which states a fetus is a person would directly contradict the Constitution and be struck down.)
So, you see no problem calling the killing of a fetus HOMICIDE? Why is it called homicide if the fetus isn't a person? Why would anyone be convicted for the killing of a fetus (besides an abortion doctor) if it isn't a person with rights?

reply from: fetalisa

Do you have a problem calling Wal-mart Wal-mart? Would you call Wal-mart Sears? What is the problem with calling a thing by its name?
A fetus isn't a person whether you kill it or not.
It violates the mother's choice to carry a pregnancy to term. Do you really want to see more Laci Petersens in our society? I don't.
And a fetus isn't a person with rights, unless you can demonstrate a fetus has the ability to participate in constitutional rights such as free speech or exercise of religion. Is there really any reason to give a fetus a right to a fair trial?

reply from: lukesmom

By this reasoning an infant, toddler, preschooler all don't qualify as a "person"? Your cousin and others with mental handicaps don't qualify either. What about those who have lost their ability to speak or reason or understand due to medical reasons? You have your work cut out for you in terminating all their lives. Just how are the unborn any different except for not yet being born?
Please answer without the insults.

reply from: lukesmom

Charles, that was WONDERFUL! I am honored to "know" you.

reply from: fetalisa

Do you think at all before you post? Babies cry, which is what lets the parents know the baby needs something. That IS speech. It IS communication, without which, rates of infant survival would be far lower. Additionally, have you never seen an infant christened in a church? Do you not know 8 day old Jewish males are circumcised in a religious ceremony known as a bris? Isn't it blatantly obvious to all but an utter fool that even infants CAN and DO have the ability to participate in constitutional rights such as speech or religion?
Sure they do. Their personhood is established by fact of their birth.
Their personhood is established by fact of their birth.
What do persons with mental handicaps, or the Terri Schaivo's of the world have to do with the personhood of zygotes, embryos and fetuses? The personhood of the born is not in dispute here. The question is do zefs meet the definition of person as found in the Constitution? We need not ask the same question of the mentally handicapped or the Terri Schiavo's since their personhood is legal FACT due to their birth.
It is physically impossible for the unborn to participate in a single right outlined within the Constitution, whereas even one second old infants can participate in rights of speech or religion, since the infant's cry IS the communication to the parent the baby needs something and and infant can be christened in a church. The same is not true of the unborn, which is how we know they are not constitutional persons.
Please stop insulting the intelligence of the readers by misrepresenting the arguments of others. It is a waste of time to do such anyway with me, because I will not let you get away with your asinine misrepresentations of my arguments.

reply from: Antibigot

Do you have a problem calling Wal-mart Wal-mart? Would you call Wal-mart Sears? What is the problem with calling a thing by its name?
A fetus isn't a person whether you kill it or not.
It violates the mother's choice to carry a pregnancy to term. Do you really want to see more Laci Petersens in our society? I don't.
And a fetus isn't a person with rights, unless you can demonstrate a fetus has the ability to participate in constitutional rights such as free speech or exercise of religion. Is there really any reason to give a fetus a right to a fair trial?
You seem to be igoring my actual question. Why is it called HOMICIDE when a fetus is killed against the mother's wishes? I though homicide only applies to the born! Homicide means the killing of a person, doesn't it? So, why is it called HOMICIDE if the fetus is not a person? Isn't that hypocritical?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

So is a 8 week old embryo outside the body a person? If so, then the doctor has no right to kill it. But because it's dismembered inside the uterus it's okay? It's an embryo's arm when it's disconnected from its body inside the woman, but as its sucked out, it becomes a person's arm?
If "outside the womb = person", then it is half of a person during normal childbirth? Or does ALL of it become a person if PART of it is outside the womb? Wouldn't that confer personhood on the embryo the moment its arm was torn from its body and removed? Or does it only count if its bodyparts are still connected?
Furthermore, this means that you MUST support laws to protect the results of botched abortions where the child is born alive, because according to your own logic it is now a person, and killing it is murder.
But here's a situation for you. You know that humans cannot breath underwater. If you drop a baby into a lake, you will have murdered it, yes? Well, you also know that removing a baby from the womb before viability will kill it. So if you remove it whole and alive, it dies... and since it is a person because it's outside the body and dies as a person, you have now murdered it. Even if it had no chance to survive outside of the body. It still died as a person. How do you prevent this murder? Don't throw the baby in the lake! Don't abort.
Oh, but with early term abortions you avoid this conundrum by dismembering the child as you remove it. Ha ha.

reply from: fetalisa

How would I know? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feticide is the correct term, but I call it what everyone else calls it, so I can be sure folks will know of what I speak.

reply from: fetalisa

If it is born, there is no question it is a person, although an 8 week old fetus can not survive outside the womb, so wouldn't live for long.
Absolutely.
I have never heard of anyone birthing an arm.
It depends on the country. Is it Canada where it isn't considered a person until the umbilical chord is cut?
I don't know the law in the kind of detail you are asking. I only know that personhood is recognized at birth, as it should be. Otherwise the tampon police could look for murdered 'people' on a spent Tampax.
How can a body part be a person?
All I know is, if it has exited the womb it is a person. If it hasn't, it is not a person. You know, I am surprised to see your confusion. This has been the case with personhood across numerous societies throughout history. This is hardly some new-fangled, never before heard of idea. You must not get out much.
Oh please, I must do no such thing. I support better techniques to prevent them from being born alive in the first place, which, when you think about it, is the entire point of abortion anyway. It's not that big of a deal, really. The cases where this occurs is an infinitesimal percentage.
It's the law.
Not necessarily. The baby will float. It could well continue living.
Abort in the womb. Problem solved.
See above.
I solved your issue several responses up, which means your conclusion does not follow from your premises.
Who cares how it is done, as long as it is done legally and successfully with infinitesimal risk to the mother?

reply from: fetalisa

If it is born, there is no question it is a person, although an 8 week old fetus can not survive outside the womb, so wouldn't live for long.
Absolutely.
I have never heard of anyone birthing an arm.
It depends on the country. Is it Canada where it isn't considered a person until the umbilical chord is cut?
I don't know the law in the kind of detail you are asking. I only know that personhood is recognized at birth, as it should be. Otherwise the tampon police could look for murdered 'people' on a spent Tampax.
How can a body part be a person?
All I know is, if it has exited the womb it is a person. If it hasn't, it is not a person. You know, I am surprised to see your confusion. This has been the case with personhood across numerous societies throughout history. This is hardly some new-fangled, never before heard of idea. You must not get out much.
Oh please, I must do no such thing. I support better techniques to prevent them from being born alive in the first place, which, when you think about it, is the entire point of abortion anyway. It's not that big of a deal, really. The cases where this occurs is an infinitesimal percentage.
It's the law.
Not necessarily. The baby will float. It could well continue living.
Abort in the womb. Problem solved.
See above.
I solved your issue several responses up, which means your conclusion does not follow from your premises.
Who cares how it is done, as long as it is done legally and successfully with infinitesimal risk to the mother?

reply from: BossMomma

If it is born, there is no question it is a person, although an 8 week old fetus can not survive outside the womb, so wouldn't live for long.
Absolutely.
I have never heard of anyone birthing an arm.
It depends on the country. Is it Canada where it isn't considered a person until the umbilical chord is cut?
I don't know the law in the kind of detail you are asking. I only know that personhood is recognized at birth, as it should be. Otherwise the tampon police could look for murdered 'people' on a spent Tampax.
How can a body part be a person?
All I know is, if it has exited the womb it is a person. If it hasn't, it is not a person. You know, I am surprised to see your confusion. This has been the case with personhood across numerous societies throughout history. This is hardly some new-fangled, never before heard of idea. You must not get out much.
Oh please, I must do no such thing. I support better techniques to prevent them from being born alive in the first place, which, when you think about it, is the entire point of abortion anyway. It's not that big of a deal, really. The cases where this occurs is an infinitesimal percentage.
It's the law.
Not necessarily. The baby will float. It could well continue living.
Abort in the womb. Problem solved.
See above.
I solved your issue several responses up, which means your conclusion does not follow from your premises.
Who cares how it is done, as long as it is done legally and successfully with infinitesimal risk to the mother?
It does matter. The majority of abortions done have not one thing to do with maternal health. And with the technology today pre-term babies are saved earlier and earlier and if the woman is in emenant danger if the pregnancy is not ended it makes more sense to remove the baby via c-section rather than leave her in danger for another 2 days to dilate her and destroy the child. For rape I support RU486 which prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus and therefore prevents pregnancy. Abortion for most intents and purposes are for the convenience of the woman, not her health and no one's life style is to die for.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Wow Fetalista. Your contradictions are so hilarious that I'm not even going to bother replying. You actually think that a few centimeters of skin makes a person NOT a person. You think a few inches of birth canal makes a baby NOT a baby. Or is it the supposed fact that it is inside the woman and attached to her that makes the difference? That used to matter to me, and then I realised how dumb it was. Because IT didn't put itself in there. But it needs to be there to live. The fact that it is inside of her doesn't remove any of her rights. I'm sorry, but I just don't get the "she has a right to not be pregnant" bull anymore.

reply from: fetalisa

The contents of the uterus of another is not your business. Get over yourself.
Not true. There is no way possible for an 8 week old fetus to survive outside the womb. If there were, it would be viable.
I am absolutely sure a doctor is far more qualified to make that decision than you are.
That's her business, not yours.

reply from: fetalisa

How is it possible for me to quote you if you did not reply?
That's legal FACT.
Babies are counted in a census, as all persons are.
It's legal FACT.
What is dumb is to treat women as brood mares.
Weeds don't put themselves in your front yard either. You can still kill them, because they are non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons.
You argue for special rights for the unborn that even the born do not possess. You have no right whatsoever to the use of ANY of my organs without my consent, even though you might die without it. If a person has no rights to use my organs without my consent, then neither does an unborn. Fair is fair.
The fact that it is inside of her does not remove her right of bodily autonomy, no more than if you will die without my kidney, does not give you the right to use or have my kidney without my consent.
Who cares? 68% of Colorado voters agree the unborn are not persons, which makes your views far outside the mainstream, not mine.

reply from: CharlesD

The killing of other people is my business.
Oh, wait a minute, if Roe says that the unborn can be killed, then it must be ok. The Supreme Court can't be wrong, can it?
Were blacks in 1860 only actually 3/5 of a person because the Court said so? Could it be that the Court was wrong then? If it was wrong then, could it be wrong again?

reply from: BossMomma

The contents of the uterus of another is not your business. Get over yourself.
Not true. There is no way possible for an 8 week old fetus to survive outside the womb. If there were, it would be viable.
I am absolutely sure a doctor is far more qualified to make that decision than you are.
That's her business, not yours.
Back in the 20's if your husband had decided to beat the hell out of you that would've been his business, no one elses. Amazing the good that comes from poking your nose in other peoples business. It's now illegal to beat your spouse, maybe next it'll be illegal to kill your children in utero.

reply from: lukesmom

Do you think at all before you post? Babies cry, which is what lets the parents know the baby needs something. That IS speech. It IS communication, without which, rates of infant survival would be far lower. Additionally, have you never seen an infant christened in a church? Do you not know 8 day old Jewish males are circumcised in a religious ceremony known as a bris? Isn't it blatantly obvious to all but an utter fool that even infants CAN and DO have the ability to participate in constitutional rights such as speech or religion?
Actually some babies don't cry. Don't you "think" before you post? Lots of preemies don't make a sound. My son, Luke, didn't cry. I don't read minds and you keep qualifying what you say. Can you make a statement and actually stick with it. It's kinda like playing a game with a 3 yr old who keeps making up and changing the rules. Very confusing.
Sure they do. Their personhood is established by fact of their birth.
Ok, now you say they don't have to actually communicate, just be born. What about abortions where the child is born alive, is he/she a person?
Their personhood is established by fact of their birth.
see above question.
What do persons with mental handicaps, or the Terri Schaivo's of the world have to do with the personhood of zygotes, embryos and fetuses? The personhood of the born is not in dispute here. The question is do zefs meet the definition of person as found in the Constitution? We need not ask the same question of the mentally handicapped or the Terri Schiavo's since their personhood is legal FACT due to their birth.
No, a, as you call it, zef is a living person in early developement. You are not elderly. What if the supreme court made a ruling that no one under the age of 55 deserved to live because they had not reached the developement stage of elderly? Yup, it is the law so it is "right" by societies standards and too bad about anyone who doesn't meet the the legal developemental stage.
It is physically impossible for the unborn to participate in a single right outlined within the Constitution, whereas even one second old infants can participate in rights of speech or religion, since the infant's cry IS the communication to the parent the baby needs something and and infant can be christened in a church. The same is not true of the unborn, which is how we know they are not constitutional persons.
Again, many newborns don't cry. My son never cried and he was a person by government standards as we were allowed to deduct him on our taxes.
Please stop insulting the intelligence of the readers by misrepresenting the arguments of others. It is a waste of time to do such anyway with me, because I will not let you get away with your asinine misrepresentations of my arguments.
I am sorry you feel your intelligence was in question. I never questioned it. Could it be you yourself have some doubts to your own intelligence shown by your spewing of the same rhetoric that makes no sense and defies any logic whatso ever. Then when asked any kind of question become insulting and unable to answer with anything but what has already been regurgitated by yourself.

reply from: CharlesD

In the interest of being PC, you must now refer to them as Feline-Americans.

reply from: BossMomma

In the interest of being PC, you must now refer to them as Feline-Americans.
LOL Maybe they can start the Feline American College fund.

reply from: lukesmom

In the interest of being PC, you must now refer to them as Feline-Americans.
LOL Maybe they can start the Feline American College fund.
Since they are feline persons, they are all tax deductable. You are going to get a HUGE break on your taxes this year! I gotta get a pregnant pet or pet-human. Can you call them that without it being discrimination?

reply from: BossMomma

In the interest of being PC, you must now refer to them as Feline-Americans.
LOL Maybe they can start the Feline American College fund.
Since they are feline persons, they are all tax deductable. You are going to get a HUGE break on your taxes this year! I gotta get a pregnant pet or pet-human. Can you call them that without it being discrimination?
You can adopt meee! (joking)

reply from: lukesmom

I may not have to! I am sitting here looking at our dog Milo. He was born, obviously, and he communicates by barking or whinning if he wants to go out or come in. Therefore, he meets all of fetalisa's requirements to be a person. I believe he must be a canine-american and would therefore be tax deductable AND as he is an adult in dog years, he can register to vote. I am going to have to educate him about the candidates before Tue! Bet he votes prolife!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

lmao!!1 This is ridiculous XD

reply from: lukesmom

From the ridiculous to the sublime. shrug.

reply from: CharlesD

ACORN could probably get him registered.

reply from: BossMomma

In the interest of being PC, you must now refer to them as Feline-Americans.
Yes, according to our Constitution, they are all "citizens" if we accept Lisa's definition for "person," aren't they? I suppose they may legally sue me if they are appointed a guardian ad litem, as is the practice in cases where the litigant is unable to act in their own best interests....Perhaps I should be more careful in the future.
might want to get momma spayed lol.

reply from: fetalisa

Yet, even if a preemie can't cry, it can still participate in religious ceremonies such as a christening. For the unborn, such is impossible and always will be impossible.
Let me see if I can put it in simple enough terms for you to understand, in the hopes you will actually be able to grasp the points under discussion:
1. born+can't speak=person by fact of birth
2. unborn and can't speak=lack of personhood due to lack of birth PLUS not a constitutional person because it is physically impossible to exercise a single right outlined in the constitution, no different than rocks or weeds, for which it is also physically impossible to participate in a single right outlined within the Constitution.
If it has exited the womb it is a person, which makes it all the more imperative to kill it in the womb.
1. born+can't speak-person by fact of birth
2. unborn and can't speak=lack of personhood due to lack of birth PLUS not a constitutional person because it is physically impossible to exercise a single right outlined in the constitution, no different than rocks or weeds, for which it is also physically impossible to participate in a single right outlined within the Constitution.
But not a constitutional person because it is physically impossible for the unborn to exercise a single right outlined in the Constitution. We might wish to note it is physically impossible for a rock or a weed to exercise a single right outlined in the Constitution, which is how we know rocks or weeds aren't constitutional persons either. It is absurd to suggest we grant constitutional personhood to entities such as zygotes, embryos, fetuses, rocks or weeds, when the granting of such rights would be 100% useless and meaningless. Demonstrate how an unborn can participate in rights of free speech or religion, if you care to argue otherwise.
That is against the Constitution, which states persons have a right to life.
The difference you point out here is hardly minor. The entire question hinges on that one fact. Having not been born, it is physically impossible for them to participate in a single right outlined within the Constitution. Don't you think it absurd to grant rights to unborns that have no physical ability to use said rights? Please feel free to demonstrate how a zygote, embryo or fetus can participate in rights such as free speech or exercise of religion, should you disagree.
Stating that the Terry Schiavo's of the world also can't participate in such rights, is a red herring, since she was a person with a right to life, even once her sentience and consciousness was obliterated. Being born, she was a person regardless.
Arguing that tomorrow the courts could decide those under age 55 aren't persons is also a red herring, since such a ruling would be unconstitutional.
If they are born, they are a person. If they are not born, they are not persons. Until you can demonstrate the point of granting rights in participation of free speech or religion to entities such as the unborn, rocks or weeds, our society has no logical reason whatsoever to change it either.
Your personally chosen and personally held opinions that an embryo no larger than a period at the end of this sentence is a person, is yours and yours alone. None in our society are obligated to live by such hair-brained ideas. The voters of Colorado get it whether you do or not.

reply from: fetalisa

Cite a real-life, real word example of the above happening.
The fact you must resort to such illogical nonsense to back up your point should tell you something.
Cite a real-life, real word example of the above happening.
Look back through history and you will see that is the case. This is not some new-fnagled never before heard of idea, no matter how much you pretend so.
Obviously not, since we can abort them at will.
I am happy that you can take a comment I made to another poster, and take it completely out of context, to somehow support the forced birth movement or forced birth argument. I suppose that's better than asking questions about shoving newborns back into a woman's uterus. If that's the best you can do, that's the best you can do, I suppose.

reply from: fetalisa

Given the point of a census is to count persons and the unborn aren't counted, it is a perfect example of how our society does not recognize the unborn as persons. It's no different with the woman who claimed she shouldn't pay a fine for driving in the HOV lane since she had two 'people' in the car, her and her fetus. There are many such examples that prove our society does not now, and never has considered the unborn as persons.
Pity you can't refute the FACT the unborn aren't counted in a census as the born are.
We issue death certificates for persons. We do not issue death certificates for the unborn. It's just another example that proves our society does not now, nor has it ever, recognized the unborn as persons.
When did you defeat any of my arguments? When I make the case the unborn are non-sentient and non-conscious, you then say that means I would support killing the Terry Schiavo's of the world. I point she has a right to life by fact of her birth, which the unborn do not. You can't even refute one point of mine, unless one considers resorting to Random House definitions of having any sway at all in our society.
Don't flatter yourself. I post here when I have a slow work period. Once I get busy again, you won't see me for awhile.

reply from: fetalisa

You can deny the legal FACT all you wish, but the Roe judges found no precedent in history where the 14th Amendment could be applied to the unborn and this after having admitted that all other uses of the word 'person' as found in the Constitution, could only have application post-natally:
" The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [n51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [n52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."
"But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word (person) is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. [n54] [p158]"
Can you cite a real-life example where someone was appointed guardian ad litem of an unborn? Because I can most certainly post cases wherein http://www.sentinel.org/node/9545, as this linked case proves, wherein a "court unanimously upheld a woman's decision to kill six frozen embryos by thawing, despite an appeal by the husband to keep them alive." Now if the woman's ex-husband can't gain control of frozen embryos, how in the world could you, as an outsider to such a family, be appointed guardian of them?

reply from: lukesmom

As you can see, the lowest IQ non US citizens support Democrats.


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