Home - List All Discussions

Ridding America of Nosy & Offensive Clinic Protestors

Why Hasn't Anyone Thought Of This Before?

by: fetalisa

After giving this issue much thought, I believe I have stumbled upon a way to get the forced birthers to stop protesting at abortion clinics and once again mind their own business instead of the business of others, which was never their concern in the first place.
I propose a legal contract, that is already filled out, except for a few blank spaces for two names and dates, as well as blank spaces for signatures. This contract provides for the following expenses:
All health care expenses related to the pregnancy
All health care expenses related to the birth
All health care expenses related to the future child from birth to age 18
All health insurance expenses related to the future child from birth to age 18
All food expenses associated with feeding the future child from birth to age 18
All school expenses related to educating the future child from birth to age 18, including paper, pens, pencils, crayons, books, social clubs, music lessons, sports participation, etc
All college expenses related to college education for the future child, including including paper, pens, pencils, books, social clubs, sports participation, tuition, etc
All clothing expenses for the future child from birth to age 18
All Halloween costumes for the future child from birth to age early teens (?)
All car expenses including purchase of car, car insurance, gas, maintenance, etc for when the future child gets a driver's license.
All gift expenses for the future child from birth to age 18, including xmas, birthdays, etc.
Adoption is not an option since this contract will only be provided to women who wish to abort and have no desire to endure a 9 month long pregnancy (Thanks lukesmom!)
If I left out any child-raising expenses, please let me know.
This is how the contract would work. A woman, let's call her Miss Notyer Business, contacts Planned Parenthood to schedule an abortion. She is informed that she will have to walk past the nosy and offensive clinic protesters in order to enter the clinic. Planned Parenthood then mails the contract to Miss Notyer Business.
Sure enough, as Miss Business pulls up to the clinic on the appointed day and time, she sees people with offensive posters of assumed aborted fetuses, crosses on the necks of everyone and bibles at the ready with which to knock others over the head. Miss Business actually begins to laugh, because she knows Planned Parenthood prepared her well. So Miss Business grabs her contract that PP mailed to her and a pen, then walks up to the clinic.
A protestor, named Mynosa Inyerutera, (Catholic I presume) walks up to Miss Business and begins to plead with her not to have an abortion, telling her abortions give God gas and make the baby Jeebus cry. Besides, abortion will cause hair growth on her nipples, increase her risk of pancreas cancer 1098% and leave her depressed for the next 85 years of her life.
Miss Business then says to Mrs. Mynosa Inyerutera, "ok, fine. I won't abort my embryo/fetus/whatever, but only on one condition. That is that you sign this contract, agreeing to pay for all expenses of the pregnancy, birth, healthcare, food, education, college education, car, etc for my future child to be. I mean, it is only fair that, since it is you who wish for me to have this child, then you most certainly should be willing to pay for it."
BAM! Problem solved. There is no longer any point whatsoever in protesting at abortion clinics. And everyone gets their noses back into their own business, instead of poking them into the uteruses of others.
So what do you think? Would it work? What needs to be improved? Did I miss any child raising expenses that should be added to the contract?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

The biological mom and dad have already signed that contract when they conceive a child. I've referred to this contract many times.

reply from: fetalisa

That is your personally chosen, personally held moral opinion, which no others in our society are obligated to follow. It is a matter of fact that sex and birth no longer go necessarily go hand in hand and haven't since the invention of birth control in the last century. That's precisely why you can't cite any law which states sex MUST end in pregnancy, outside of your own personally chosen and personally held moral opinions, which none in our society are obligated to live with.

reply from: lukesmom

This so called contract is pretty laughable and there are thousands of people who would pay for all the pregnant mother's living expenses, prenatal care and labor and delivery just so they can adopt her child. Then they will pay for all that child's expenses until age 18 and most likely beyond same as any other parent. Would I personally do that too? Yup, you bet I would and so would many on this boad and many have. Heck, Galen just did and others here are looking into fostering and possibly adopting. They are all much better humans than you are showing yourself to be here.
BTW there is a huge list of parents just dying waiting for a contract to adopt and support another woman's child.

reply from: sheri

Sounds like a hostage situation, "give me money or the kid gets it!".

reply from: sheri

Fecalisa, how many abortions have you had/paid for?

reply from: fetalisa

It's all about responsibility. If you wish for another to birth rather than abort, then you should be fully prepared to pay the costs of that decision.

reply from: scopia19822

It's all about responsibility. If you wish for another to birth rather than abort, then you should be fully prepared to pay the costs of that decision.
If she is referred to a CPC they can give her referrals to maternity homes and adoption agenicies where her expenses will be paid if she doesnt want to parent. What about the case where she doesnt want the child and the father does shouldnt he have some say over what happens to his child? IMO its blantantly wrong that he cant have a say in whether or not his child is aborted, but if she chooses to carry the child, he is obligated to pay child support, very sexist. And i do think a man should support his child. Would you have a problem with a man filing a court order to prohibit the abortion and be granted immdiate custody upon birth if he paid all of her medical expenses and compensated her for her "inconviencance"? I mean she in that case would make a profit, say of $10,000-20,000. much like a woman hired to be a surrogate. Of course their would be legalities to consider, but I think the offer of money would be enough to get her not to choose abortion.

reply from: JRH

The contract is not for adoption. The woman keeps the child and the other person pays for all expenses.

reply from: lukesmom

The contract is not for adoption. The woman keeps the child and the other person pays for all expenses.
Why should the mother keep the child? She is on her way to hire someone to kill it for her. If a mother attempts to kill her born child and fails, is the child given back to her? No. You can't have it both ways. All of us are more than willing to meet the conditions of your so called contract and no where does it say the child couldn't be adopted. You would rather kill the child than let another provide for it? Sick.

reply from: fetalisa

Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not children. Children are counted in a census, whereas zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not.
Killing a child is illegal.
Sure you can. Killing zygotes, embryos and fetuses is legal, because zefs are neither children nor persons.
You should be willing to pay all expenses of birthing and raising a child if you insist some other woman bear that child rather than abort. It is only fair.
Thanks for pointing out a loophole in the contract. I will fix it.
Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons, which is why it is perfectly legal to kill them. It is no different than killing a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person, in the form of a weed in your yard.

reply from: fetalisa

Zero. How many non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons have you participated in or paid to kill? I hope you felt neither guilt nor remorse, as is the norm in our society whenever we kill non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons, such as weeds, bugs, zygotes, embryos or fetuses.

reply from: fetalisa

The contract has been amended to exclude adoption and will be given only to those women who wish to abort the fetus.

reply from: fetalisa

Deleted due to posting error.

reply from: CharlesD

Not yet. At least not since 1973.

reply from: fetalisa

Abortion kills zygotes, embryos and fetuses, not children. Children are counted in a census as all persons are. Zefs are not counted in a census, since they aren't persons.

reply from: CharlesD

Well, I'm not going down the whole personhood road again, since that argument has already been adequately made by more than one of us on here. Let's define some other terms while we're at it.
zygote-An unborn person in the earliest stage of development.
embryo-An unborn person up to the end of the second month of pregnancy.
fetus-An unborn person from beyond the second month until birth.
infant-That same person right after birth.
You went through all of these stages yourself. You were a person throughout all of them.

reply from: CharlesD

That's the first think you've said in a long time that I've actually agreed with. It would be hard to argue with that definition.
I would hope that person would have the chance to go through all of the other stages before getting to that one though, but sadly not everyone gets that chance.

reply from: fetalisa

That's because you bailed on it and refused to answer the question of the constitutional authors intent, after stating you read the Constitution with the authors intent in mind. It is almost as if you were lying.
The above definitions exist only in your mind. It is illegal to kill persons but legal to kill non-persons such as zygotes, embryos and fetuses. Therefore, the above definitions are nothing but your personally held and personally chosen fantasies that none in our society are obligated to follow.
Yet, had I been aborted, none on the planet would have known the difference, including me. So where is the harm in abortion?
1. The above is a copyright violation because you failed to quote the source for someone else's copywritten material that you do not own. If you care anything at all about the websites on which you post and this website in particular, you will immediately cite and post the source of this definition. It is considered rather rude and could possibly be a violation of the terms of use of this site, to post copywritten material without quoting the source. It is wise not to jeopardize the internet sites you visit with lawbreaking which could possibly expose the site owners to legal liability.
2. How can a person who claims to have the IQ that you claim, think that Random House definitions have any sway at all in defining personhood, which will inevitably be coupled with law? What you need here is a legal dictionary in order to clear up your own confusion.

reply from: CharlesD

Don't get me wrong, I look forward to heaven, but most of the time I rather enjoy my life here as well. Maybe I am fortunate, but going to heaven will be a transition from a good place to a better one. I would not want to deny anyone the opportunities that I have had. Maybe someone who has had a lousy life would think differently, but that's how I see it, if you want to look at it from a theological perspective. A belief that abortion is wrong goes beyond theology, however. Heaven being a pretty good place to end up does not take away from the opportunities this life presents.
Now I can almost guess what you will say in response to that. "Killing the fetus will guarantee it a trip to heaven while if it lives there is a chance it won't become a believer and it might end up in hell." Am I close? I believe you have used that argument before, probably just to bait a Christian because you seem to take great joy in doing that. You can thank me. I posted your argument for you to save you the effort of having to type it yourself. Aren't I generous? But in reality that argument is nothing but a diversionary tactic. What might or might not happen in the life of that child is irrelevant to whether or not it deserves to be given the chance to live.

reply from: carolemarie

Because having the abortion does something to the person who chooses it, usually not a positive change. Abortion means you have decided that you are more important than another persons life. Usually that is consider a really bad way to think, that you should have the right to kill other people who inconveniece or threaten you in some way.
It goes against the moral code of most people. Including the provider of the service. Do no harm is the first rule....

reply from: CharlesD

Where do I start? So it's a copyright violation to quote a dictionary? Those definitions can be found in Webster's, Oxford, and probably a few others. They are pretty standard definitions.
Now how can you say that I refused to answer that question? I went to great length do describe how the Constitution does not define personhood. The writers were simply using the word person to mean human being. Since I am rather lazy at the moment, I will include the following that I wrote regarding the 14th amendment. The entire post is a couple pages back at the moment. You're welcome to read the entire thing if you so choose.
See, personhood is not defined by the Constitution. The term is used, but not defined. The writers did not define which humans that term does and does not apply to. A literal reading does not indicate anywhere that the term person does not apply to the unborn. Neither does it specify that it does. The Constitution does not deny personhood to any particular group of humans, so any subsequent ruling that does so is reading into the Constitution something that simply isn't there. I don't think I'm the one who's confused.

reply from: CharlesD

It has been used on here recently and I thought it was one of yours. It seemed like something you would have said either way.
I do play chess, but it's been a while since I've played. I'm on the road too much. My wife prefers Scrabble, so that's usually what I find myself playing when I'm home.

reply from: JRH

Not nearly as much as you will enjoy heaven, though.
But going to hell is the worse thing that can happen. You already admitted than heaven is better than Earth. Why give peopl a chance to go to hell, which is the worst thing that can ever happen to them, when you can send them to the best possible place? What about Earth makes it work risking hell for?
You are ignoring hell. Living on Earth gives you the chance to go to hell, and most people are going there when they die. I can't believe you think Earthly pleasures are worth the risk of being tortured for all eternity.
Thats wrong CharlesD. I think that if the chance to live creates the chance one will be tortured forever it is better not to live on Earth and go to heaven. I repeat, what about Earth could possibly be worth exposing someone to that sort of risk? That child deserves the best we can give it.....and nothing is better than the glory of heaven.

reply from: JRH

It has been used on here recently and I thought it was one of yours. It seemed like something you would have said either way.
I do play chess, but it's been a while since I've played. I'm on the road too much. My wife prefers Scrabble, so that's usually what I find myself playing when I'm home.
Its my argument.

reply from: scopia19822

"Why should the mother keep the child? She is on her way to hire someone to kill it for her. If a mother attempts to kill her born child and fails, is the child given back to her? No. You can't have it both ways. All of us are more than willing to meet the conditions of your so called contract and no where does it say the child couldn't be adopted. You would rather kill the child than let another provide for "it? Sick. "
Sue, what can we expect from rabid proabortionist? To support this arguement to the extremes that they do, they have to devoid of compassion, empathy and downright humanity. Us prolifes can back up our stance on the humanity of the developing fetus strictly with secular scientific facts. When presented with such evidence they get so mad I expect them to start pulling thier hair out in clumps. Abortion is more profitiable than adoption, that abortionists has to have that new BMW and that million dollar house. Their logic is so warped, their is no word in the English language to describe them. Notice when we rebutted, their little screwed up "contract" , they changed it to suit their illogical stance? They have a script and if they have to deviate from it and actually think, they have a major temper tantrum.

reply from: JRH

I haint ever made me some big ol fancery arguement. I dun made me some arguments though.
Oh no, not thier hari. Without that they can't taeke Betty Joe to the prom.

reply from: JRH

The contract is not for adoption. The woman keeps the child and the other person pays for all expenses.
Why should the mother keep the child? She is on her way to hire someone to kill it for her. If a mother attempts to kill her born child and fails, is the child given back to her? No. You can't have it both ways. All of us are more than willing to meet the conditions of your so called contract and no where does it say the child couldn't be adopted. You would rather kill the child than let another provide for it? Sick.
I was just explaining to you what he meant dumb*****.

reply from: CharlesD

If I were never conceived, I would have never existed. If I had been killed after conception, whether or not anyone would miss me is irrelevant to the fact that I would have been wrongfully killed. The morality of that act is not dependent on me being missed.

reply from: CharlesD

Ok, sorry for the confusion. I knew I had read it on here recently but I couldn't recall which one of you had used it. You spend a bit of time on here and everything starts to run together, especially when certain arguments get used by more than one person. While I was typing that post I could almost see that response coming, so I just decided to address it within that post rather than wait for it to come up.

reply from: fetalisa

It is illegal to kill persons, but legal to kill all of the above, because none of the above are persons.
Yet, had I been aborted, none on the planet would ever have known the difference, including me, so where is the harm in abortion? Oh that's right, there is not harm in abortion.
per┬Ěson one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
(In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Retrieved October 31, 2008, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person)

reply from: fetalisa

Sure it is. There are 48 instances where the word 'person' or 'persons' appears within the Constitution. NONE of those 48 instances could possibly be construed to apply to the unborn, which is why zefs are not constitutional persons.
In what possible way could constitutional rights such as free speech, practice of religion or the right to a fair trial apply to one not born? Oh, that's right. There is NO WAY AT ALL any of the constitutional rights could apply to those not born, which is precisely how we know the Constitution does not address the unborn, nor did the authors of the Constitution INTEND to address the unborn, which is precisely why they are not considered persons in our society and may freely kill them via abortion without guilt, shame or remorse, no different than killing bugs or weeds.
Now, if you claim zefs are persons, then you need offer some evidence as to how we may legally kill them at will via abortion, when it is blatantly obvious our society bans the killing of persons.
If the above is true, then please explain how a zygote, embryo or fetus has a right to a fair trial? You claim zefs are innocent, which also implies one could be guilty. So how do we put a zef on the witness stand? Would we pull it out of the uterus, but leave it attached to the umbilical chord so that it might swear on a bible and then testify in court?
Given your claim that zefs are persons. which implies a right to free speech, is it legal for a zef to shout 'FIRE!" in a theater? How do you suggest a 'person' in the form of a zef would be able to do such?
Given your claim that zefs are persons, that implies a right to free association. In what manner might a zef exercise such a right? Could we get 5 pregnant women together, pull the zefs from each uterus, while leaving the umbilical chords attached so that the 5 zefs might freely associate by playing with each other?
Are you so blinded by your own minority fringe crackpot ideology that you can not see the utterly nonsensical and extreme absurdity of your claim the Constitution could possibly apply to zefs, because the scenarios above demonstrate exactly your implications that zefs could possibly be constitutional persons. Do you think I am the only citizen of this country who can see the abject stupidity of your claims? The public is not that stupid, which is why abortion is still legal 35 years after Roe.
Then why do you repeatedly refuse to answer the questions as to how a right of free speech could possibly apply to a zef? Why do you not answer the question as to how a right to a fair trial could possibly apply to a zef? Why do you not answer the question as to how a right to free association could possibly apply to a zef? Do you think I am the only citizen of this country aware of the fact we would have to pitch the Constitution into the garbage can in order for you to enact your thoughtless utopia, since it is physically impossible for a zef to participate in a single right outlined within the constitution?
One can easily determine what is meant by the word 'person' as found in the Constitution by noting the context in which it is used. The context clearly shows zefs are not addressed and were not intended to be address by the authors of the constitution, which is why we do not consider zefs to be person and never have in the entire history of our country.
Then explain how constitutional rights such as free speech, practice of religion or the right to a fair trail could possibly have any application whatsoever to those not yet born.
Your arguments make as much sense as suggesting a rock or a weed is a person, since rocks or weeds have no more ability to exercise a right of free speech or religion or to a fair trial than a zygote, embryo or fetus does.

reply from: CharlesD

The ability to exercise a right is not what defines whether nor not someone has that right. I would think that would be patently obvious. Do my wife and I not have the right to have children because we have been unable to conceive? Our lack of ability does not take away the right.
And once again, there is no wording in the Constitution that specifically denies personhood to the unborn and no legal precedent for such a definition. Period. How much more clear can I make it?
Plenty of women feel remorse after an abortion. If you feel no remorse at all over the killing of innocent human persons, then you are colder than I thought. That is downright disturbing.

reply from: CharlesD

Oops. Note to CP. I posted that without reading all the way down in the thread and missed your response, so my post would seem to be a bid redundant since you already made the same points. A quite adequate and airtight job you did as well.

reply from: fetalisa

That's only because we fixed the laws that allowed the crackpot extremists on the outer fringes of society to block clinic entrances.
Miss Business is not making demands. She merely extends an offer, even though you detest the fact of what her offer demonstrates, which is the fact you forced birthers wish to make decisions for others, for which you yourselves will not be held financially responsible.
Your Random House definitions have no bearing whatsoever on the legal FACT abortion is legal because zefs aren't constitutional persons. For all practical purposes, in NOT being constitutional persons, they aren't persons in our society period, which is why abortion is legal after 35 years of trotting out Random House definitions.
We don't count non-persons, such as rocks, weeds, zygotes, embryos or fetuses in a census.
If they were persons, it would be illegal to abort them. Since they are not persons, it is perfectly legal to abort them and abort them we do, if we so choose.
Which is the only logical option, unless you can demonstrate it possible for zefs to participate in constitutional rights such as speech or religion. Zefs could no more participate in such rights than a rock or a weed could.
The effect is the same, which is why abortion is legal. Zefs aren't persons.
How can a zef be 'innocent?' Can a zef also be 'guilty?' If a zef can be innocent, then a zef could also be guilty. How can a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person be either innocent or guilty? Innocent implies taking right action, while guilty implies taking wrong action. Since zefs lack sentience, no ability to do either right or wrong exists. Zefs can no more be 'innocent' than a rock or weed could be 'innocent.'
They represent the wet dream of the forced birth movement, which is to control every aspect of women's sexuality, in order to keep them barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, as your invisible sky daddy allegedly prefers, while masquerading as altruistic care and concern for a 'person' no larger than the period at the end of this sentence.
Hardly, otherwise it would be illegal to abort them.
No different than a weed or a mosquito, which we do not mourn whenever we kill them either.
When have I ever claimed "consciousness/sentience is what makes an entity a "person?" I am the first to admit Schiavo was a person, even though her sentience and consciousness was gone once her brains had liquified. She was still a person by fact of her birth, whether her sentience or consciousness existed or not.
Rather than make up arguments I never posited, such as "consciousness/sentience is what makes an entity a "person," and then arguing against it, why not instead argue against what I actually stated? I mean if you wish to risk looking like a fool to others, you do have that right.
Miss Business is merely saying, here's the deal, take it or leave it. If you wish for me not to abort, then you need to be willing to pay the financial consequences of such a decision.
Miss Business is merely saying she will do as you wish her to, as long as you pay for it. Is such a simple concept that difficult for your to grasp?
Can you, by force of law, force Miss Business to spend $150k on a house? If not, then how can you, by law, force Miss Business to spend 150k on raising a child? Miss Business wants to discover how badly you are against abortion and wishes to know if you will put your money where your mouth is.
All laws have exceptions, this is true.
How could I have been harmed, had I been aborted, when I lacked the sentience or consciousness to know what was occurring?
Because it wasn't meant to be due to circumstance.
Proof? This contradicts a legal precedent of 35 years standing. If what you say is true (and I wont' believe it without a source), the only reason such a law could exist, is because it hasn't been tested by the courts.
It's not confusing at all. If a woman aborts, it isn't prosecutable, because she chose it. If someone else chooses it for her, denying her the right of choice, it IS prosecutable, as the fetal homicide laws prove.
They should likewise prosecute those who would prevent her from aborting and the penalties should be just as strong as the example you cite above.
Why don't you visit the website of a legal dictionary and shoot them an email with this question?
That's the dumbest thing I have ever seen. Oh well, once all of the doctors have been sued out of existence, we will know who to blame.
How do you suggest we put a zygote, embryo or fetus on the witness stand to testify in court? How does a zef swear on a bible before testifying?
The 14th Amendment does not apply and couldn't apply, unless you can demonstrate zefs have the means to pursue liberty or own property.
It doesn't now and hasn't throughout history. Murder is universally banned by all societies throughout history. The same is not true with abortion.
The prime reason it is legal is because women have a right to bodily autonomy, without which, they are slaves. Why would we make women slaves to simple, mindless biological processes?
I have never made such a claim.
Obviously not. Lacking sentience and consciousness, zefs are incapable of either innocence or guilt, no different than a rock or a weed.
It is not a matter of whether the right is exercised or not. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for zefs to exercise ANY right outlined in the constitution, which is exactly why they are not persons. Would we grant legal personhood to a rock or a weed? OF COURSE NOT! Why grant rights to entities which have no ability whatsoever to exercise the rights? It's physically impossible for a rock or a weed or a zef to exercise rights of free speech or religion.
Because it is physically impossible for them to do so, which is why they are not persons.
How can a zef have a right to a fair trial, when, lacking both sentience and consciousness, they can be neither innocent nor guilty? Can a non-sentient, non-conscious rock or weed have a right to a fair trial?
It doesn't apply due to legal rulings in addition to the fact the suggestion that zefs can pursue liberty or property is nonsensical.

reply from: fetalisa

It is not about ability, but physical impossibility. Chimps have ability to communicate. That doesn't make them persons.
There's no wording in the Constitution that specifically denies personhood to chimpanzees or dolphins. How would you read the INTENT of the authors of the Constitution to determine whether they be persons or not?
The Roe v Wade decision IS the legal precedent which proves zefs are not persons.
Plenty feel remorse after buying Chryslers. Do we ban the sale of Chryslers?
Zefs aren't persons and can be neither innocent nor guilty, which requires sentience and concsiousness, which zefs lack. I also feel no guilt nor remorse when non-sentient, non-conscious non-persons such as weeds or mosquitos are killed either.
Why should I care how a member of the crackpot forced birth movement on the outermost fringes of society views me?

reply from: CharlesD

You have been shown how human beings are persons, in all stages of development, including some rather clear legal definitions and legal instances where the unborn have been defined as persons. Despite all that, you desperately cling to your assertion that personhood does not apply to the unborn. I don't know who would be the extremist here, but it certainly isn't me or CP. You can pull things out of the Constitution that aren't there all you want, but until it can be shown where the Constitution denies rights to certain humans, there is no basis for denying those rights. This horse is long dead and there really is no need to keep flogging it.

reply from: lukesmom

I carefully read through your responses, and it occurred to me that you have simply repeated the same claims and offered hollow denials of the rebuttals. You don't get any points for volume with no substance, dear. Come back when you have something substantial, but if the only thing that is important to you is the last word, I would not begrudge you that small pleasure!
I wonder if she knows anything beyond the arguement she has used over and over and over. I think she is just copying and pasting the same response. It has gotten rather boring.

reply from: lukesmom

The contract is not for adoption. The woman keeps the child and the other person pays for all expenses.
Why should the mother keep the child? She is on her way to hire someone to kill it for her. If a mother attempts to kill her born child and fails, is the child given back to her? No. You can't have it both ways. All of us are more than willing to meet the conditions of your so called contract and no where does it say the child couldn't be adopted. You would rather kill the child than let another provide for it? Sick.
I was just explaining to you what he meant dumb*****.
Being unable to comment intelligently and resorting to name calling reflects the true you and it isn't becoming. I respect a lot of posters here on both sides of the issue and I expect that respect in return. Unless you can post to me and others here respectfully I don't plan on bothering with you so save your fingers.

reply from: Rosalie

They'd never sign it. They don't care about anything except for a beating heart and a human DNA. That's what it's all about to them and they're not capable of understanding that it takes much more than that.

reply from: Rosalie

That might be your opinion and/or your experience. It doesn't mean it's the opinion/experience of everyone or even the majority of people who have had an abortion.
And while I don't know what your experience has been, in my experence the women who have decided to have an abortion have thought of more than 'just' themselves. They have had many people and matters to consider. It's not selfish to make an attempt to have a good life, to achieve a good living standard for you and your family. If you perceive that as selfish, then I'm proud to be selfish.

reply from: lukesmom

They'd never sign it. They don't care about anything except for a beating heart and a human DNA. That's what it's all about to them and they're not capable of understanding that it takes much more than that.
You have been here since August, talked with many of us, read our posts and still you don't understand. Have you read any of the prolifer's responses on this thread? Your generalizations and assumptions are totally wrong and I wonder why you haven't figured that out yet.

reply from: lukesmom

Yes it is if you have to end another human life to try to achieve this. Actually ridding yourself of the "burden" of your unborn child will not guarentee you will achieve a good living standard. You seem to have your priorities mixed up if the ending of another's life makes you proud of yourself.

reply from: Rosalie

I have been around for much longer than I have been a member here. I understand more than you think. I don't find most of you to be compassionate or good people.
And like I said in my posts from the other day, I was here just to check if anything's changed in YOUR attitude to women. Unfortunately, nothing's changed. You are so ready to call her a selfish slut who is being used by men, instead of actually trying to think outside the box. It is useless to debate with most of you on the internet - which is why I mostly concentrate on helping women in real life. My assumptions are NOT wrong, it is you who consider yourself pro-women and pro-baby when the most accurate term to describe your position is a term I read years ago on some website: pro-forced birth regardless of the consequences.

reply from: lukesmom

Never, ever have I ever called another woman or girl a "slut". In fact the thought hasn't crossed my mind here or in life ever. In fact, I could have been in thought of in that catagory. Please show me where I have even come close to saying that. I am sorry for you that you can't see beyond your proabort box. If you could, you would see how much prolife women and men do to help women and their families. You have made yourself blind with hate.

reply from: Rosalie

Tell me one thing, lukesmom. Is the fact that fetus has a human DNA and a beating heart a reason enough to not abort it and carry it to the term?
A simple yes or no will suffice. Thanks.

reply from: Rosalie

So many have, though, and I hardly see anyone here protesting. And that is my point.
If I see a 'pro-choicer" encouraging women to abort, I speak up. Because in that case, the person is not pro-choice, they are FORCING the woman to have an abortion, which is just as sick and wrong as what you'd like to do, i.e. FORCE the woman to carry to term, regardless of her beliefs, opinions or situation.
I do not HATE anyone, regarldess of how much you wish I do. If you believe I do, it's only because you project your own feelings of hatred on pro-choicers. I feel sorry for pro-lifers because I believe they are hurting women badly and I am trying to reverse what they are doing. I don't hate you, though. I never have. I think hate is a dangerous feeling. And that it is unhealthy. I don't hate you. I just think you are very wrong and I will do anything to reverse what you are trying to achieve.
What I want right now is a simple answer to my question: is the fact that a fetus has a human DNA and a beating heart a reason enough not to abort it or not? It is a yes/no question.

reply from: fetalisa

Based on Random House definitions, which have no bearing whatsoever on our law.
There is only one law, from Arkansas, with limited application, that has yet to be tested in the federal courts.
Given that persons have a right to life and can't be killed, while the unborn can be aborted, there is no desperation in stating the legal FACT the unborn aren't persons.
It is legal FACT the unborn aren't persons and have no right to life. The Roe decision is legal FACT on that finding and legal FACT it is the law of the land.
The Constitution does not exclude chimps and dolphins from personhood. You have yet to demonstrate how an unborn can participate in constitutional rights such as free speech or religion, which is why it is impossible for you to prove the INTENT of the authors of the Constitution was to address the unborn.
How is the horse dead when abortion is legal because the unborn aren't persons?

reply from: fetalisa

Keep projecting dear and pretending and wishing your Random House definitions have any bearing at all on the legal status of the unborn in our society. We can still abort because they still are not persons. Ask Colorado and it will all become clear. Why would we as a society welcome the tampon police and give them the legal right to search for dead 'persons' on every Tampax?

reply from: fetalisa

That is your personally held, personally chosen moral opinion that none in our society are obligated to follow.
Oh please! As if there are ever any guarantees in life.
You seem to have your priorities mixed up if you think poking your nose into the uterus of others is any of your business at all. If you don't like violent tv shows, change the channel. If you don't like being drunk, don't drink. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. What others watch, drink or abort, is not your business in any way, shape or form.

reply from: fetalisa

That's the forced birther standard party line.
BINGO! As if we will rob women of the right of bodily autonomy because of the wishes of a few crackpots on the extreme.

reply from: BossMomma

We already do, guess who pays for welfare assistance, College grants, work assistance programs, medical assistance. Our interest is still for the protection of the unborn.

reply from: BossMomma

It's all about responsibility. If you wish for another to birth rather than abort, then you should be fully prepared to pay the costs of that decision.
We already do, it's called welfare.

reply from: BossMomma

Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not children. Children are counted in a census, whereas zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not.
Killing a child is illegal.
Sure you can. Killing zygotes, embryos and fetuses is legal, because zefs are neither children nor persons.
You should be willing to pay all expenses of birthing and raising a child if you insist some other woman bear that child rather than abort. It is only fair.
Thanks for pointing out a loophole in the contract. I will fix it.
Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons, which is why it is perfectly legal to kill them. It is no different than killing a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person, in the form of a weed in your yard.
You are disgusting, an unborn child is a child. Location should not make the difference between life and death. An unborn child is not a weed in your yard, the 26 week old baby I had to bury was not a *****ing weed! Nor was Lukesmom's baby that never got to live. You are an insult to mothers anywhere.

reply from: JRH

I carefully read through your responses, and it occurred to me that you have simply repeated the same claims and offered hollow denials of the rebuttals. You don't get any points for volume with no substance, dear. Come back when you have something substantial, but if the only thing that is important to you is the last word, I would not begrudge you that small pleasure!
I notice that whenever you get seriously pwned you drop your arguments. I expect it from you.

reply from: lukesmom

Tell me one thing, lukesmom. Is the fact that fetus has a human DNA and a beating heart a reason enough to not abort it and carry it to the term?
A simple yes or no will suffice. Thanks.
My answer: a simple yes and actually a fetus is a human life before the heart startes beating at 5 weeks. Wondering why you would even ask since you profess to know all of us prolifers (on this forum if not every prolifer in the world) so well. I believe life begins at conception as there is life at the cellular level.

reply from: lukesmom

So much for your lurking. You must have missed it then because many of us have protested some of the name calling esp from one poster who loves to use the term "slut".
Good for you altho I believe I have heard "choicers" often state in cases of poor or terminal prenatal diagnoses the decision is between a woman and her MD which is laughable because the MD often encourages "termination". Nice pc term used with poor prenatal diagnosis. Oops gotta go and finish this later as my beeper went off.

reply from: Nulono

Why is it that this forum attracts the most Roebotic pro-choicers I've ever read‽

reply from: Nulono

Sorry, still getting used to this. :blush:

reply from: CharlesD

I don't know, but it does keep things rather lively around here. Welcome to the funny farm, by the way.

reply from: fetalisa

Do you think my life is over because of the opinion of the anonymous on web board?
If an unborn child was a real child, it would be illegal to kill them. If an unborn child was a real child, they would be counted in a census. In an unborn child was a real child, it would be able to participate in the exercise of constitutional rights, such as participate in religious ceremonies like a christening or a bris.
If I had been aborted, none on the planet, including you, me, or anyone else who posts on this website, would ever have known the difference. So tell me again what harm comes from abortion?
It is a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person, no different than a weed or a mosquito. If we have no guilt, remorse or shame in killing a weed or a mosquito, we should have no guilt, remorse or shame in killing an unborn.
First of all, I am sorry for your loss. Second of all, I never said it was a weed. I said it was a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person, just like a weed or mosquito. The fact it died demonstrates perfectly why we refer to the unborn as potential persons. Since so many things can go wrong during pregnancy, it is not a person until it makes it out of the womb alive.
Further, I don't see how a 26 week old fetus has much bearing on the abortion issue, given that 88% of all abortions occur by the 12th or 13th week after the last menstrual cycle.
You are perfectly free to your opinions, even if you base them on misrepresentations of the points of my arguments.

reply from: Antibigot

Do you think my life is over because of the opinion of the anonymous on web board?
If an unborn child was a real child, it would be illegal to kill them. If an unborn child was a real child, they would be counted in a census. In an unborn child was a real child, it would be able to participate in the exercise of constitutional rights, such as participate in religious ceremonies like a christening or a bris.
If I had been aborted, none on the planet, including you, me, or anyone else who posts on this website, would ever have known the difference. So tell me again what harm comes from abortion?
It is a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person, no different than a weed or a mosquito. If we have no guilt, remorse or shame in killing a weed or a mosquito, we should have no guilt, remorse or shame in killing an unborn.
First of all, I am sorry for your loss. Second of all, I never said it was a weed. I said it was a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person, just like a weed or mosquito. The fact it died demonstrates perfectly why we refer to the unborn as potential persons. Since so many things can go wrong during pregnancy, it is not a person until it makes it out of the womb alive.
Further, I don't see how a 26 week old fetus has much bearing on the abortion issue, given that 88% of all abortions occur by the 12th or 13th week after the last menstrual cycle.
You are perfectly free to your opinions, even if you base them on misrepresentations of the points of my arguments.
"If I had been aborted, none on the planet, including you, me, or anyone else who posts on this website, would ever have known the difference. So tell me again what harm comes from abortion?"
What harm? Well, abortion causes DEATH. If you had been born in secret and no one knew about your mother's pregnancy and you were killed after birth, would it also not matter?
"It is a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person, no different than a weed or a mosquito. If we have no guilt, remorse or shame in killing a weed or a mosquito, we should have no guilt, remorse or shame in killing an unborn."
An unborn what? It's an unborn HUMAN. Do you think that those with less sentience or consciousness are less of a person than those who have more sentience or consciousness? Are you also saying that women should never mourn over miscarriages or stillbirths?
"Since so many things can go wrong during pregnancy, it is not a person until it makes it out of the womb alive."
So many things can go wrong during AFTER birth, too. What about babies born with disabilities or babies born prematurely? What does that have to do with being a person or not?

reply from: fetalisa

When I swat a mosquito or pull a weed from the garden, those cause death too. Big whoop!
In that case, a murder has been committed and I would probably feel pain of the murder, whether it be by smothering, beating etc.
You missed the point here. How would the world be changed had I been aborted? You say I would be dead, but I wouldn't even have known I existed anyway, no different than when we kill a mosquito or a weed. So where is the harm in abortion?
And what effect does it have on the world if it dies? It's the same effect as if a mosquito or weed dies, which is NO effect.
The personhood of a born person is not in dispute here. Terry Schiavo had a right to life, even though both her consciousness and sentience were obliterated once her brains had liquified.
Nowhere did I say that. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out if a woman who wants to have a child miscarries or has a stillbirth, of course she will be sad due to those expectations not being met. Likewise, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, a woman who aborts an unborn, that doesn't want a child, will feel relief.
Because if a baby dies AFTER birth, it is still a person, although a dead one. An unborn who dies before birth, is not a person and never will be.

reply from: Antibigot

When I swat a mosquito or pull a weed from the garden, those cause death too. Big whoop!
In that case, a murder has been committed and I would probably feel pain of the murder, whether it be by smothering, beating etc.
You missed the point here. How would the world be changed had I been aborted? You say I would be dead, but I wouldn't even have known I existed anyway, no different than when we kill a mosquito or a weed. So where is the harm in abortion?
And what effect does it have on the world if it dies? It's the same effect as if a mosquito or weed dies, which is NO effect.
The personhood of a born person is not in dispute here. Terry Schiavo had a right to life, even though both her consciousness and sentience were obliterated once her brains had liquified.
Nowhere did I say that. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out if a woman who wants to have a child miscarries or has a stillbirth, of course she will be sad due to those expectations not being met. Likewise, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, a woman who aborts an unborn, that doesn't want a child, will feel relief.
Because if a baby dies AFTER birth, it is still a person, although a dead one. An unborn who dies before birth, is not a person and never will be.
"You missed the point here. How would the world be changed had I been aborted? You say I would be dead, but I wouldn't even have known I existed anyway, no different than when we kill a mosquito or a weed. So where is the harm in abortion?"
How would the world be changed if you had been killed as a newborn?
"Nowhere did I say that. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out if a woman who wants to have a child miscarries or has a stillbirth, of course she will be sad due to those expectations not being met. Likewise, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, a woman who aborts an unborn, that doesn't want a child, will feel relief."
You said that no one should feel any guilt of aborting it because it is no different than killing a weed or bug. You don't think it's strange that a woman would mourn (whether from forced abortion or miscarraige) for a non-person thing no different than a weed? I'm surprised your thought process isn't that a woman can just start over, just like regrowing a weed.
And not all women mourn unborn lossses only because they baby wasn't born. Sometimes is IS because the unborn DIED and she didn't get to meet her child!

reply from: fetalisa

I would have felt the pain of the murder. Given that 88% of abortions occur by the 12-13 week after the last menstrual cycle, there is no sentience for an unborn feel pain in an abortion.
The part where I stated 'it doesn't take a rocket scientist' will clue you in on the whether I would find it strange or not.
I clearly stated she would if she wanted a child. I clearly stated a woman who didn't want a child but aborted would most likely feel relief. What part of plain English do you not understand? Is English not your first language or something?
She can. Abort today, get pregnant next month, next quarter, next year, etc, just like I have known women who got pregnant againt after miscarriages, stillbirths of even after having a newborn die of SIDS.

reply from: Antibigot

I would have felt the pain of the murder. Given that 88% of abortions occur by the 12-13 week after the last menstrual cycle, there is no sentience for an unborn feel pain in an abortion.
The part where I stated 'it doesn't take a rocket scientist' will clue you in on the whether I would find it strange or not.
I clearly stated she would if she wanted a child. I clearly stated a woman who didn't want a child but aborted would most likely feel relief. What part of plain English do you not understand? Is English not your first language or something?
She can. Abort today, get pregnant next month, next quarter, next year, etc, just like I have known women who got pregnant againt after miscarriages, stillbirths of even after having a newborn die of SIDS.
"I would have felt the pain of the murder. Given that 88% of abortions occur by the 12-13 week after the last menstrual cycle, there is no sentience for an unborn feel pain in an abortion."
What does pain have to do with anything? How does it change the world? For it to change the world, a human HAS to feel pain before dying? What about people being killed while asleep or in a coma? What about people with a medical condition where they can't feel pain?
Somehow I think you probably believe the woman should only feel sadness about the fact that she would have to get pregnant again, not about the fact that her unborn child DIED in her.

reply from: fetalisa

It's the same reason it is illegal for me to hit you in the head with a sledgehammer. It results in pain.
Your head was hurt, which would probably not be much different than what infants feel as they are being murdered.
All of those examples are born so their personhood is not in dispute. The personhood of the unborn IS in dispute. So in all of the examples provided above, it is still illegal to murder them because they are persons by fact of their birth. The unborn aren't.
I know if I were pregnant and didn't want to have a kid and chose to instead abort, I personally would feel greatly relieved.

reply from: fetalisa

Exactly! Every child should be a wanted child. For those who do not want children, it doesn't mean anything is wrong with them either.

reply from: Nulono

It's the same reason it is illegal for me to hit you in the head with a sledgehammer. It results in pain.
But, were he to consent, you should be allowed to, and probably are. It's about consent.
Why does birth guarrantee personhood?
I know if I were pregnant and didn't want to have a kid and chose to instead abort, I personally would feel greatly relieved.You have no soul. And I mean that in a strictly metaphorical sense, as nobody has a soul.

reply from: yoda

You didn't give it nearly enough thought. Any woman who would demand money from a stranger doesn't deserve to keep her child. And there is a waiting list for the adoption of newborns, problem solved.
Neither do DEAD BABIES..........

reply from: yoda

Slave owners and Nazis would've loved you ..............

reply from: yoda

I really like reading your posts, Charles, but you give the proaborts way too much credit. What you said IS obvious, and they all know it..... but when you are sooooo desperate to find some rationalization, some fig leaf, you will say almost anything. Even if it makes you look as stupid as a fence post.

reply from: yoda

I skip over them, myself. It's like watching the copies come out of a zerox machine.

reply from: yoda

Speak for yourself, baby killer.

reply from: yoda

Guess what? We're NOT PASSING LAWS HERE ON THIS FORUM!!!
And guess what else? LAWS HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE MEANING OF OUR COMMON TERMS (VERNACULAR)!!
OUR WORDS STILL MEAN THE SAME THING NO MATTER WHAT THE LAW SAYS!!

reply from: yoda

Folks that have been here on the forum for a while will tell you that CP and I are not exactly comrades in arms..... but when he's right, he's right. And when you talk like a fool, you're a fool.

reply from: yoda

AMEN, brother Nulono, AMEN!

reply from: yoda

Why no, of course it isn't a "real child"..... it's a FAKE CHILD..... didn't you know that?
Yes, it's made out of Naugahyde and horsehair, I think.... or do they use Styrofoam now?
How incredibly stupid can you get? Does it get any worse? Should I expect you to make even more of an ass of yourself?

reply from: yoda

And the ONLY way to ensure that we reach that goal is to KILL EVERY UNWANTED CHILD...... RIGHT??????????????
RIGHT???????????
RIGHT???????????

reply from: fetalisa

From a constitutional standpoint, go read all 48 instances of where the word 'person' or 'persons' appear in the Constitution, to see if any instances of those words could possibly be construed to apply to the unborn. Do you seriously believe when the authors discussed rights of free speech, religion, association or the right to a fair trial, that it was their intent to address the unborn? Who they are addressing is blatantly obvious to all but the willingly blind.
Yet, http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/27/personhood-amendment-failing-2-1-margin-poll-shows/ agree with me that a zygote, embryo or fetus is not a person, so I guess they have no soul either, in a strictly metaphorical sense. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the difference between killing a spouse and killing an unborn. The death of the spouse wreaks havoc in the lives of the family and all who knew the victim. The death of an unborn wreaks havoc on the life of no one, since no one can 'know' an unborn like we can know a spouse, friend, co-worker, etc.

reply from: fetalisa

There are several posters who believe dictionaries trump the Constitution and the rulings of our courts. It's called wishful thinking. They have no reason whatsoever to see the truth, which is the Constitution must be to overturned in order to enact the thoughtless forced birth utopia.

reply from: lukesmom

I am soooo glad you have now given me definitive proof that abortion is not the murder of innocents. We all know YOU and some of the people of Colorado CAN'T be wrong! DAH... Glad to know you are leaving no question of your intelligence.

reply from: fetalisa

I have only proven that 27% voted in favor, which means the forced birthers who believe an unborn is a person are members of the crackpot minority fringe in our society.
Look back through history. Human societies didn't recognize the unborn as persons either, which is why in so many societies, abortion wasn't criminalized at all, or considered a misdemeanor. The views you see today on this issue in Colorado has a looooooooooooooooong history in humanity.
What is so funny here is, I can't count how many forced birthers have complained about Roe throughout the years, and the fact the decision was made by 9 immaterial and irrelevant men, and then told by the same people that the unborn=person argument would win a popularity contest if ever put to a vote. Now that you forced birthers have put it to a vote, you wish to pretend the opinions of citizens in a free society, somehow won't come into play in writing law for that society. What you don't understand is, from a legal standpoint, I don't see how it would matter if it was 68% for, because we don't put basic human rights, such as bodily autonomy or a woman's right to vote, up to popular vote.

reply from: Nulono

Again, newborns cannot use the right to free speech.
Let's kill the homeless! We have the right to not quarter soldiers in our homes, but they have no homes!

reply from: lukesmom

Don't expect too much. fetalisa seems to have a medical condition called echolalia.

reply from: Nulono

What is echolalia when you repeat yourself?

reply from: Rosalie

Speak for yourself, baby killer.
Please provide some proof that I have killed any babies.
Do you think your mindless insults help anything?
Hint: they don't. They just prove how full of hatred you are and that you have no manners whatsoever.
And why didn't you answer the question I posed a page or two back?

reply from: Rosalie

My answer: a simple yes and actually a fetus is a human life before the heart startes beating at 5 weeks. Wondering why you would even ask since you profess to know all of us prolifers (on this forum if not every prolifer in the world) so well. I believe life begins at conception as there is life at the cellular level.
And once again, could you please start paying attention?
I'll do a re-cap for you, since it seems to be so difficult for you to keep up.
I said:
They'd never sign it. They don't care about anything except for a beating heart and a human DNA. That's what it's all about to them and they're not capable of understanding that it takes much more than that.
To which you have replied:
You have been here since August, talked with many of us, read our posts and still you don't understand. Have you read any of the prolifer's responses on this thread? Your generalizations and assumptions are totally wrong and I wonder why you haven't figured that out yet.
With this comment, you implied/flat out said that I have no idea what pro-lifers are like and whether they would actually sign such proposal.
So I posed the question:
Tell me one thing, lukesmom. Is the fact that fetus has a human DNA and a beating heart a reason enough to not abort it and carry it to the term?
A simple yes or no will suffice. Thanks.
And you replied:
My answer: a simple yes and actually a fetus is a human life before the heart startes beating at 5 weeks. Wondering why you would even ask since you profess to know all of us prolifers (on this forum if not every prolifer in the world) so well. I believe life begins at conception as there is life at the cellular level.
Your answer proves that I was, in fact, right - that you, as a pro-lifer, would never sign that. Yet you continue screeching about how I do not know pro-lifers and adding stuff I've never said, such as that I think I know every single pro-lifer in the world.
Please TRY to pay attention and answer what I actually posted. Not what you wish I had posted.
And let me just tell you one thing: I find your attitude - that a beating heart is enough to take away the woman's freedom, right to bodily integrity, right to live her life according to her own beliefs with no regards for any of this or her feelings, beliefs, her already existing family etc. - just as disgusting as you no doubt find mine. I do not believe that just the fact that a fetus has human DNA and a beating heart mean more than what I listed here.

reply from: Rosalie

So much for your lurking. You must have missed it then because many of us have protested some of the name calling esp from one poster who loves to use the term "slut".
Again, if you had been paying attention, you'd know that I lurk occasionally. This is the first time I have visited here a couple times a week, actually. I never said I know everything and I certainly do not own a chart into which I copy and paste all your statements so I could look them up later.
I have been insulted here many times. Only today I have been on the receiving end of two vicious insults. But it seems to be okay since they are aimed at a pro-choicer. It's never okay here when someone insutls a pro-lifer, though.
The decision should always be the woman's, no matter what. Encouraging termination may be understandable in some cases but I still believe it's better to be completely neutral and leave it up to the woman completely. I believe that encouraging women EITHER way can be prevented in many cases by introducing universal health care. Which should eventually be happening.

reply from: fetalisa

How can property be considered 'innocent' and how can property be 'murdered?"
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/trusts_estates_prof/2006/09/frozen_embryo_d.html

reply from: fetalisa

Their cry IS speech, just as it IS possible for them to participate in religious ceremonies. Such is impossible for the unborn, which is exactly why the Roe judges noted in the decision the instances of the word 'person' in the Constitution, could only have application post-natally. So sorry, but you are wrong.

reply from: Nulono

The kicking of the unborn is speech. It's symbolic speech. And what about mutes?
Just because you can't use certain rights doesn't mean you don't have any.
And don't get me started on the "property" thing. It reeks of the pre-Civil War South, and infuriates me as a youth rights supporter.

reply from: fetalisa

It's not about lack of ability to use the rights, but physical impossibility.
Yet, can't you see the utter waste of attempting to convince society the unborn are persons, when it is clear we treat them as property? Do think the public is so stupid as to be unaware the unborn are not counted in a census as persons are?

reply from: lukesmom

Yup, the repeating over and over the same phrase or phrases without variation, just like fatalisa. I am beginning to wonder if she even understands what she is saying. Sounds like a robot, same phrases, maybe we should call her a "probot".

reply from: Nulono

It's not about lack of ability to use the rights, but physical impossibility.SAME THING!!!
Yet, can't you see the utter waste of attempting to convince society the unborn are persons, when it is clear we treat them as property? Do think the public is so stupid as to be unaware the unborn are not counted in a census as persons are?
Yet, can't you see the utter waste of attempting to convince society n****rs are persons, when it is clear we treat them as property? Do think the public is so stupid as to be unaware that n****rs are not counted in a census as persons are?
I prefer the term Roebot.

reply from: fetalisa

How can that be, when a baby is capable of participating in speech or religion, while for the unborn such is impossible?
When was it ever physically impossible for black people to participate in constitutional rights such as free speech or religion?

reply from: Nulono

So ability to use certain rights determines if you have any?
Babies are not self-aware, and, therefore, cannot be religious.

reply from: fetalisa

Obviously not, since Terry Schiavo had no ability to exercise constitutional rights. She was still a person with rights, by fact of her birth.
Babies have the ability to participate in the exercise of religion. It is physically impossible for the unborn to do so.

reply from: Nulono

How can babies excersise religion?
And your argument against prenatal personhood (incapable of free speech, etc.) could equally be applied to Ms. Schaivo.

reply from: fetalisa

Babies have the ability to PARTICIPATE in the exercise of religion, whether it be a christening or a bris. Such is impossible for the unborn.
Actually, it couldn't. Terri was a person by fact of her birth, which means her rights persisted whether her brains liquified or not.

reply from: Nulono

From a constitutional standpoint, go read all 48 instances of where the word 'person' or 'persons' appear in the Constitution, to see if any instances of those words could possibly be construed to apply to the unborn. Do you seriously believe when the authors discussed rights of free speech, religion, association or the right to a fair trial, that it was their intent to address the unborn? Who they are addressing is blatantly obvious to all but the willingly blind.From a constitutional standpoint, go read all 48 instances of where the word 'person' or 'persons' appear in the Constitution, to see if any instances of those words could possibly be construed to apply to Terry Schaivo. Do you seriously believe when the authors discussed rights of free speech, religion, association or the right to a fair trial, that it was their intent to her? Who they are addressing is blatantly obvious to all but the willingly blind.

reply from: fetalisa

Well, let's see, Terri was married, so I think it is safe to say at some point she said, 'I do.' Sounds like speech to me. I wonder if she got married in a church? Sounds like religion to me. Forgive me, for I have wasted time and words here. "All persons born or naturalized.' I think it is fairly safe to assume Terri was born. Do you agree?

reply from: Nulono

Well, let's see, Terri was married, so I think it is safe to say at some point she said, 'I do.' Sounds like speech to me. I wonder if she got married in a church? Sounds like religion to me. Forgive me, for I have wasted time and words here. "All persons born or naturalized.' I think it is fairly safe to assume Terri was born. Do you agree?She did all those things in the past. That was when she was a person. But she lost her personhood when she lost the ability to do those things.
And, right there, you cited the definition of a U.S. CITZEN, not a person. Foreigners still have rights.

reply from: fetalisa

Exactly. Case closed.
She did lose her personhood when her brains liquified, but she did not lose her LEGAL personhood when her brains liquified, unless you can offer evidence that her rights disappeared when her sentience and consciousness disappeared.
So now I am wrong for answering a question you asked, and I instead should have answered a question you DIDN'T ask?
"From a constitutional standpoint, go read all 48 instances of where the word 'person' or 'persons' appear in the Constitution, to see if any instances of those words could possibly be construed to apply to Terry Schaivo."

reply from: Nulono

Exactly. Case closed.Yes. Case closed. She was a person when she did those things. But that's not what we're debating.
She did lose her personhood when her brains liquified, but she did not lose her LEGAL personhood when her brains liquified, unless you can offer evidence that her rights disappeared when her sentience and consciousness disappeared. So you admit the government can be wrong.
So now I am wrong for answering a question you asked, and I instead should have answered a question you DIDN'T ask?
"From a constitutional standpoint, go read all 48 instances of where the word 'person' or 'persons' appear in the Constitution, to see if any instances of those words could possibly be construed to apply to Terry Schaivo."The question I asked was about here PERSONHOOD, not citizenship.

reply from: fetalisa

You don't even know what we are debating. You wish us all to pretend a test for personhood should be applied to Terri Schiavo, when there is no need to apply a test of constitutional personhood to her, since her constitutional rights were guaranteed by fact of her birth.
This statement is entirely irrelevant and has nothing AT ALL to do with what is occurring here. You really need to grasp the argument I am making and respond to that, rather than attempting to twist my arguments into strawmen arguments I never made.
If that had been the question you asked, my answer would have been, there is no point whatsoever in applying a test of constitutional personhood when her personhood is established by fact of her birth.
This has nothing AT ALL to do with the personhood of the unborn, since the unborn LACK personhood due to having not been born, which is precisely why they must pass a TEST of constitutional personhood. There was no need for Terri to pass such a test, since her personhood was established by fact of her birth.
Come clean concerned parent and stop this charade. You can not possibly expect to prove anything here that is logically valid when you can not even be honest enough to post under your own name.

reply from: Nulono

BUT YOU HAVE YET TO SAY WHY BIRTH MATTER-...
That's it. I'm leaving.

reply from: Nulono

And I am Nulono. Who do you think I am?

reply from: fetalisa

You have yet to prove how or why birth DOESN'T matter. It is FACT the unborn aren't persons in the HOV lane. It is FACT embryos are property in divorce cases. It is FACT the unborn aren't counted in a census as persons are.
Just because you wish to deny all reality that birth matters, does not magically make all of the above FACTS disappear.
Good. Stop the charade. It works against you, not for you.

reply from: Nulono

What charade? TELL ME!!!

reply from: ProInformed

This is a pro-life forum - not a pro-abortion forum.
Pro-aborts are allowed to participate here but this site is not for providing pro-aborts a place to get together and scheme how they are going to get away with killing babies and how they are going to try to silence pro-lifers.
If you are open-minded and courageous enough to ask genuine questions, to learn, to respectfully state your pov, and to participate in civil debate, then IMHO your presence is welcome here.
But this is NOT a site for pro-abort networking and strategizing on how to stop pro-life efforts.

reply from: fetalisa

What evidence do you have that I am getting together with others here to scheme to get away with killing babies? I do not know anyone else who posts here. I am absolutely and utterly sure our law prevents abortion from ever being banned and I can cite as much case law as you wish to prove that fact. So what need do I have to scheme?
I do just that. Read my posts. Click on the NUMEROUS links I cite as evidence if you doubt this.
You have no proof whatsoever that I am doing any of the above, because I know for a FACT I am NOT doing any of the above.

reply from: ProInformed

"Ridding America of Nosy & Offensive Clinic Protestors" Is OBVIOUSLY a topic thread title that belongs at a pro-abortion message board - NOT at a pro-life message board.
Pro-aborts are allowed on this PRO-LIFE message board for the purposes of education, asking questions, and respectful debate.
There is no logical reason to allow pro-aborts to post plans or suggestions here on how to censor or stop pro-life efforts. Go to your own boards to do that sort of thing.
I have reported this thread to the board moderator.

reply from: fetalisa

Okey dokey. I find the question posed by that thread to be legitimate. If a forced birther would rather a woman birth than abort, it seems logical the forced birther would be willing to pay all costs of raising that birthed child. Don't you find it odd that one can force a decision on another, yet not have to deal with the consequences or costs of that decision? Or are questions like that not allowed here?

reply from: ProInformed

"Ridding America of Nosy & Offensive Clinic Protestors" Is OBVIOUSLY a topic thread title that belongs at a pro-abortion message board - NOT at a pro-life message board.
Are there any pro-abort message boards where pro-lifers would be allowed to post something analogous?
What would happen if one of us pro-lifers went to a proabort message board and started a thread titled:
"Ridding America of Pre-Natal Hitmen (Abortionists)"?
Would the pro-abort posters there allow such a thread to remain?
Would the pro-lifer who started such a thread be 'tolerated', let alone welcomed and responded to with respect? NOPE!!!!
Everybody look what's going down:
There are now more pro-aborts posting here than pro-lifers.
AND they are boldly treating this message board as if it is THEIR pro-abort meeting place.
I understand and agree with allowing pro-aborts to post here IF they are open-minded, respectful, and not trying to take over...
And of course I am not suggesting we pro-lifers become as cowardly, closed-minded, hostile, and unwelcoming as the pro-aborts are when we try to post ANYTHING in their forums...
But some pro-aborts are obviously exploiting our tolerance in order to dominate and divert this resource into serving the pro-abortion purpose.

reply from: ProInformed

The 'tolerance' of pro-abort trolls here has definitely gone too far.
Pro-lifers are leaving; pro-aborts are arriving.
I challenge all the pro-aborts currently posting here to locate or create 'pro-choice' forums where pro-lifers are welcomed and allowed to post minus censorship and harrassment OR ELSE leave this pro-life forum alone.

reply from: fetalisa

I fully support the decisions of the moderators, whether they choose to remove the thread or not. Why would I be any different on this website than others? As a matter of fact, I did kind of reprimand one poster here already, but only because they posted copyright material without a proper attribution. No, I was not pretending to be a moderator, I just do not want the website owners to risk legal liability for copyright violations, whether I agree politically with the owners of this website or not.
So as far as the mods go, it's there decision and I will support that decision no matter how it goes. It's their site, so it's their choice and when I say I am prochoice, that's exactly what it means.

reply from: ProInformed

Oh please AS IF the kinds of questions pro-lifers want to ask are allowed at pro-abort controlled forums LOL.
Take your pretended support of tolerance and your faux opposition to censorship back to one of your many pro-abort forums.
AFTER you post some links to 'pro-choice' forums where pro-lifes are allowed to ask questions and be responded to politely, we'll discuss whatever you want to discuss, OK?

reply from: fetalisa

That statement was aimed at you, not the moderators, since you appear to play a moderator.
Where have I shown opposition to censorship, real or imagined? What part of 'I agree with whatever decisions the mods make,' do you not understand? It's their site so they decide.
If you had the ability to make any sense or knew the first thing if what you were talking about I would take you seriously. Obviously, that certainly isn't necessary.

reply from: Antibigot

Oh please AS IF the kinds of questions pro-lifers want to ask are allowed at pro-abort controlled forums LOL.
Take your pretended support of tolerance and your faux opposition to censorship back to one of your many pro-abort forums.
AFTER you post some links to 'pro-choice' forums where pro-lifes are allowed to ask questions and be responded to politely, we'll discuss whatever you want to discuss, OK?
I have never ever been to a pro-choice site where pro-lifers were welcomed. It didn't even matter how polite they were. Even if they ask questions, pro-choicers think they're just up to no good. Why would a pro-choicer EXPECT to be welcomed when it doesn't happen to the other side? I highly doubt they would accept being banned from a moderator.

reply from: lukesmom

First you say a baby cannot speak so therefore the very act of being born makes them human, now you say they have to "participate in speech". Wanna back pedal again and try to clarify in your mind which way you want it? When you have it straight in your little mind, let us know... although, hmmm, I'm not sure I want to know as your little mind seems to be pretty confused and tends to travel down the same neuro paths without much deviation.

reply from: lukesmom

Oh please AS IF the kinds of questions pro-lifers want to ask are allowed at pro-abort controlled forums LOL.
Take your pretended support of tolerance and your faux opposition to censorship back to one of your many pro-abort forums.
AFTER you post some links to 'pro-choice' forums where pro-lifes are allowed to ask questions and be responded to politely, we'll discuss whatever you want to discuss, OK?
I have never ever been to a pro-choice site where pro-lifers were welcomed. It didn't even matter how polite they were. Even if they ask questions, pro-choicers think they're just up to no good. Why would a pro-choicer EXPECT to be welcomed when it doesn't happen to the other side? I highly doubt they would accept being banned from a moderator.
Yet some of them like fatal isa is soooo fun to have repeat over and over the same boring rhetoric that is all she knows. She is like a dog chasing it's tail, only after awhile everyone gets to see how brainless her actions are. Makes a good giggle at the end of a stressful day. LOL! Just another troll who supports killing babies and loves to brag about it to make herself feel powerful.

reply from: fetalisa

If I had actually said that, it would be a simple matter for you to quote me. We all know why you don't quote my words, because I never stated any such thing.
In every instance where I have discussed this I have said newborns have the ability to participate in rights such as free speech or religion. Whereas for the unborn, such is impossible.
When you decide to quote what I have actually stated, let me know.

reply from: CharlesD

Come on, is that the best you can do? The point of an HOV lane is to reward people for carpooling. How occupants of a car are counted for the purposes of the use of an HOV lane has no bearing on the status of the unborn. This ruling about embryos being considered property has no bearing, since the law at one point stated the same about blacks. Being counted in a census has no bearing on whether or not you are a human being. Human beings have rights because they are human, not because the government says so. Governments can be wrong.
Not every person has the capability to participate in every right, but that does not take those rights away from that person.

reply from: fetalisa

Who are you to ask anyone a question like that? You claimed the meaning of the word 'person' as found in the Constitution meant 'human being' by intent of the authors. I then provided evidence which proves abortions prior to quickening were legal in 18th century American under American common law. So, how is it possible the Constitutional authors meant 'human being' by the word 'person,' when abortion was legal at the time the Constitution was penned?
You do very well at providing the appearance of having no honor, in that you have TWICE now been caught with your pants down on your points of debate and in both cases, you merely wish me to pretend it never happened. If you ever grow a pair of balls and become man enough to deal with it when your points are proven fallacious, let me know. Only then I will agree to answer your questions again.

reply from: lukesmom

If I had actually said that, it would be a simple matter for you to quote me. We all know why you don't quote my words, because I never stated any such thing.
How soon you forget! Try looking at the thread titled "Is the religious right retarted?". Page 5, scroll down to post #17 and read what YOU wrote:

BTW, if you want to split hairs on "human" and "person", do you know any humans who aren't persons or persons who aren't humans? I don't.

reply from: fetalisa

I don't suppose you would care to include the context in which the above was posted, or mention the point I was refuting, perhaps?

reply from: lukesmom

Wee bit *****y today aren't you. Getting irritated because Charles is besting you? LOL! Temper, temper...

reply from: lukesmom

I don't suppose you would care to include the context in which the above was posted, or mention the point I was refuting, perhaps?
Get off your preverbial butt and look yourself.

reply from: fetalisa

I am not testy at all. I find it quite funny that the only way any here can argue against me is to pull quotes out of context. If that's all you have on your side, I guess that's all you have.
Naa. I figured him out. When you thoroughly refute one of his point, he merely avoids.

reply from: lukesmom

I am not testy at all. I find it quite funny that the only way any here can argue against me is to pull quotes out of context. If that's all you have on your side, I guess that's all you have.
I didn't pull a quote out of context. You wrote it, you posted it and now you are too lazy to look for it. You loose! HA! Better go suck an egg...chicken's that is. Bawk!
Avoiding are you? Again, HA!

reply from: fetalisa

Yet you won't provide the context in which it was made and or mention the issue I was responding to. We all know why you won't, which means no one here is fooled by your antics.
There's no need to look for it. Any here who wish to see my views of things can read my comments by pulling them up by username. That puts them in context, whether you wish to put them in context or not.
What is so funny about this is, cheap tricks like this don't change the fact the unborn aren't persons and abortion is legal.
Congratulations on winning your little game. I am sure the retelling of it on the playground with the other kindergartners will make you a big shot in their eyes.

reply from: lukesmom

Yet you won't provide the context in which it was made and or mention the issue I was responding to. We all know why you won't, which means no one here is fooled by your antics.
There's no need to look for it. Any here who wish to see my views of things can read my comments by pulling them up by username. That puts them in context, whether you wish to put them in context or not.
What is so funny about this is, cheap tricks like this don't change the fact the unborn aren't persons and abortion is legal.
You loose! HA! Better go suck an egg...chicken's that is. Bawk!
I'd have some respect for you if you could actually admit you were wrong instead of this lame excuse. No cheap trick unless you are a cheap trick. You wrote it, you posted it and now you can't defend it. Not only lame but lazy. Didn't expect any more out of you truthfully.

reply from: fetalisa

HA! As if I care whether you respect me or not.

reply from: lukesmom

HA! As if I care whether you respect me or not.
Yet you care enough to tell me that. Too little too late honey.

reply from: fetalisa

I don't blame you for your childish diversions. You have given up now that you realize you can't refute my arguments nor my points in favor of abortion.

reply from: lukesmom

Meow, here mousy, mousy...meow

reply from: fetalisa

So Vexer, were you around when the forced birthers were bombing clinics and killing and maiming people?

reply from: ProInformed

If you had the ability to make any sense or knew the first thing if what you were talking about I would take you seriously. Obviously, that certainly isn't necessary.
The challenge I posted to you should have been very easy to understand.
Find a 'pro-choice' message board where the pro-lifers from here will be allowed to participate and will be treated fairly and respectfully.
You pro-abort trolls are too cowardly and crude to treat the pro-lifers who dare to try to post at 'pro-choice' sites with even a fraction of the consideration that is extended to you here.

reply from: fetalisa

If you want that, you find it. I have nothing to do with how you are treated at other sites on the net, hard as that may be for you to grasp.
My zygotes fart in your general direction.

reply from: lukesmom

Someone needs to re-visit Old McDonald's farm.
Mice don't go 'meow'.
Who said they did? Since you can't understand the obvious, cats love to play with mice. It is fun playing with proaborts cause if you give them enough rope, they generally hang themselves with their own contradictions. Play on.

reply from: lukesmom

So Vexer, are you around when the baby killers are perfoming abortions and killing unborn children?

reply from: lukesmom

Feta, your "zygotes" are dead, you killed them with your hitman abortionist.

reply from: fetalisa

http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/1075082 Alexander v. Whitman

reply from: fetalisa

How can an 'abortionist' be a hitman, when abortion doesn't kill a person (check the post immediately above for proof of this FACT), but only property?

reply from: lukesmom

http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/1075082 Alexander v. Whitman
Facts to support this please. Opinions don't count.

reply from: lukesmom

How can an 'abortionist' be a hitman, when abortion doesn't kill a person (check the post immediately above for proof of this FACT), but only property?
AGAIN, facts please. OPINION OF THE COURT is not fact but, as it states, (reading problem?) is an OPINION.

reply from: fetalisa

You can deny all the facts of reality you wish. You probably believe the earth is flat, a god created the earth in 6 days and that evolution is a lie. So you clearly would not know a FACT if it hit you in the head. The unborn are NOT persons and ARE property. These are FACTS.

reply from: Nulono

Facts do n ot have to be true. It is true that they are LEGAL property.

reply from: lukesmom

I am asking once again for facts. She makes a statement but provides no facts to back up her statement. She only gives opinions because she can't prove anything without facts. I might not have a problem with her statement if she didn't call it a fact with nothing to back that fact up other than an opinion.
AGAIN, facts please. OPINION OF THE COURT is not fact but, as it states, (reading problem?) is an OPINION.

reply from: fetalisa

Read the post directly above your post I have quoted here.

reply from: lukesmom

Read the post directly above your post I have quoted here.
Sigh, CP is right, moron unfortunantly. Maybe you didn't read your own link: Per the circuit judge: I am in almost complete agreement with the court's opinion,
Do I have to give you the definition of opinion again? What is it you don't understand? Court rulings are opinions.
There are many facts in this case. It is a fact there is a ruling in this case. But the ruling is opinion NOT fact.

reply from: ProInformed

Pro-abort trolls serve no usefull purpose here and are too cowardly to allow themselves to learn anything here, let alone to have the courage and intellectual integrity to re-evaluate their own status quo POV.
It is a scientific biological FACT that each individuals life begins at conception.
It is also a fact that the U.S. Supreme Court chose to ignore that scientific fact in preference for the opinion that such humans will be denied the protection of legal personhood (just like they did when they legally denied black slaves protection whey they defined them as being 'non-persons' and mere 'property').
It's also a fact that a majority of the voters in California chose to ignore the scientific fact of when each human's life begins, stripping unborn babies of their right to life because of their own ignorance-based opinions, in a the recent election.
AND it's a fact that mindless pro-abort-bots need to cling to their opinions, their pretense that their opinion is fact, because they are too stupid, cowardly, and selfish to face the scientific fact that they are killing innocent humans.

reply from: fetalisa

A http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/n100/images/38fert.gif is not a person and science has no way AT ALL to prove it is.
How could we possibly say an unborn is a constitutional person? An unborn has no means whatsoever to make use of constitutional rights such as free speech or religion. It would be utterly absurd to have our law suggest it could.
Blacks were not denied rights due to lack of birth, because a slave in a womb is an utterly worthless and useless slave.
NEWSFLASH! The majority of Americans have no issues whatsoever distinguishing between what is and is not a person. If you can't tell the difference, that is YOUR problem, not ours.
There is nothing wrong with killing non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons in the form of weeds, mosquitos, zygotes, embryos ore fetuses. I feel no shame if I kill a non-sentient, non-conscious non-person in the form of a weed and the case of the unborn is not different.

reply from: lukesmom

Pro, FYI: All of this has been gone over (and over and over and over again) with feta and evidently she has very limited understanding. It has been said she is a moron but, personally, I hate to insult morons with a statement like that.
I'm just letting you know because I know your time is too valuable to waste on trying to get her to understand the simplest concepts which have been presented to her numerous times. It is sad... no pathetic really. Truthfully, I think she is a PP robot, kinda like the Stepford Wives. She can tald but says nothing, she can hear but understands nothing but what has been programmed.

reply from: fetalisa

You refuse to admit the TRUTH of what the forced birth movement is really about. This is how it worked and STILL works:
I have decided that boogers are persons and nose-picking is murder. I shall now remain pissed off for the rest of my life, that society does not agree with me.
Society has no obligation whatsoever to accept whatever hair-brained, absurd, illogical and retarded concepts you create in your mind. You can live your life by whatever stupidity you choose. You have no right whatsoever to force other citizens in a free society to accept whatever stupidity you decided to believe.
You might as well be pissed of that you have decided the sky is green with yellow polka-dots when everyone else can clearly see it is blue.

reply from: fetalisa

Children are persons, not property.

reply from: lukesmom

You refuse to admit the TRUTH of what the forced birth movement is really about. This is how it worked and STILL works:
I have decided that boogers are persons and nose-picking is murder. I shall now remain pissed off for the rest of my life, that society does not agree with me.
Now your're a booger? OK, if that's what you wanna be, just as long as you don't kill baby boogers.

reply from: lukesmom

Children are persons, not property.
Is that a "booger" fact?

reply from: fetalisa

Their is no forced birth argument that does not depend on semantic games.
You do that in the weakest of all possible attempts to convince society the unborn are persons. That's the entire point of the forced birth movement.
You are the one making the claim the unborn is equally the property of the husband, which means the burden of proof is on you. Negative proof, which is what you have asked for in the above quote, is a logical fallacy.

reply from: fetalisa

http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/1075082 Alexander v. Whitman
Children are counted in a census, as persons are. The unborn are not, because they are not persons. Merriam-Webster does not change these FACTS.

reply from: fetalisa

It is more properly referred to as 'women deserve to be no more than brood mares" movement.
What a woman does with the contents of her uterus is not your business, because it is her body, not yours.
We already know it's very Catholic, without you needing to belabor that point.
And you and all those of your ilk, are pure, unadulterated evil incarnate, in that you would remove a woman's right of bodily autonomy, based solely on your own religious beliefs, and usher the Dark Ages back into America. You fool no one, not the voters of America, not the voters of Colorado and not the voters of South Dakota. The moral ivory tower you wish to paint yourself as living in, is a ancient artifact of history and a cesspool of degradation of humanity and women in particular. You are anti-women, anti-American, anti-Constitution, anti-free will, anti-logic and anti-common sense.
You asked for negative proof, which is a logical fallacy. It is as absurd as asking one to prove leprechauns do not exist.

reply from: Antibigot

And what happens if someone is born in secret? They wouldn't be counted in the census either!
I don't know why these kind of arguments come up. I remember the time a pro-choicer in another forum I frequented had said, "A fetus isn't a person because it doesn't have a social security number!" Then pro-lifers brought up the fact that some people either don't have one or aren't issued one immediately after birth.

reply from: fetalisa

Illegal aliens are persons by fact of their birth. The unborn are not.
They are born so are a person.
I don't know why the forced birth whackjobs wish to pretend birth doesn't matter.

reply from: CharlesD

You know, maybe...just maybe...someone would take you seriously if you could figure out how to disagree with someone without being disagreeable.
Have I ever called you names? Have I ever called you a baby murdering whackjob, or a nutcase, or some other similar name I've seen you throw out on here? You know the answer to that.
Mature adults can disagree on something and have a cordial debate about the issues; they can treat one another with a modicum of respect. I have tried to be respectful around here, even with the people I disagree with, and I have managed to engage in productive discourse with some of those people, but there is absolutely no excuse for juvenile name calling and personal attacks. Am I speaking with an adult here, or a child? To tell the truth, some children are more mature.
I don't see any reasoned arguments here. All I see is repeating the same personhood arguments or bringing up whatever current issue was voted on somewhere. Here's the challenge. Use a scientific argument that supports the killing of unborn humans without bringing up a judge's decision or something a group of people voted on. Use an argument from science why it should be acceptable to kill unborn humans and do it without belittling or insulting someone else. I'm not going to hold my breath.

reply from: fetalisa

No you haven't. Instead you run away from questions you do not wish to answer. In spite of that, I freely and willingly admit yes, you are probably one of the most respectful found on this forum with respect to how you communicate.

reply from: fetalisa

Birth is relevant to a census, for those not born, are not counted as persons. What might that tell you?
The unborn are community property in divorce cases concerning frozen embryos. What might that tell you?
The unborn are not persons while in the womb of a pregnant driver in the HOV lane. What might that tell you?
The unborn aren't persons according to the Constitution. What might that tell you?
This from one who thinks Random House definitions will somehow make the unborn not be property in divorce cases, be persons in the HOV lane, be Constitutional persons, be counted in a census, etc.

reply from: fetalisa

Every one of which must be a person.
Except the purpose of a census IS to count PERSONS who are RESIDENTS and the unborn ARE NOT COUNTED in a census because THEY ARE NOT PERSONS! It IS elementary logic.
What does that matter? The FACT frozen embryos are property, proves beyond all doubt they are not persons, since one can not be a person and property at the same time. How can you possibly claim the unborn are persons when it is FACT frozen embryos are property?
It tells me the unborn are not persons, which, oddly enough, agrees with other things we notice in our society, like the fact unborn are not counted in a census because they are not persons, the FACT the unborn are not persons according to the Constitution, the FACT the unborn are not persons, according to the 14th Amendment, the FACT frozen embryos are not persons, because they are property, etc and so on.
The Constitution is not the only law in this land. Check Roe v Wade or Alexander v Whitman. I can find more than that if you need. I have the list, I just haven't read them yet.
The hell you can. If you could, PETA would have done that ages ago.
Clearly that is not the case. There is NO rational, legal or logical basis to grant personhood to the unborn, whether it by zygotes, embryos, frozen embryos or fetuses. It would be ABSURD most especially, to grant personhood to frozen embryos, since we know for a FACT they are property.
Have you read it? Have you read Roe? Is there any other possible conclusion they could come to, given the Constitution?
Oh yes it would have, which is why the ruling went as it did.
How in the world do you define fetal personhood? To have personhood, means all rights outlined in the Constitution are granted, in my understanding. Given constitutional rights all have application postnatally, with only the 14th Amendment having possible application and given the determination the 14th Amendment did not apply, doesn't the issue of personhood for the unborn have nothing left?
What kind of person can exist in America that is not a constitutional person, other than corporations?

reply from: fetalisa

We do not count the unborn in a census because they are not persons. In the case of persons who are not counted, such as illegal aliens, they are persons whether they are counted or not in the census.
And why is that? Oh, that's right. They aren't persons until birth.
Whereas, it is possible to count persons.
Except we know the unborn are not persons, so it becomes obvious they would not be counted in a census.
Irrelevant. Slavery is abolished in this country and has been for well over a century.
Which makes no mention whatsoever of the unborn. Additionally, we know nothing in the Constitution applies to the unborn.
Is that concerned parent 'logic?' If monkeys have never flown from my behind, they can't?
You need to tell your prolife cronies that.
Those born are.
You can't deny rights of personhood to a non-person. Are we denying rights of personhood to weeds or mosquitos?
This is what you said and it could not possibly be true:
"Blackmun and the rest could have declared them "persons" and it would not have affected their decision."
They could do no such thing. Had they been declared persons, they would have constitutional rights, which would make no sense, given a set of rights that apply postnatally.
It's not logically fallacious, although this does tie into one thing I do not understand in the Roe decision. It is blatantly obvious to me the rights discussed in the Constitution were INTENDED to apply postnatally. Had I been a judge (and it's a good thing I am not), I would not even have looked at the 14th Amendment. Since it is blatantly obvious that 47 instances of the word 'person' or 'persons' apply postnatally, while only ONE instance having possible application to the unborn, then it becomes clear the authors INTENDED the document to address the born, since 47 out of 48 instances of the words 'person' or 'persons' apply postnatally. (Especially considering the 14th came long after the Constitution was originally penned, which means originally, there were zero possible application to the unborn.) Therefore, the 14th could not apply to the unborn either, solely due to intent of whom the document addresses. What that means for me is, the Constitution addresses the born by INTENT and any discussion of whether the 14th addresses the unborn is diversion.
However, Texas argued, or tried to argue, the 14th could have some possible application to the unborn, which fell apart due to lack of precedent.
How is that a brainfart? It's the truth. No society in history has recognized the unborn as persons.
False dichotomy. A corporation is a person, but do not possess the full rights of personhood that you or I do.
I truly do not understand how you can assume unborn personhood in your arguments and expect our society to buy it. How can you assume personhood when you have yet to prove it?
Do you understand that no society in history has ever considered the unborn to be equal to the born? If you do, do you understand how good the argument must be, in order to get society to accept unborn personhood? Given that what you suggest in unborn personhood has never existed in history, surely you can understand that proof of personhood must be thoroughly ironclad, before society would even begin to consider it, much less accept it?
Sentience is not possible before the 28th week of gestation. Given the 88-90% of abortions occur within the 12-13th week after the last menstrual cycle, in the overwhelming majority of abortions, there is NO sentience whatsoever.
Do you know of any other kind of person?
One like you or me, possessing full constitutional rights. Legal person is probably the correct term.

reply from: fetalisa

Call it dumb if you wish, but we have one more difference that demonstrates the difference between persons and non-person unborns. Persons can be counted but unborn can not.
How is it possible since it is banned? Even if someone did attempt it, that would not make the slave property, because persons have constitutional rights, even if they are victims of crime.
Court rulings prove birth is necessary for both citizenship and personhood.
If I had, you could provide a direct quote. There is no quote, because I never made the claim.
If they are not constitutional persons, then they are not persons. There is no obviousness that they are persons, nor can you offer any proof at all that they are persons.
Which means they are not persons. As you yourself said, you can't be a half person or a quarter person. You are either a person or you are not.
I do and I used it correctly.
That's why I said what I said to begin with, a constitutional person, or person possessing constitutional rights.
They aren't persons period in our society, nor is there any point that they should be.

reply from: fetalisa

http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/1075082 Alexander v. Whitman
By interpretation. See above.
It is a false dichotomy if you include other forms of personhood such as corporations. If you are talking about people like you and I, you either are or you aren't.
Scroll up and read the text in blue. They aren't persons. End of story.

reply from: fetalisa

I really don't care a flip about your opinions of me. You have no proof whatsoever the unborn are persons, outside of Merriam-Webster definitions. However, these definitions obviously do not apply, because every where we look in our society, it is clear the unborn are not persons.
That much you have already admitted, at least as far as interpretation of the Constitution.
So what kind of person do you propose the unborn are? They are not persons in a constitutional sense, which is the only sense that matters in the real world.


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