Home - List All Discussions

Is it possible for unborn children to not be innocent?

by: SRUW4I5

I was trying to convince one of my friends and her husband that her having an abortion is a bad idea and asked why they would want to get rid of a perfectly healthy, innocent unborn child when she isn't being harmed. She tried to tell me that unborn children aren't innocent, because they use their mother for life support without asking first and using people is wrong. I never thought of it like that. But it got me wondering... Is it possible for her to honestly be right that unborn children aren't innocent for that reason? Even if she is right, I don't think that should be a reason to decide the unborn deserve to never really live.
Anyone have any idea about whether she's right/wrong or why? I hope she's wrong.

reply from: ChristianLott2

If a helpless child is not innocent then no one is innocent. Just because you are not innocent though does not mean you deserve to be murdered.
And how can one who murders another feel righteous if they were not attacked?
Pregnancy cannot be considered an attack because the baby needs the mother to live so s/he can live and is no parasite because the baby will eventually leave, in a near garunteed time frame no less.
So the mother _should_ feel wrong about murdering a baby. The baby is simply there and trying to make it for him or her self. The mother can abandon the child to adoption but killing the child is just as wrong as killing anyone else just because they're temporarily 'in the way'.

reply from: ChristianLott2

What happened to woman 'the nurturer'? Did that go out of style?

reply from: Rhiannontex

I'm afraid so. These days a lot of women only feel complete if they're as much like men as possible...I've also noticed that a lot of the pro-choice people (not all, but a lot online) are acutely afraid of pregnancy and childbirth itself. They whip themselves up into a frenzy talking about how it's absolute torture.

reply from: Nulono

The child is not there through a will of his/her own, so he/she is not an agressor. An unborn child cannot commit any acts of it's own will, and is therefore, by definition innocent.
Not to mention the mother is the one who put the child there to start with.

reply from: nancyu

We are all here uninvited, and we didn't ask to be here either. Existing is not a sign of guilt. An unborn child is not only innocent, but defenseless as well.
Do not murder.

reply from: SRUW4I5

That makes sense.
I'll try telling her something like that, and see if that'll help any. She won't be getting the abortion for a couple more weeks, so I have a little time to get her to cancel it.

reply from: fetalisa

How can a non-conscious, non-sentient entity be 'innocent? Can it also be guilty? In order to be guilty, one must take wrong action. In order to be innocent one must take right action. Lacking sentience, neither guilt nor innocence is possible. To say an unborn is innocent is as absurd as saying a rock or weed is innocent. Since rocks, weed and the unborn lack any ability whatsoever to take right or wrong action, guilt or innocence is impossible.

reply from: BossMomma

A fetus has no capability for guilt and no capability for sin therefore it it is innocent. A fetus is not a parasite as it is of the same species as the parents and requires sustenance from the mother until such a time that it can feed it'self or be fed by someone else. The child didn't ask to be created in the first place, the man and woman created it and placed it where it is now, the child is blameless.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I used that argument as a pro-choicer myself. She is simply looking at it the wrong way because she wants to justify killing her child.
In my opinion, the unborn is neither innocent nor guilty. It is simply outside of ethics just as any part of nature is.
That child is not purposely using its mother; and it would not be using its mother at all if she hadn'd had sex. That child did not choose to be placed inside of her uterus. It can't even fathom that idea yet. It cannot have any ill intent; and if it WAS conscious and able of talking, I'm sure it would be sorry that it had to inconvenience its mother in this way. But that is the only way it can live.
It needs her protection. She had sex, she got pregnant. She knew it could happen. She, in a way, forced life upon this child. The reality is, no one is to blame as long as preventative measures were used, like condoms or birth control.
The unborn HAS to be above ethics because otherwise, you can start accusing it of being criminal. It is a rapist, a theif, it committed tresspassing, it has caused injury and conspiracy to commit injury, and it hsa enslaved another human being. But that's all nonsense. The child did not choose to be fertilized, it did not choose to float down the fallopian tubes to the uterus. Actually, the mother's body did that. And the mother's body prepared a nice warm cozy home for the baby.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's my position on it, though I also mentioned that animals too are innocent, even though they are capable of taking actions.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq33mnYCAwo&feature=related
from our friend sk1bianca.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I'm on break at work and can't watch. What's it about?

reply from: ChristianLott2

The main point I'd try to get across is that the baby is already there and alive. If she gets an abortion for whatever reason she will be murdering her own child on trumped up charges. Anyone can see the baby is innocent of any wrong doing.
Some women say they can abort and never look back but I know from the ones I've met - they all look back. That little dead baby follows them around for the rest of their lives. Wouldn't it be better for all involved if she just let the baby live?
Btw, that video was great.

reply from: SRUW4I5

I didn't feel guilty about having an abortion at first but the first time someone used the word "growing" when talking about the unborn child I felt very guilty. I still haven't figured that out. Once I moved on, it did get easy, and I can live my life better than I did before 'cuz I'm more aware of things now.
I think I'll have her read some of the stuff on this forum and Pro-Life sites... That way it'd be more informative than just me trying to get her to see why her view is wrong which could seem mean.
Thank you for giving me another reason that I can give her.

reply from: Rosalie

It's not about whether it's innocent or not. At all.
Stereotype.

reply from: fetalisa

Your friend is bright enough to know zygotes, embryos and fetuses aren't persons, which means abortion isn't murder. Aborting a zygote, embryo or fetus, is no different than stepping on a bug or pulling a weed from one's garden. If there is no guilt, remorse or shame in killing a bug or a weed, there should be no guilt in aborting a zygote, embryo or fetus. In all 3 cases, bug, weed and unborn, we are dealing with a non-conscious, non-sentient, non-person being killed. That's why had I been aborted, none on the planet would have known the difference, because there is no harm in abortion, just like there's no harm in killing a bug, weed or unborn.
What your friend really needs to do is tell you, in no uncertain terms, her decision is not your business in any way, shape or form and that you would do best to get your nose out of her uterus and mind your own business.
As far as those here who claim she must have the child because she had sex, someone needs to inform these fruit loops that having a child is not punishment for sex.

reply from: ChristianLott2

I think our friend SRUW4I5 already knows the foil to this one. The difference between a bug and a human is obvious to most people. In nine months, no matter how hard you try and where you place a bug - it will not become a one year old baby boy or girl.
A human fetus (Greek word meaning infant) is a growing human baby. It was never anything else no matter what someone named it's state of development. Conception occurred and a new human life has begun. Irreversible irrefutable scientific fact.
ie baby does not equal bug. sorry.
A good person will speak up when a person's life is at stake.
Correct. A child is joy and love and innocence - not a punishment.
Btw, I'd share pictures, video, etc with her.
Standard help text follows:
.........................................
if she has seen the abortion pictures:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm
.....
There are videos on that site as well. It's all extremely horrible.
here is a REAL abortion recorded:
http://www.silentscream.org/
important pictures:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/fetaldevelopment.htm
pictures which most affected me
3 and a half months:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/fig18baby3.5mos.jpg
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/fig19baby3.5mos.jpg
there is a chance she will become barren.
she will have a greater risk of breast cancer and miscarriage on subsequent pregnancies.
above all, she already HAS a child. you can't erase a baby that's already there. an abortion will haunt you for the rest of your life and into the next one.
my own children were murdered. when the abortionist was suctioning those 3.5 month old babies of ours out he told her there was more than one.
she said it hurt and he said 'it's what you wanted!'
http://abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both.asp
this is a very important book!
at least scroll down and read the index and topics. this is the pro life bible.
most women regret abortion. that's because they finally realize they've just MURDERED their own child!
there is only one RIGHT and GOOD choice - the choice NOT TO MURDER YOUR OWN CHILD.
index of book i just linked you to:
CONTENTS
PREFACE
PART I - INTRODUCTION
Chapter
1 - The Situation
2 - The Three Questions
3 - How To Teach The Pro-Life Story.
4 - Discrimination
5 - Something Old, Something New
PART II - THE LAW
Chapter
6 - Two Infamous Days in the U.S.A.
7 - Legal Pre-Roe
8 - Post Roe Vs. Wade
9 - Health
PART III - HUMAN LIFE
Chapter
10 - Human Life?
11 - The Human Embryo
12 - Fetal Development
13 - Viability
14 - Fetal Pain
15 - In Vitro Fertilization
16 - Embryo/Fetal Experimentation
PART IV - ABORTION
Chapter
17 - How Many?
18 - What Kind and How?
19 - Very Early Abortions
20 - Maternal Complications/Immediate.
21 - Maternal Deaths & Long-Term Complications.
22 - Neonatal & Childhood Sequelae
23 - Breast Cancer
PART V - INFANTICIDE & EUTHANASIA
Chapter
24 - Fetal Handicap and Infanticide
25 - Euthanasia
PART VI - SOCIAL QUESTIONS
Chapter
26 - Choice?
27 - Illegal Abortions
28 - Parental Notification/Becky Bell
29 - Rape
30 - Impose Morality?.
31 - Unwanted
32 - The West Is Dying?
PART VII - ALTERNATIVES
Chapter
33 - Women Helping Centers
34 - Adoption
35 - Contraception
36 - Violence? Or A Protective Ring
PART VIII - OTHER THOUGHTS
Chapter
37 - Doctors & Nurses
38 - Words
39 - Polls
40 - The Media
41 - Capital Punishment/War
42 - Pro-Abortion Organizations/Planned Parenthood
43 - Tax-Funded Abortions
PART IX - WHAT TO DO
Chapter
44 - What To Do
http://abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both.asp
very important.
there are literally thousands of good, sound medical and moral reasons NOT to have an abortion.
99.9% of the time there's just one reason TO have an abortion - selfishness and self hatred.
live abortion video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmmzc9kEcOc&feature=related
find the adoptive parents in your state:
http://www.parentprofiles.com/
http://www.afterabortion.org/news/suicide205.html
please read this:
http://abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_21.asp

reply from: fetalisa

You must not get out much since you have obviously never heard of miscarriage or stillborn births. Who taught you that every pregnancy ends in a perfect birth?
Who said the two were equal? I said both baby and bug were non-conscious, non-sentient, non-persons, not that the two were the same, just similar in what they lack.
An unborn is not a person, which is why it is perfectly legal to kill them. It is legal to kill mosquitos and weeds for the same reason.
You are exceedingly naive if you can't understand that, depending on the circumstance, a child could be a hardship or burden.
If she is a woman of substance, she will tell her exactly where to stick those pictures, videos, etc. Or, should could just say she isn't into brainwashing.

reply from: Antibigot

"An unborn is not a person, which is why it is perfectly legal to kill them. It is legal to kill mosquitos and weeds for the same reason."
I don't think that is the actual reason abortion is legal or why it is legal to kill bugs or weeds. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with the fact that the unborn baby is inside it's mother, not that it isn't a person according to a law!
If it's okay to kill something that isn't a person, then why would there be animal rights? Why can't you abuse and kill your pet dog or cat or horse, etc n some places? It obviously has nothing to do with the fact that they are not persons!

reply from: fetalisa

Read the Roe decision and enlighten yourself:
"A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54 [410 U.S. 113, 158]
Fine, pulling random nonsense from your behind is more valuable than reading the actual court case that led to the decision. I certainly am glad I chose to stick with known FACTS, rather than making up crap out of thin air to support my point.
I have discussed stepping on bugs, swatting mosquitos or killing weeds. What do any of these have to do with animal rights law?
In any event, if SRUW4I5 wishes to be honest, they will tell their friend to abort if she chooses, nor not to abort if she doesn't and to feel no shame in either case, since the courts have determined beyond all doubt, the unborn aren't persons and the constitution doesn't apply to them. SRUW4I5 could also mention that Amendment 48 is taking a beating in the polls with voters, with 68% of voters rejecting the idea an unborn is a person from conception forward. Obviously, either by case law or popular vote, the overwhelming majority do not consider abortion to be murder because we recognize the simple fact the unborn are not persons. So killing an unborn via abortion, is no different than killing a mosquito or a weed.

reply from: Antibigot

Read the Roe decision and enlighten yourself:
"A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54 [410 U.S. 113, 158]
Fine, pulling random nonsense from your behind is more valuable than reading the actual court case that led to the decision. I certainly am glad I chose to stick with known FACTS, rather than making up crap out of thin air to support my point.
I have discussed stepping on bugs, swatting mosquitos or killing weeds. What do any of these have to do with animal rights law?
Why is the unborn baby not considered a person? What was the reason for that? That's why I said that not being a person by law is not the ACTUAL reason abortion is legal!

reply from: RiverMoonLady

"Original sin" is a Catholic thing. Other babies are born innocent.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Sucks to be a Catholic baby, eh?
It must! Being blamed for what Adam and Eve did - darn, that's just wrong.

reply from: fetalisa

It is physically impossible for the unborn to participate in a single right outlined in the Constitution. Does the Constitution address mosquitos? Of course not. Why is that? It is physically impossible for mosquitos or weeds to exercise a single right outlined in the Constitution.
Then your task is easy. Demonstrate the usefulness of a right such as free speech or exercise of religion for an unborn. (A an example, a dog could no more make use of a right to free exercise of religion than an unborn could, which is why it is absurd to suggest dogs are constitutional persons!) Extra credit if you show the same for rocks, weeds or mosquitos.

reply from: fetalisa

Original sin is an invention of Christianity. The idea is not found in Judaism (from which Christianity wrongly claims to draw from) and the Jews I know find the original sin idea to be both heinous and morally repugnant.

reply from: Witness

The child is in the womb through no fault of his/her own. The mother chose to have sex knowing full well that pregnancy could be the result. To kill the child because it was unfortunate enough to be the result of the mother's actions is like punishing a mugging victim for wounds the mugger incurred in pursuit of his crime.
Your friend needs to get acquainted with the reality of the child in her womb. He/she isn't an assailant, but rather a precious one-of-a-kind blood relation that can never be replaced.
You are welcome to visit my site http://www.children-of-the-heart.net and print any of the information there that you think might help you.

reply from: Antibigot

It is physically impossible for the unborn to participate in a single right outlined in the Constitution. Does the Constitution address mosquitos? Of course not. Why is that? It is physically impossible for mosquitos or weeds to exercise a single right outlined in the Constitution.
Then your task is easy. Demonstrate the usefulness of a right such as free speech or exercise of religion for an unborn. (A dog could no make use of a right to free exercise of religion than an unborn could!) Extra credit if you show the same for rocks, weeds or mosquitos.
Babies DO NOT and CANNOT give consent to physically participate in any rights. OTHER people do that for them. And babies cannot physically participate in ALL rights outlined in the constitution!
Babies do not consent to circumcisions. They do not have a say of what religion they want to participate in. They have a right, but SOMEONE ELSE decides which rights they can participate in. And in many cases, children do not have the same rights as adults.

reply from: jujujellybean

seriously, I'm sure the fetus would ask for her consent if it could. Unfortunately, it doesn't have that ability.

reply from: fetalisa

Newborns have the ability to participate in constitutional rights such as free speech or religion, whether they cry or participate in a christening or bris. For unborns, it is physically impossible for them to participate in a single right outlined in the Constitution, which is why they are not constitutional persons.
There's not a word in any of the above regarding consent, but nice try on diversion.
Yet, newborns have an ability to participate in at least some constitutional rights. Whereas, for the unborn, it is physically impossible to participate in ANY constitutional rights, which is why they are not constitutional persons.

reply from: fetalisa

I'm sure the fetus would ask you to mind your own uterus, rather than the uterus of others. Unfortunately, it doesn't have that ability, so you should believe it just because I say it.

reply from: yoda

Pardon my bluntness....... but that is the stupidest, coldest, most grotesque comment I've seen here in a long time. Unborn babies DON'T DO ANYTHING...... "nature", in the form of the placenta, takes food from the mother and gives it to the baby..... with NO ACTION WHAT EVER required by the baby...... which of course AN UNBORN BABY ISN'T CAPABLE OF ANY "ACTION" ANYWAY........ geeeezzeee LOUISE...... how stupid can some morons be??????
What in blazes do you mean "never really live"? Do you really think they are dead until birth? DO YOU REALLY????????

reply from: yoda

I'll say a great big agnostic AMEN! to that, brother....

reply from: yoda

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

reply from: yoda

And naturally, YOUR OPINION has WAY, WAY MORE AUTHORITY than any dictionary.......... RIGHT?????

reply from: yoda

No kidding.
NOT TO MENTION that the "law" is purely the arbitrary opinion of a few nasty, senile old geezers who hate young people anyway..... not unlike the antebellum southerners who said that blacks were "not people", or the nazis who said that Jews were "not people"..... ring a bell with you?
But when people are desperate to justify the slaughter of the innocent, they will grasp at any straw, won't they?

reply from: Nulono

Same for newborns. And the very young. And the senile. And the sleeping.

reply from: yoda

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!!!!!!!!!!
THAT'S THE STUPIDEST, FUNNIEST THING I'VE EVER READ ANYWHERE!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!!!!!!!!!!

reply from: yoda

Of course, just like YOU would if a mugger was about to slit your throat, pull your arms off, stab you in the heart with a needle full of poison......
Oh, you would tell someone trying to stop the mugger to "mind their own business", wouldn't you?

reply from: BossMomma

Sucks to be a Catholic baby, eh?
It must! Being blamed for what Adam and Eve did - darn, that's just wrong.
Original sin was covered by the crusifiction of Jesus, as the bible worded it " No longer shall the sins of the father fall upon the head of the son."

reply from: BossMomma

Which requires one to believe in that crap in the first place.
But that's another story...
I don't really buy into it either, but biblically that is supposed to be the way of it. It is my opinion that if a person has done nothing wrong they are innocent.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And naturally, YOUR OPINION has WAY, WAY MORE AUTHORITY than any dictionary.......... RIGHT?????
The point of this thread was to share opinions, Yodabot.

reply from: fetalisa

The personhood of newborns, the young or the senile is not in dispute. Terry Schiavo lacked sentience and consciousness once her brains had liquified. She was still a person by fact of her birth, as is the case with newborns, the young and the senile.

reply from: joe

Which requires one to believe in that crap in the first place.
But that's another story...
I don't really buy into it either, but biblically that is supposed to be the way of it. It is my opinion that if a person has done nothing wrong they are innocent.
Done nothing wrong = innocent. Seems logical to me.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

But you could say the unborn HAS done something wrong, a whole long list of things. Which is why I think it's just better to say it is separate from the law.

reply from: joe

You cannot be guilty for an action you did not choose. They are innocent.

reply from: fetalisa

If you can not choose either of an innocent nor guilty action, you can be neither innocent nor guilty. Can a weed or rock be innocent, given that both are capable of innocent or guilty actions? No they can not, no more than the unborn can be innocent, since they too lack the ability to choose right or wrong action.

reply from: joe

You compared a weed and a rock to human life...your opinion here is void.
They are guilty of nothing = they are innocent. (simple for those who think).

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You cannot be guilty for an action you did not choose. They are innocent.
If I accidentally killed someone I would still be guilty of murder.

reply from: joe

You cannot be guilty for an action you did not choose. They are innocent.
If I accidentally killed someone I would still be guilty of murder.
I believe that is called manslaughter and you caused an action that killed by choice. The unborn chose nothing.

reply from: fetalisa

The weed and rock are just as sentient, conscious and just as much of a person, as an unborn is. Funny how the voters of Colorado agree. I guess their opinion don't matter here either.
How can they be guilty, when they lack the sentience necessary to choose a guilty action? For the same reason, they can not be innocent, no more than a weed or rock could choose a right action.
If they were innocent and they were people, we certainly wouldn't have a judge order that six of them be destroyed by thawing. Oh, that's right, you can't freeze people for years and thaw them out and have them live, which is one clue to the fact embryos are not persons.

reply from: joe

If they are not guilty then they are ___________. (I will give you the first 7 letters i n n o c e n _ ).

reply from: Cecilia

Maybe it's a stereotype and people are starting to recognize it. Not every woman is a nuturer by nature, and those that aren't are starting to be more understood instead of vilified.

reply from: Cecilia

Fetuses aren't innocent or guilty, they just exist.
Your site is a heinous act against reality and honesty. No supporting information whatsoever, just your opinions.
This is why the internet is completely unreliable for information. Anyone can have a ...
Oh, sorry, people are shouting "Obama" in the streets!!!

reply from: fetalisa

What utter NONSENSE! If they are not Democrat they must be ____________. (The correct answer is not Republican, it could likewise be Libertarian or Green).
"If they are not guilty then they are ___________"
incapable of neither guilt nor sentience, due to lack of sentience and consciousness.

reply from: joe

What utter NONSENSE! If they are not Democrat they must be ____________. (The correct answer is not Republican, it could likewise be Libertarian or Green).
WRONG. Try again. (Hint: the last letter is t).

reply from: fetalisa

If the unborn are 'innocent persons' as you claim, http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/news/ivf-embryo-destruction.html
"On Oct. 14, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued its decision to deny a man's legal appeal to keep alive the six frozen IVF (in vitro fertilization) embryos that he and his ex-wife had preserved during their marriage. The ex-wife wanted to have the embryos destroyed, and the Court's decision supports that action."
And if the unborn are 'innocent persons' as you claim, then http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/12/earlyshow/main1203514.shtml
Even SHE learned her lesson, as proven after the case was decided, when she "admitted she wouldn't drive alone in a car in an HOV lane again.

reply from: BossMomma

That's ridiculous, what could a fetus possibly be guilty of?

reply from: fetalisa

What could it be innocent of, since it has no sentience?

reply from: BossMomma

What could it be innocent of, since it has no sentience?
Innocence is also defined as ignorance, I'd say a fetus is fairly ignorant.
Definition provided by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Other important copyright information here.
innocence:
Noun
1. The state, quality, or virtue of being innocent, as: a. Freedom from sin, moral wrong, or guilt through lack of knowledge of evil. b. Guiltlessness of a specific legal crime or offense. c. Freedom from guile, cunning, or deceit; simplicity or artlessness. d. Lack of worldliness or sophistication; naiveté. e. Lack of knowledge or understanding; ignorance. f. Freedom from harmfulness; inoffensivene
Definition provided by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Other important copyright information here.
guilt:

Noun
1. The fact of being responsible for the commission of an offense. See Synonyms at blame. 2. Law Culpability for a crime or lesser breach of regulations that carries a legal penalty. 3. a. Remorseful awareness of having done something wrong. b. Self-reproach for supposed inadequacy or wrongdoing. 4. Guilty conduct; sin.
A fetus fits the definition of innocent.

reply from: fetalisa

That might actually work, if you had some way to prove sin exists, other than a story of a talking serpent in a fable.
How can a non-sentient entity, such as a rock, weed or unborn, be responsible for an offense? Without sentience, there is nothing to determine right from wrong, so neither of guilt nor innocence is possible.
If that is the case, the weed in your yard is likewise innocent and we feel no guilt or shame when we kill it either.

reply from: BossMomma

That might actually work, if you had some way to prove sin exists, other than a story of a talking serpent in a fable.
How can a non-sentient entity, such as a rock, weed or unborn, be responsible for an offense? Without sentience, there is nothing to determine right from wrong, so neither of guilt nor innocence is possible.
If that is the case, the weed in your yard is likewise innocent and we feel no guilt or shame when we kill it either.
Yes the weed is innocent, as is the dog, the cat, the mouse and, the newborn. The difference is, a fetus is a human being, not a weed, a rock or any other of your idiotic analogies.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's ridiculous, what could a fetus possibly be guilty of?
Rape, battery, assault, tresspassing, violation of person, injury, and possibly murder if the mother dies. All on accident of course, but as pro-choicers are fond of saying "I can kill anyone who tries to assault me even if they aren't aware they are doing it!"
Again, I think that's all nonsense.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

What could it be innocent of, since it has no sentience?
Innocence is also defined as ignorance, I'd say a fetus is fairly ignorant.
Definition provided by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Other important copyright information here.
innocence:
Noun
1. The state, quality, or virtue of being innocent, as: a. Freedom from sin, moral wrong, or guilt through lack of knowledge of evil. b. Guiltlessness of a specific legal crime or offense. c. Freedom from guile, cunning, or deceit; simplicity or artlessness. d. Lack of worldliness or sophistication; naiveté. e. Lack of knowledge or understanding; ignorance. f. Freedom from harmfulness; inoffensivene
Definition provided by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Other important copyright information here.
guilt:

Noun
1. The fact of being responsible for the commission of an offense. See Synonyms at blame. 2. Law Culpability for a crime or lesser breach of regulations that carries a legal penalty. 3. a. Remorseful awareness of having done something wrong. b. Self-reproach for supposed inadequacy or wrongdoing. 4. Guilty conduct; sin.
A fetus fits the definition of innocent.
Very interesting post, and I will have to consider it.

reply from: yoda

That might actually work, if you had some way to prove sin exists, other than a story of a talking serpent in a fable..
You don't comprehend what you read very well, do you? "Sin" was just one of the choices in that quote. Being in a state of "freedom" from moral wrong or guilt were the two other choices.
Try remedial reading classes.

reply from: yoda

Exactly. Being free of evil deeds or thoughts is all it takes to be "innocent". Nothing else is required or demanded by our language.

reply from: BossMomma

That's ridiculous, what could a fetus possibly be guilty of?
Rape, battery, assault, tresspassing, violation of person, injury, and possibly murder if the mother dies. All on accident of course, but as pro-choicers are fond of saying "I can kill anyone who tries to assault me even if they aren't aware they are doing it!"
Again, I think that's all nonsense.
How does a fetus rape, batter, assault, violate a person, injure or murder anyone? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, Lib your arguments are getting rather outlandish lately.

reply from: fetalisa

Tell it to the voters of Colorado, who rejected the insanity of unborn=person via ballot, and South Dakota who rejected an abortion ban in all cases except rape, incest and life of the mother, via ballot.
How dumb does one have to be to not grasp the fact their views exist only on the crackpot minority fringe of American society? How stupid does one have to be, that they can't recognize the voters won't have these absurd and ludicrous laws forced on us without our consent? Did you seriously think we the people would allow our cops to collect used tampons to search for 'murder' victims? The voters DO NOT AGREE with your hair-brained notions of what a person is and is not YODA! Americans DO AGREE that your crackpot morality applies to you and you alone, not the rest of us. So get over yourself and do something useful with your life and get your nose out of uteruses that don't belong to you. GOT IT?

reply from: yoda

I don't believe the issue being discussed here was on the ballot in any state, was it?
Or are you claiming that the meaning of words changes every time a ballot measure is voted up or down?
What kind of weird claim ARE you making, anyway? Do you EVER actually comment on the actual subject of the post you are replying to? Or would that violate a proabort commandment?

reply from: BossMomma

Tell it to the voters of Colorado, who rejected the insanity of unborn=person via ballot, and South Dakota who rejected an abortion ban in all cases except rape, incest and life of the mother, via ballot.
How dumb does one have to be to not grasp the fact their views exist only on the crackpot minority fringe of American society? How stupid does one have to be, that they can't recognize the voters won't have these absurd and ludicrous laws forced on us without our consent? Did you seriously think we the people would allow our cops to collect used tampons to search for 'murder' victims? The voters DO NOT AGREE with your hair-brained notions of what a person is and is not YODA! Americans DO AGREE that your crackpot morality applies to you and you alone, not the rest of us. So get over yourself and do something useful with your life and get your nose out of uteruses that don't belong to you. GOT IT?
Did you know that Colorado doesn't comprise the whole of the USA? What the majority of Americans believe is as yet unknown and I am no crack pot.

reply from: yoda

And Colorado (or any other state) certainly did NOT vote on the meaning of the word "innocent"...... NOR would that have had any effect on the meaning of that word even if they had.
It takes a "crackpot" to insinuate that such a thing happened, or would even matter if it had.

reply from: fetalisa

Colorado voted on whether an unborn would be legally defined as a person from conception forward, which was overwhelmingly rejected by the voters as lunacy, by a 73.5% margin. Obviously, if the voters believed the unborn were 'innocent' persons, the measure would have PASSED by a 75% margin, instead of failing. So no, the public of Colorado DOES NOT BUY AT ALL YOUR CRACKPOT MORALITY!
How can the definition of personhood change in this country, when it has NEVER included the 'innocent' unborn? We don't count the unborn as persons in a census, whose specific purpose is to count persons. An unborn isn't a person in an HOV lane. Embryos are treated as community property in divorce cases, with a recent case having a judge ordering 6 embryos 'murdered' by thawing. So tell me again how an unborn can be either of a person or innocent?
The claim I am making is the voting public of Colorado AND South Dakota RESOUNDINGLY REJECTED YOUR CRACKPOT MORALITY.

reply from: yoda

What an incredibly stupid, crackpot statement!! Does your stupidity know no bounds???????????
YOU Proaborts KNOW that the unborn are innocent, and YOU want to see them killed ANYWAY!!
And "innocence" was NOT ON THE BALLOT, FETAL IDIOT!!

reply from: fetalisa

How is it my problem if FACTS are in your way?
Does yours? How can the unborn be either persons or innocent, http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14044 It takes stupidity on a level I have never possessed to DENY THE FACTS OF REALITY AS YOU DO!
How can we discuss whether the unborn are innocent persons or not, when the voters of both Colorado and South Dakota demonstrate via ballot that the unborn aren't anywhere near close to being considered persons? You can't get to a discussion of innocence until the personhood argument is first complete, and it is definitely finished in both Colorado and South Dakota. The voters have spoken clearly and concisely.

reply from: ProInformed

It amazes me that blacks trust liberals so much.
Let's connect the dots:
Liberals excuse killing unborn babies, the elderly, the disabled, and the ill
with the excuse that they are 'parasites', that they are not innocent because they can't yet, or can't anymore, or can't as easily, support and defend themselves, can't contribute as much as a healthy sexually active college-aged person can... that they are a drain on resources and taxpayers.
But don't liberals also promote the racist notion that blacks are somehow incapable of supporting themselves, can't be expected to contribute to society without being a drain on taxpayers? The truth is it is the liberals that believe blacks are inferior and therefore can't be expected to support themselves without taxpayers 'helping' them.
And what do liberals think should be done to those who are a drain on society and taxpayers? Liberals think it's justifiable to kill those humans don't they?
(hmmm Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger did call blacks 'useless eaters'...)
Why don't more blacks realize the agenda when they are being assured BY the same liberals that excuse killing humans who aren't contributing/support themselves 'enough', that blacks also shouldn't contribute to society and support themselves?
Why is it that those humans who can't support and defend themselves (temporarily because they are still babies, or can't do so anymore but they DID contribute before they became elderly, ill, or disabled) are considered 'guilty' while all those who CAN and SHOULD support themselves and contribute to society are considered innocent or victims when they CHOOSE to expect a free ride?!?!?
If the ability to support yourself and not being a drain on taxpayers is THE determinant of the right to life, then why isn't EVERY human being scrutinized that way? Why do those who refuse to work and expect a handout from taxpayers get to live? If babies can't be allowed a few years of being cared for without contributing, the elderly can't be allowed some years (finally after workign their whole lives) of being cared for without contributing, then why should college kids be allowed several years partying and wallowing in liberal brainwashing, of not having to support themselves or pay taxes?
Maybe it's the ability to have 'free sex' that is valued more than human life itself?
Maybe that is what qualifies the college kids to be entitled to several years of not having to support themselves or pay taxes? If liberals could legally use babies, the disabled, and the elderly for 'free sex', maybe THEN liberals would acknowledge their right to life.
Either the liberal agenda will logically lead to ALL humans who can't OR WON'T support themselves having their right to life lost... OR the liberals are lying and the real litmus test for the right to life is whether your body is deemed desirable for being used for 'free sex'. Hey, I did hear a LOT of obama worshippers saying thay were voting for him because they thought he was 'sexy' and making fun of McCain's age and appearance... Forget about race, religion, political affiliations, feminism, and everything else... maybe in the future the right to life will be determined solely by your sexual desirability and usefulness? After all, everyone knows babies spoil the fun of 'free sex' and the porn industry focus is on a very limited age group and definition of sexaully atttractive. IF not fully supporting yourself really were the justification for abortion and euthenasia, then most college kids and and many blacks would also be at risk of losing their right to life... but they aren't... not yet anyway... So the truth is the 'parasite' excuse is just the excuse - NOT the real reason - which is the worship of sex.

reply from: yoda

WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING THAT!!
We are discussing whether the unborn are INNOCENT OR NOT..... we are not discussing whether they are "innocent persons" or not.
You are just petrified of discussing the word "innocent" by itself, aren't you?
You just can't stick to the subject for a millisecond, can you?
COWARD!!

reply from: RiverMoonLady

I think you are stuck in the 1950s.
In case you haven't noticed, it's 2008 and "liberals" don't think the way you suppose they do. Ignorance is bliss, I guess, and it is so much easier than actually THINKING.

reply from: fetalisa

Obama, who has a long history of abortion rights, was just voted in as president of the country. That tells me quite a bit about how the public views abortion rights. Unless you have evidence to present that other states would allow cops to collect used tampons to search for 'murder' victims, I have every indication to accept the public rejects your crackpot morality. Colorado was almost 75% defining an unborn as a person, which is a LANDSLIDE. Cop a clue already!
The voters certainly took no issue at all in voting Obama into office and his support of abortion rights is very well known.

reply from: fetalisa

It certainly doesn't appear that voters bought into the insane notion that liberals=cooties, yet we still have posters here who don't have a clue WHY the voters didn't buy into it. Perhaps the liberals=cooties argument would fly, if one was ever posed that was actually logically valid?

reply from: BossMomma

Obama, who has a long history of abortion rights, was just voted in as president of the country. That tells me quite a bit about how the public views abortion rights. Unless you have evidence to present that other states would allow cops to collect used tampons to search for 'murder' victims, I have every indication to accept the public rejects your crackpot morality. Colorado was almost 75% defining an unborn as a person, which is a LANDSLIDE. Cop a clue already!
The voters certainly took no issue at all in voting Obama into office and his support of abortion rights is very well known.
Right and I'm sure abortion was the sole reason he was voted in right? It couldn't possibly be anything else. You cop a clue, Obama won because he pretty much gave every minority, gay and, feminist their fondest wish. Gays will get to marry, pro-choicers will get to abort to their hearts content and minorities will finally get to say they put someone in presidential office. The rampant voter fraud may have also played a part, when one's supporters vote 3 or 4 times it's no wonder.

reply from: lilmomma21

idk its kinda hard to say i mean im facing that issus my self shoud i keep it or should i not, i mean its something you have to talk with yourself on. people would never under stand because they are judgeing for the outlook that they see not because you havent took the time to deside if this is good for me but whats best for this baby and what is best for my heath i think your friend is right. we the women are the ones who have to carry thiese babies and risk our heath to try and bring a baby into the world that we can bearly thake care of and not only that i mean this is crazy stuff that you would have to think andout and carefully plain ooout

reply from: cracrat

I should probably preface this response with an admission that I'm properly wooly bleeding heart liberal who has doubts about the Democratic Party because they're a bit too right wing for my taste. I'm not a communist/socialist since I can see that such a system can never work with people involved, but I do believe that society as a whole has a responsibility to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to make something of themselves and that government is the most effective way of keeping the playing field as level a possible.
Nearly as much as it amazes me that so many poor people continue to support the GOP, the party that would, and indeed does when given the chance, expend so much effort grinding them under the boots of the wealthy.
Unborn babies yes, on the basis that many feel a woman's right to choose when to procreate trump that child right to enjoy a chance at life. The elderly, I assume you're refering to euthanasia, why shouldn't a person have the right to choose when they die? And if they need help to carry out their wishes, why should that person be punished for an act of love? The disabled and the ill? I've never heard anyone I'd identify as liberal seriously suggesting such a policy.
No they don't. Liberals recognise that historically blacks, and other minorities, have gotten the real sh*tty end of the stick and the consequences are still being felt in those communities. For example, when Lincoln emancipated the slaves, no effort was made to put those people in a position to make it by themselves. In what was at the time a largely agrarian society, precious little was done in terms of giving them land or resources to build a life for themselves. When the British outlawed slavery, the £millions compensation was set aside for the slave owners, not one penny for the freed slaves. The result of this historical downtreading is that blakcs and the rest now tend to be the poorest in society, live in the worst areas of towns/cities, go to the worst schools, have the worst health and have the fewest prospects. It requires significant effort on the part of the authorities to intervene to break these cycles.
All the liberals I know (and I assure you that that is an awful lot) tend to agree that the way to solve these problems is to provide the 'drains on society' with the helping hand they need to dig themselves out of poverty. Not just hand out food stamps and social housing, but helping them get the education they deserve and need to get a job, provide extra policing in their areas to keep levels of crime down, if they end up in prison then use that time effectively to break the cycle of poverty by doing wierd things like teaching them to read (it's striking that 2 in 3 prisoners in this country are functionaly illiterate). I have never heard anyone advocate killing them off because it's too expensive to help them.
Who considers them guilty? Those who can't support themselves should be given the support they need until such time as they are back on their feet (in the case of the unemployed/sick), can begin to contribute (children) or shuffle off to meet their maker (the elderly). It is the political right who more often advocate cutting funding for such public services (usually with an associated tax cut for the wealthy) that provides such support, not the left.
Again, it is the right who are far more likely to be refering to people who need help from society as drains on taxpayers' resources, not the liberal left. People can not be scrutinized that way because people and society can't be reduced to simple numbers on a screen with dollar values attached. To do so would be an appalling affront to everything humane. Those not in a position to help themselves should be supported, thos who choose to better themselves through education should also be supported since it is invariably the scientists/engineers/doctors/etc. who drag the rest of society forwards.
Now you're just taking forays in the world of deeply disturbing thoughts.
That's not a liberal agenda you moron, that's a fascist agenda. Liberalism at its heart is the idea that people should pretty much be allowed to get on with living their own lives without interference from outside parties so long as through their actions they bring no harm to others around them. With regard to abortion, this seems to have gotten lost en route, with regard to euthanasia, the suggestion is that a person has the right to choose to die if they so wish (though I do object to euthanasia on practical grounds). Your efforts to paint liberals as the criminals behind all that is wrong in the world is grossly dishonest and you should be ashamed.

reply from: fetalisa

Let the readers cop a clue and see the above words are your words, not mine.
Really? What are the fondest wishes of minorities, gays and feminists that Obama somehow 'gave' these groups, even though he hasn't been inaugerated?
Obama is against gay marriage. Didn't you watch the debates?
How can Obama give that to the voters, when the voters have had it for 35 years already?
Whites voted for Obama too. Do you seriously think appealing to minority voters only is enough to win the office?
PROOF?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's ridiculous, what could a fetus possibly be guilty of?
Rape, battery, assault, tresspassing, violation of person, injury, and possibly murder if the mother dies. All on accident of course, but as pro-choicers are fond of saying "I can kill anyone who tries to assault me even if they aren't aware they are doing it!"
Again, I think that's all nonsense.
How does a fetus rape, batter, assault, violate a person, injure or murder anyone? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, Lib your arguments are getting rather outlandish lately.
And your reading comprehension is rather bad lately. I didn't say those were my arguments. I said they are arguments I have heard. You wanted to know, so I told.
How can a fetus rape? It's violating the woman's body against her will. How can it batter/assult/harm her? Childbirth anyone? Not to mention any prenatal side effects she may suffer. Murder? If the woman dies and it's the fetus' fault, then it murdered her.
AGAIN, SINCE YOU MISSED IT THE FIRST TIME, I THINK THESE ARGUMENTS ARE NONSENSE. MAYBE YOU'LL READ THIS IF I MAKE IT BIG AND BOLD.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Nearly as much as it amazes me that so many poor people continue to support the GOP, the party that would, and indeed does when given the chance, expend so much effort grinding them under the boots of the wealthy.
Unborn babies yes, on the basis that many feel a woman's right to choose when to procreate trump that child right to enjoy a chance at life. The elderly, I assume you're refering to euthanasia, why shouldn't a person have the right to choose when they die? And if they need help to carry out their wishes, why should that person be punished for an act of love? The disabled and the ill? I've never heard anyone I'd identify as liberal seriously suggesting such a policy.
No they don't. Liberals recognise that historically blacks, and other minorities, have gotten the real sh*tty end of the stick and the consequences are still being felt in those communities. For example, when Lincoln emancipated the slaves, no effort was made to put those people in a position to make it by themselves. In what was at the time a largely agrarian society, precious little was done in terms of giving them land or resources to build a life for themselves. When the British outlawed slavery, the £millions compensation was set aside for the slave owners, not one penny for the freed slaves. The result of this historical downtreading is that blakcs and the rest now tend to be the poorest in society, live in the worst areas of towns/cities, go to the worst schools, have the worst health and have the fewest prospects. It requires significant effort on the part of the authorities to intervene to break these cycles.
All the liberals I know (and I assure you that that is an awful lot) tend to agree that the way to solve these problems is to provide the 'drains on society' with the helping hand they need to dig themselves out of poverty. Not just hand out food stamps and social housing, but helping them get the education they deserve and need to get a job, provide extra policing in their areas to keep levels of crime down, if they end up in prison then use that time effectively to break the cycle of poverty by doing wierd things like teaching them to read (it's striking that 2 in 3 prisoners in this country are functionaly illiterate). I have never heard anyone advocate killing them off because it's too expensive to help them.
Who considers them guilty? Those who can't support themselves should be given the support they need until such time as they are back on their feet (in the case of the unemployed/sick), can begin to contribute (children) or shuffle off to meet their maker (the elderly). It is the political right who more often advocate cutting funding for such public services (usually with an associated tax cut for the wealthy) that provides such support, not the left.
Again, it is the right who are far more likely to be refering to people who need help from society as drains on taxpayers' resources, not the liberal left. People can not be scrutinized that way because people and society can't be reduced to simple numbers on a screen with dollar values attached. To do so would be an appalling affront to everything humane. Those not in a position to help themselves should be supported, thos who choose to better themselves through education should also be supported since it is invariably the scientists/engineers/doctors/etc. who drag the rest of society forwards.
Now you're just taking forays in the world of deeply disturbing thoughts.
That's not a liberal agenda you moron, that's a fascist agenda. Liberalism at its heart is the idea that people should pretty much be allowed to get on with living their own lives without interference from outside parties so long as through their actions they bring no harm to others around them. With regard to abortion, this seems to have gotten lost en route, with regard to euthanasia, the suggestion is that a person has the right to choose to die if they so wish (though I do object to euthanasia on practical grounds). Your efforts to paint liberals as the criminals behind all that is wrong in the world is grossly dishonest and you should be ashamed.
Nice post Cracrat :3
I'm a mix myself, I'm very liberal in some cases and more moderate in others, and in a very few cases I'm sure I am conservative.

reply from: BossMomma

That's ridiculous, what could a fetus possibly be guilty of?
Rape, battery, assault, tresspassing, violation of person, injury, and possibly murder if the mother dies. All on accident of course, but as pro-choicers are fond of saying "I can kill anyone who tries to assault me even if they aren't aware they are doing it!"
Again, I think that's all nonsense.
How does a fetus rape, batter, assault, violate a person, injure or murder anyone? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, Lib your arguments are getting rather outlandish lately.
And your reading comprehension is rather bad lately. I didn't say those were my arguments. I said they are arguments I have heard. You wanted to know, so I told.
How can a fetus rape? It's violating the woman's body against her will. How can it batter/assult/harm her? Childbirth anyone? Not to mention any prenatal side effects she may suffer. Murder? If the woman dies and it's the fetus' fault, then it murdered her.
AGAIN, SINCE YOU MISSED IT THE FIRST TIME, I THINK THESE ARGUMENTS ARE NONSENSE. MAYBE YOU'LL READ THIS IF I MAKE IT BIG AND BOLD.
Or maybe you can quit being warm and fuzzy one moment then being a confused little biotch the next. You whine about the slander and such but then sit there and join in the name calling. You post something totally assinine then get confused when intelligent people are like WTF?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I dish out what a receive and suddenly I'm the villain? Yeah I'd like people to be polite around here but that's clearly not working. I clearly explained myself in both of those posts. I'm sick right now of dealing with the bull***** on this forum.

reply from: BossMomma

Well then maybe you should give it a rest. You aren't dishing out what you recieve, there was nothing rude or forceful about my post stating that contraception was more effective than abstinance only yet you twist my posts, misconstrue what is written even though my meaning is quite clear and then, get snarky when I ask what your talking about. You run around threatening people with ignore as though it's really going to ruin their day if you don't see or respond to their posts but then act like an ass with people who are doing nothing wrong. Get over yourself.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You haven't read anything Yoda, Witness or Nancyu have written over the past two weeks? Or Joe? Or, let's see who else I have on ignore right now... Oh right, Vexer.

reply from: BossMomma

I have nothing really against Witness or Nancyu though YodaHater gets an eye roll from me at least once a day, what's that got to do with you? You've been acting rather odd lately and it has me mildly curious and somewhat annoyed, especially when taking my posts so obviously out of context.

reply from: CharlesD

This is a rather vindictive thread. You'd think people could discuss the issues without belittling one another and resorting to foul language and name calling.
Anyway, Obama being elected is by no means a referendum on what people think about abortion, since many professed pro life people voted for him. What it does say is that many people in this country don't view it as the most important factor in determining who to vote for. I do place it pretty high on the priority list, as do many people here, but a whole of people don't put it that high. All of us on here rank it pretty high because it's something we all feel strongly about, whichever side of the issue we find ourselves on, but there are a few million people in this country who pretty much just don't care about a candidate's stand on the abortion issue as long as he supports economic policies they agree with.
Also, since when are the definitions of words up for public vote? A human being is a person by virtue of being a human being.

reply from: fetalisa

Never.
Which has nothing at all to do with legal personhood.

reply from: CharlesD

Does the usage of person in the 14th amendment refer to only legal persons, or to human beings? Is there anything in a definition of legal personhood that excludes certain humans from that status?
The word person, as it was used at the time the Constitution was written, simply meant a human being.

reply from: fetalisa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion#17th-century_to_present
(Check the 3rd paragraph under the section titled Legal: History of abortion law)
How can your claim POSSIBLY be true, given that abortion was allowed before 'quickening?" If the Constitution meant 'human being' in any instance where the word 'person' appeared, why would abortion be LEGAL prior to quickening? (Do you really think the Roe judges were NOT aware of these facts of law in our history? Oh, that's right. You haven't read the decision, so you don't have a clue.)
Why don't you 'interpret it in light of what is actually written there,' instead of seeing 'something....there that isn't there,' while insuring your interpretation is based on FACTS of our nation's history?

reply from: Nulono

Slavery was also allowed. Your point?

reply from: fetalisa

What does the slavery of those who have exited the womb have to do with the unborn? Nothing at all.

reply from: Nulono

THE POINT IS THAT THE GOVERMENT CAN BE WRONG!
The government is not infalliable.
The government is falliable.
The government is not always right.
The governmenr is imperfect.
The government is not perfect.
The government is sometimes incorrect.
The government is not correct about everything.
The government is, and it has demonstrated this repeatedly throughout history, an imperfect entity.

reply from: fetalisa

You haven't proven the government is wrong in this instance. The voters of Colorado on Amendment 48 demonstrate the government is RIGHT on this issue, actually, in that every where you look in our society, voter belief in Colorado on Amendment 48 is reflected, whether it be in the HOV lane, embryos as property in divorce cases, the counting of persons in a census, etc.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I have nothing really against Witness or Nancyu though YodaHater gets an eye roll from me at least once a day, what's that got to do with you? You've been acting rather odd lately and it has me mildly curious and somewhat annoyed, especially when taking my posts so obviously out of context.
They have all said nasty things to me within the past 2 weeks. That's what it has to do with me, and that's why I've been lashing back at them. However, most of them are on ignore now.

reply from: Nulono

Stop using ad populums.

reply from: fetalisa

The vote is the legitimate and constitutional means, which results in the government reflecting the will of the people.
I noticed you offered no proof the government is wrong on this issue, when the will of the people in the vote clearly demonstrate the government is RIGHT on this issue, in that the government reflects the will of the people on the personhood of the unborn.

reply from: fetalisa

Provide a direct quote where I have ever suggested such and I will be more than happy to answer.

reply from: Nulono

The vote is the legitimate and constitutional means, which results in the government reflecting the will of the people.
I noticed you offered no proof the government is wrong on this issue, when the will of the people in the vote clearly demonstrate the government is RIGHT on this issue, in that the government reflects the will of the people on the personhood of the unborn.
The people can be wrong.

reply from: fetalisa

That's not proof the people ARE wrong in this instance. Usually, if the people ARE wrong, a low or vote is immediately challenged. I don't see anyone challenging to results of the Colorado rejection of unborn personhood, no more than I see challenges to the SD rejection of the abortion ban.

reply from: Nulono

So why did women go so long without equal rights?

reply from: fetalisa

It wasn't based on the fact they weren't born, I assure you of that.

reply from: Nulono

It was based on the fact that they were not male. The majort]ity was against them.

reply from: fetalisa

And in hindsight, it is blatantly obvious women had the ability to participate in EVERY right outlined in the Constitution. Don't you agree?

reply from: Nulono

Again, you have CLEARLY demonstrated that the ability to participate in all of the Constitution's rights does not matter, as Ms. Schaivo could not, yet she was a person.
Go ahead. Say it. You only care about birth.

reply from: fetalisa

Schiavo was person by fact of her birth. What does that have to do with LACK of birth=LACK of personhood for the unborn?
Everywhere you look in society, that is the case. Embryos are property in divorce cases. That is FACT. The unborn are not persons in the HOV lane. That is FACT. The unborn are not counted in a census as persons are. That is FACT.
Why do you wish to assume this is some personal agenda on my part, when it is blatantly obvious every where you look in our society that the unborn are not persons?

reply from: CharlesD

Let's get off these silly arguments about who is and who isn't a person. The real discussion should be centered around whether or not it should be right to kill innocent human beings. All of these other arguments about what some people voted on or how some judge wrongfully interpreted the Constitution are secondary to the main issue. The unborn are innocent human beings. They are not members of any other species and they have committed no crimes. It is wrong to kill innocent human beings. The issue really is that simple. All of these other discussions are nothing but distractions from those point. Legal personhood, how much it will cost to raise the child, how much pregnancy will hinder your social life, the fact that you didn't want another kid, or a kid at all, are all irrelevant; those are distractions meant to turn the discussion away from the real points that are not even debatable. The unborn are innocent humans and it's wrong to kill innocent humans. Everything else is secondary.

reply from: fetalisa

Sure, just as soon as our unfinished business is done. You made the following claim earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion#17th-century_to_present
(Check the 3rd paragraph under the section titled Legal: History of abortion law)
If the word 'person,' as it was used at the time the Constitution was written meant 'human being,' how is it possible that abortion was legal before quickening under 18th century American common law?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Someone posted a definition of "innocence" a few pages back, don't know if it was this thread. I really liked it though.
You know, I just realised that pro-choicers arguing semantics is only because they can't stand to be confronted by the truth. I hated it too when I was a pro-choicer, I was SO anti-it's-a-baby...

reply from: LiberalChiRo

American Heritage Dictionary - in·no·cence
(?n'?-s?ns)
n.
1. The state, quality, or virtue of being innocent, as:
---a. Freedom from sin, moral wrong, or guilt through lack of knowledge of evil.
---b. Guiltlessness of a specific legal crime or offense.
---c. Freedom from guile, cunning, or deceit; simplicity or artlessness.
---d. Lack of worldliness or sophistication; naiveté.
---e. Lack of knowledge or understanding; ignorance.
---f. Freedom from harmfulness; inoffensiveness.
8. One that is innocent.
9. Botany See blue-eyed Mary.

reply from: fetalisa

Actually, another poster here is arguing semantics, in claiming the word 'person' meant 'human being' at the time the Constitution was written. If that were true, abortion would have been banned at the time the Constitution was written. The problem is, abortion wasn't banned at the time the Constitution was written, which means the word 'person' as found in the Constitution, could not possibly have been intended to mean 'human being' and could not possibly have intended to address the unborn.

reply from: BossMomma

That was me, it was the websters definition of innocent, the fetus fit the definition.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That was me, it was the websters definition of innocent, the fetus fit the definition.
Ah, thanks.

reply from: yoda

Glad to see you finally arrived at that conclusion....... and I can tell you from my experience as a "dictionary worshiper" that there is NO OTHER REASON to attack the academic credentials of reputable dictionaries.. NONE.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, I posted one also. It's so obvious that it's sickening to me to see the proaborts squirming to try to deny the "elephant in the room".

reply from: fetalisa

How can that be, when the unborn are property?
http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/news/ivf-embryo-destruction.html
Can your shoes be 'innocent?"

reply from: JRH

Glad to see you finally arrived at that conclusion....... and I can tell you from my experience as a "dictionary worshiper" that there is NO OTHER REASON to attack the academic credentials of reputable dictionaries.. NONE.
Dictionarys exist merely to tell people what most people think a word means. They serve as a method to record language. The meaning of words comes from what people think they mean-after all there were no dictionarys when language evolved.

reply from: BossMomma

How can that be, when the unborn are property?
http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/news/ivf-embryo-destruction.html
Can your shoes be 'innocent?"
Yup, until a foot gets in em and kicks you in the ass.

reply from: fetalisa

Why the hate? I am not the one who made the unborn property. I merely report the FACT they are.

reply from: yoda

You know, the last time that any living human being was considered "property" was during the antebellum period of our country, in the south mostly.
Ownership of another human being is called "slavery". That's the only term there is for that.

reply from: BossMomma

Why the hate? I am not the one who made the unborn property. I merely report the FACT they are.
Well if you ask a stupid question your liable to get a smart ass answer, a fetus is a living human being, not a pair of shoes.

reply from: Nulono

Yeah. It's called slavery. Innocence and property are not mutually exclusive.
Your shoes are innocent.

reply from: fetalisa

Slaves were born, so were not denied rights due to lack of birth. So how can they be relevant to the unborn who ARE denied rights due to lack of birth?

reply from: BossMomma

Slaves were born, so were not denied rights due to lack of birth. So how can they be relevant to the unborn who ARE denied rights due to lack of birth?
If a slave, a woman and a born child can gain rights in time, so can the unborn.

reply from: CharlesD

Were blacks actually property when the law recognized them as such? Could it be that a black man in 1860 was as much a person as he was in 1870? The 14th amendment did not grant him any rights that he did not already have, but merely recognized the intrinsic rights that he had all along by virtue of being human. Human rights are transcendent, not dependent on laws or public opinion. Those rights are intrinsic to all humans, not just legal persons. Not all persons are individual humans, but all individual humans are persons.
If these rights are not intrinsic, then you are left to assume that they are dependent on laws, which can change. That seems to be the arguments I am seeing on here. This court says this and this vote came out this way, so it must be so. If that is the case, then you must also admit that at one point, blacks actually were somehow less than a person and actually were property. If rights are not intrinsic, then they are only defined by law, and if that is the case then there was a time when blacks really were 3/5 of a person and really were property. Today we recognize the absurdity of that notion. We recognize that at no time in history were blacks actually less than a person or were property. The law at that time stated that they were property, but in reality they were completely human and completely deserving of intrinsic human rights, rights that the law did not recognize at the time. The status of a black man did not change when the the law changed. The law simply changed to recognize what always was the case.

reply from: CharlesD

This might seem like just semantics, but the slave, the woman, and the born child did not gain any rights. They had those rights all along, but the law just chose not to recognize those rights. Rights are not granted by government, but are intrinsic to every human. Governments can only recognize what already is.

reply from: JRH

This might seem like just semantics, but the slave, the woman, and the born child did not gain any rights. They had those rights all along, but the law just chose not to recognize those rights. Rights are not granted by government, but are intrinsic to every human. Governments can only recognize what already is.
Nonsense. Natural rights are a myth and I demand you provide evidence if you think otherwise. What rights you get in a society are arbitrary and chosen by people. There are no natural or objective rights.

reply from: CharlesD

If you kill me without provocation, you are guilty of violating my human right to life, not because society says so but because that right comes to me by virtue of my being a human being. Society can decide tomorrow not to recognize that right, but that does not in reality take that right away from me. It just means that the society refuses to recognize it. If there are no natural rights, then blacks actually were 3/5 of a person when the law stated such. Did the law make them what they were? They always were completely human. The 3/5 rule did not recognize reality. Can you provide hard evidence that blacks actually were only 3/5 of a person when that was the law and that they gained the other 2/5 when the law changed? I won't hold my breath.

reply from: fetalisa

If you have evidence to show slaves were denied rights based on lack of birth, as the unborn are, then present it.

reply from: fetalisa

I asked you first:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion#17th-century_to_present
(Check the 3rd paragraph under the section titled Legal: History of abortion law)
If the word 'person,' as it was used at the time the Constitution was written meant 'human being,' how is it possible that abortion was legal before quickening under 18th century American common law?

reply from: SRUW4I5

http://www.yourdictionary.com/innocence
in·no·cence (in?? s?ns)
noun
1 the quality or state of being innocent; specif.,
2 freedom from sin or moral wrong
3 freedom from legal guilt
4 freedom from guile or cunning; simplicity
5 lack of sophistication; naiveté
6 harmlessness
7 ignorance
http://www.yourdictionary.com/innocent
in·no·cent (in?? s?nt)
adjective
1 free from sin, evil, or guilt; specif.,
a doing or thinking nothing morally wrong; pure
b not guilty of a specific crime or offense; guiltless
c free from harmful effect or cause; that does not harm, injure, or corrupt
d not malignant; benign an innocent tumor
2 a very naive or simple-minded person
a knowing no evil
b without guile or cunning; artless; simple
c naive
d ignorant
3 totally lacking: with of innocent of adornment
-----
The definitions I bolded don't fit with a fetus since they can cause harm to the mother. So, I guess that makes a fetus not innocent by some definitions.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/guilty
guilty (gil?t?)
adjective guiltier guilt?i·er, guiltiest guilt?i·est
1 having guilt; deserving blame or punishment; culpable
2 having one's guilt proved; legally judged an offender
3 showing or conscious of guilt a guilty look
4 of or involving guilt or a sense of guilt a guilty conscience
A fetus doesn't fit the definition of guilty either...
So, they aren't innocent or guilty by some definitions...
But, other dictionaries have different definitions, which dictionary is the correct one to go by?

reply from: JRH

Where does tis right come from? Prove to me that all huma beings have this rights automatically.
Yes, it does.
It is impossible logically to be 3/5 of a person. If you are a person you must logically be a person. The law only failed to make things so under the system because it contained a logical contradiction. It is possible to *not* be defined as a person at all so your analogy is flawed. We don't think of the fetus as a person at all. No contradiction in the definition there.

reply from: fetalisa

I will not answer your questions for as long as you refuse to answer mine.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You do realise that the reason dictionaries list more than one definition is because often, there is more than one meaning? You don't have to fulfill ALL of the definitions in order to be innocent or guilty. But "MOST" is good.
But let's use YOUR "logic" for a minute. I'm going to look up "plane", and by this I mean the one that flies in the air. I'll bold all of the definitions it fits.
plane
1? ?/ple?n/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pleyn] Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, adjective, verb, planed, plan?ing.
- noun
1. a flat or level surface.
2. Geometry. a surface generated by a straight line moving at a constant velocity with respect to a fixed point.
3. Fine Arts. an area of a two-dimensional surface having determinate extension and spatial direction or position: oblique plane; horizontal plane.
4. a level of dignity, character, existence, development, or the like: a high moral plane.
5. Aeronautics.
a. an airplane or a hydroplane: to take a plane to Dallas.
b. a thin, flat or curved, extended section of an airplane or a hydroplane, affording a supporting surface.
6. Architecture. a longitudinal section through the axis of a column.
- adjective
7. flat or level, as a surface.
8. of or pertaining to planes or plane figures.
- verb (used without object)
9. to glide or soar.
10. (of a boat) to rise partly out of the water when moving at high speed.
11. Informal. to fly or travel in an airplane: We'll drive to Detroit and plane to Los Angeles.
HOLY crap!!! Only ONE definition fits! I guess that thing I fly in to go places can't be a "plane".

reply from: fetalisa

That doesn't answer the question as to how the unborn can be innocent, given they are property. Nor does it explain how non-conscious, non-sentient, non-persons such as rocks, weeds or unborn can be either of innocent or guilty.

reply from: SRUW4I5

People don't agree on whether or not their free from sin... They aren't in the state of being innocent according to some, not sure if they're ignorant. They aren't harmless. That leaves them with 2 definitions of innocence that they fit.
They aren't free from sin/evil, doing something morally wrong can depend on what you think of as morally wrong, they aren't free from harmful effect or cause, and they aren't a "person" (according to my definition) so they cant be a simple minded person.
so, they don't fit most of the definitions for innocence or innocent either... I fixed my post so it says "....not innocent by some definitions"

reply from: ProInformed

Pro-aborts basically believe females are inferior because they hold up as their ideal, as the goal of what the best of women can achieve, the lowest and least responsible of males - the lounge lizard perve types.
Thank God there are many males who aren't repulsive sexist pigs.
Too bad that's the only role model the bimbonic 'feminists' aspire to emulate...

reply from: fetalisa

You forced birthers are the ones who believe a woman is too stupid to make reproductive choices. Too bad the Constitution stands in the way of you ever infesting our society with your mindless utopia.
Didn't you hear? The public already rejected a bimbonic feminist known as Caribou Barbi. I suppose she it still waiting on the president of France to call her back!

reply from: SRUW4I5

Pro-aborts basically believe females are inferior because they hold up as their ideal, as the goal of what the best of women can achieve, the lowest and least responsible of males - the lounge lizard perve types.
I haven't met any Pro-Choicers that think women are inferior. I don't think anyone is actually Pro-Abortion since a lot of the Pro-Choicers I've talked to wouldn't have an abortion themself.
I believe in this quote:

reply from: fetalisa

Studies demonstrate when forced birthers have abortions, they tell themselves theirs is 'different' than other abortions, because it is necessary, in order to alleviate the cognitive dissonance they experience from their claimed views and what they actually do.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

People don't agree on whether or not their free from sin... They aren't in the state of being innocent according to some, not sure if they're ignorant. They aren't harmless. That leaves them with 2 definitions of innocence that they fit.
They aren't free from sin/evil, doing something morally wrong can depend on what you think of as morally wrong, they aren't free from harmful effect or cause, and they aren't a "person" (according to my definition) so they cant be a simple minded person.
so, they don't fit most of the definitions for innocence or innocent either... I fixed my post so it says "....not innocent by some definitions"
Well at least that's a concession. Thank you.

reply from: Cecilia

Pro-aborts basically believe females are inferior because they hold up as their ideal, as the goal of what the best of women can achieve, the lowest and least responsible of males - the lounge lizard perve types.
Thank God there are many males who aren't repulsive sexist pigs.
Too bad that's the only role model the bimbonic 'feminists' aspire to emulate...
Women are not paid the same as males for doing the same jobs, and you think that women who think that's wrong (feminists) are "bimbonic". Then you say "proaborts believe females are inferior" when here you have called them "bimbos", stereotyped, and lied aobut what "proaborts basically believe". These are not very intelligent comments from you.
Studies demonstrate when forced birthers have abortions, they tell themselves theirs is 'different' than other abortions, because it is necessary, in order to alleviate the cognitive dissonance they experience from their claimed views and what they actually do.
Many of the prolife women on here who have had abortions claim that they were forced.
I think that they believe since they did not get a choice that no one else should, or that their guilt over their situation compels them to force other women to have the baby they did not have. I also think that they are in denial about their responsibility in their choice to have an abortion. Or they think that if abortion is illegal no one will be 'forced' like they were and that will solve that problem.

reply from: SRUW4I5

Men tend to work more hours than women because they don't have to care for children, their parents, or their special someone as much... or do as much housework... So, with less responsibilty at home, they have more time to work. There is no proof that i've seen that some of the pay gap isn't from men and women working different amounts of hours...
If there really is a pay gap that isn't from a difference in amount of hours worked, I hope that gets fixed soon.

reply from: BossMomma

Men tend to work more hours than women because they don't have to care for children, their parents, or their special someone as much... or do as much housework... So, with less responsibilty at home, they have more time to work. There is no proof that i've seen that some of the pay gap isn't from men and women working different amounts of hours...
If there really is a pay gap that isn't from a difference in amount of hours worked, I hope that gets fixed soon.
I do the same job as a man, get paid the same as a man and, have the same advancement opportunities as a man and, when I get back from maternity leave I'll be looking forward to my first Sgt.'s board. There are many single fathers in TDC who work and take care of the kids, women are not victims of society.

reply from: SRUW4I5

Men tend to work more hours than women because they don't have to care for children, their parents, or their special someone as much... or do as much housework... So, with less responsibilty at home, they have more time to work. There is no proof that i've seen that some of the pay gap isn't from men and women working different amounts of hours...
If there really is a pay gap that isn't from a difference in amount of hours worked, I hope that gets fixed soon.
I do the same job as a man, get paid the same as a man and, have the same advancement opportunities as a man and, when I get back from maternity leave I'll be looking forward to my first Sgt.'s board. There are many single fathers in TDC who work and take care of the kids, women are not victims of society.
I wasn't saying that women are. We just tend to work less hours which results in less pay.

reply from: BossMomma

Men tend to work more hours than women because they don't have to care for children, their parents, or their special someone as much... or do as much housework... So, with less responsibilty at home, they have more time to work. There is no proof that i've seen that some of the pay gap isn't from men and women working different amounts of hours...
If there really is a pay gap that isn't from a difference in amount of hours worked, I hope that gets fixed soon.
I do the same job as a man, get paid the same as a man and, have the same advancement opportunities as a man and, when I get back from maternity leave I'll be looking forward to my first Sgt.'s board. There are many single fathers in TDC who work and take care of the kids, women are not victims of society.
I wasn't saying that women are. We just tend to work less hours which results in less pay.
That depends on the woman not nessesarily the job, if the woman wants to work 9 times out of 10 she will be allowed to work unless she's unqualified for the work. Some jobs are gender exclusive meaning that one or the other gender is the best qualified for the job but those jobs are rare and many have been intergrated. For example, I can't be an administrative segregation officer at my unit because I'm not allowed to strip search offenders, the same goes for men at a female prison, male officers can't strip search female offenders.

reply from: SRUW4I5

True.... But, there has to be some explanation for women on average earning 75 cents per dollar a man makes for the same job... That's why I think its a gap in hours worked.

reply from: BossMomma

True.... But, there has to be some explanation for women on average earning 75 cents per dollar a man makes for the same job... That's why I think its a gap in hours worked.
I couldn't tell ya, I've never made less than a man for any job I've worked.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I agree.
Fixing those quotes

reply from: SRUW4I5

I agree.
Fixing those quotes
hey... I'd never agree to that... especially when so many women get raped and the rapists get to walk free too much

reply from: fetalisa

It's is so funny to see all these people who somehow think their personally CHOSEN beliefs that having sex should mean women should be punished by forced pregnancy. If rape is illegal due to lack of consent, then forced pregnancy should be just as illegal due to lack of consent.

reply from: SRUW4I5

If women have to be punished for it, men should too.
It's kind of sad that people have to misquote people or "put words in their mouths" to try and get a point across.

reply from: fetalisa

I agree. Maybe one day the prolife will come up with some NEW techniques in debate.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Sex isn't a problem. Pregnancy isn't a problem, but for some reason pro-aborts think it IS.

reply from: fetalisa

A woman's right to self-determination isn't a problem to anyone but the forced birthers.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

A woman's right to self-determination isn't a problem to anyone but the forced birthers.
And the child.

reply from: SRUW4I5

Sex isn't a problem. Pregnancy isn't a problem, but for some reason pro-aborts think it IS.
Heres some reasons that Pregnany is a problem (If you don't want to read all of it, just read whats in bold)
Pregnancy is a problem when women get discriminated against by employers when trying to get a job because they may get pregnant in the future, when women get discriminated against for promotions because they may become pregnant and have to go on maternity leave, pregnancy is a problem when it causes health problems for the mother, pregnancy is a problem when a womans b/f dumps her just cuz she's pregnant or can't get a b/f just cuz she's pregnant n lots of guys wont date pregnant women , it's also a problem if a woman continues being pregnant it'll kill her but the child couldn't survive outside of the mother & people want to make it so she has no choice but to continue the pregnancy. It's also a problem when it causes women to become suicidal (don't say that never happens, everytime I've been pregnant I got suicidal enough that my b/f didn't want me alone even for a few seconds), and when people think they can tell a woman what she can/can't eat/drink/do just because she's pregnant.
Pregnant teenagers also have a higher drop-out rate and miss more school in highschool than most other people. So, it's a problem then too. Unless you like it when girls drop out of school, or miss enough school that they get kicked out or flunk.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Again, pregnancy is not a problem. Our SOCIETY is a problem.
I speak of normal pregnancy. There will always be exceptions, but I believe those should be treated on a case-by-case basis.

reply from: SRUW4I5

The way our society is causes pregnancy to be a problem for women. You can't blame society for girls dropping out of highschool/missing more school while pregnant. They do that because they're pregnant and need to work more to have money for the kid, and get sick a lot because of being pregnant. So, it is a problem then. Well, you could blame society for it, but it would be pointless.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

The way our society is causes pregnancy to be a problem for women. You can't blame society for girls dropping out of highschool/missing more school while pregnant. They do that because they're pregnant and need to work more to have money for the kid, and get sick a lot because of being pregnant. So, it is a problem then. Well, you could blame society for it, but it would be pointless.
Uh, yes I can actually. If our society supported these girls instead of reviled them, they could stay in school in a caring atmosphere and actually graduate and go on to college. They wouldn't have to drop out to work because -gasp!- they'd realise that adoption isn't a terrible thing, and/or that our government would actually help them care for the child so they don't have to drop out. A drop out is a burden on society for the rest of her life; using tax money to support her through the end of highschool and through college is a tiny blip compared to a whole lifetime.
Again, pregnancy is not a problem. Our society is the problem.

reply from: BossMomma

I wouldn't be so sure if I were you, unless you worked in the finance department and could see people's pay details.
Me and my co-workers tested that theory, my paycheck matched those of male CO3's. We are payed the same and are given raises based on years worked. A CO2 is paid about $1,548.98 a month after insurence and taxes are deducted, I make $1,798.58 a month after all deductions, so does every other officer in my pay group. The only time I might pull in more cash is if I have an over time check come in the middle of the month.

reply from: SRUW4I5

The way our society is causes pregnancy to be a problem for women. You can't blame society for girls dropping out of highschool/missing more school while pregnant. They do that because they're pregnant and need to work more to have money for the kid, and get sick a lot because of being pregnant. So, it is a problem then. Well, you could blame society for it, but it would be pointless.
Uh, yes I can actually. If our society supported these girls instead of reviled them, they could stay in school in a caring atmosphere and actually graduate and go on to college. They wouldn't have to drop out to work because -gasp!- they'd realise that adoption isn't a terrible thing, and/or that our government would actually help them care for the child so they don't have to drop out. A drop out is a burden on society for the rest of her life; using tax money to support her through the end of highschool and through college is a tiny blip compared to a whole lifetime.
Again, pregnancy is not a problem. Our society is the problem.
Okay, I get your point on dropping out. But gettin sick alot is an effect of being pregnant, and I know some girls that showed up for school late because of morning sickness, and left school early while pregnant... I also know some that got sick enough while pregnant that they missed school, and got kicked out because of it. That isn't because of society. That's because of being pregnant. While pregnant, some women eat more, which means they have to buy more food, and they have to work more to be able to afford that. Which is another reason for dropping out. That's just while pregnant, adoption only works once the child is born.
Atleast around here, you dont' need a highschool education to be a greeter at a store, work in a fast food place, or work (in some positions) in a toy store. So, they could always do that, instead of relying on tax payers money.

reply from: BossMomma

So they showed you their complete pay details?
Yup, we get a deduction sheet showing what all was taken out, everything matched and it was because some newboot bosslady was biotching that she made less than a man. We showed her that the state pays everyone the same depending on which pay group you're in.

reply from: BossMomma

Ah. You're in a public servant role.
Go and look at the pay disparity in the corporate sector.
We have the EEO to prevent sex discrimination.

reply from: BossMomma

Ah. You're in a public servant role.
Go and look at the pay disparity in the corporate sector.
We have the EEO to prevent sex discrimination.
That doesn't correct pay disparity that already exists.
That's because it goes unreported.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

The way our society is causes pregnancy to be a problem for women. You can't blame society for girls dropping out of highschool/missing more school while pregnant. They do that because they're pregnant and need to work more to have money for the kid, and get sick a lot because of being pregnant. So, it is a problem then. Well, you could blame society for it, but it would be pointless.
Uh, yes I can actually. If our society supported these girls instead of reviled them, they could stay in school in a caring atmosphere and actually graduate and go on to college. They wouldn't have to drop out to work because -gasp!- they'd realise that adoption isn't a terrible thing, and/or that our government would actually help them care for the child so they don't have to drop out. A drop out is a burden on society for the rest of her life; using tax money to support her through the end of highschool and through college is a tiny blip compared to a whole lifetime.
Again, pregnancy is not a problem. Our society is the problem.
Okay, I get your point on dropping out. But gettin sick alot is an effect of being pregnant, and I know some girls that showed up for school late because of morning sickness, and left school early while pregnant...
Accommidations are made for students with illnesses such as cancer or severe injuries that prevent them from being in school at all times. Being sick is no reason to fail a student. I fail to see how a tough pregnancy should have any effect on a girl continuing on to the next grade or graduating. Morning sickness - if it occurs - does not normally last the entire pregnancy either.
There are ways to work around this that don't involve failing her. I don't see this as a valid excuse for pregnancy being a problem. We make great effort to include exceptional needs students and english language learners into our classes, and you're telling me morning sickness is something impossible to work around? I don't think so.
That principal should be fired.
Yes, it is. That is an uncaring principal who has been raised by society to think that pregnant teens are worthless and stupid, and they should be tossed out sooner rather than later so they don't "infect" the others students with their "loose" ways.
No, it's not. You too have been fooled into thinking that pregnancy is a permanently debilitating situation that will forever maim a girl's ability to get by in life. You're wrong, our society is wrong. Being pregnant is NO reason to drop out of highschool or fail out or have some bitch/asshole of a principal kick you out. If that girl had been sick with leukemia and missed those days you bet your buns the principal would have been all hungs and kisses and accommidations. "Look how brave she is!" If they'd tried kicking out a girl with cancer, they would have been socially slaughtered for discrimination.
... I am still not seeing how this can't be dealt with in some other way that the gilr dropping out of school. As I said, society should HELP her, and that means by paying for her food if needed. There is already aid out there for prenatal care. What you don't realise is that the foundations of this are already in place; they simply need to be utilized to their greatest potential.
Absolutely never. These teens have mothers and fathers, don't they? They have government aid. No child should ever have to drop out of highschool just so they can afford to eat. DO you realise how sickening and horrible that sounds? "She dropped out of highschool so she could earn enough money to eat for nine months."
Nine months. I think we can afford to help her through that. And then she gets to finish highschool, go to college, and have a LIFE, instead of sitting on welfare with no education, marrying young to support herself and her child, and popping out more babies for more welfare checks.
Which do you think is a bigger burden on society?
Not seeing a connection to her NEEDING to drop out.
Oh gee, that's totally what I want to do for the rest of my life, what a dream!!!! You realise this girl could be the next president or an astronaut or a physicist??? And you want her to work at TOYS 'R US for the rest of her life!?!? Just so she can EAT during nine months of her pregnancy!?!?
That's extremely disturbing to me, as a woman of many dreams, many goals, and great potential. To see any girl denied her right to education just so she can eat... That's a sickening sign of the disease out society has cast upon itself.


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