100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: I dont understand, please help | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
It is no longer part of the woman's body at birth. A woman should have the right to control her body. A fetus is a part of her body until it is born. If a woman decides she doesn't want a child after birth and kills it then it is a human being with full rights. I should not even have to explain this, it is obvious. The child is never a part of the woman's body. It has it's own DNA and exists separated from her body by the placenta. Do you support the right of women to commit suicide? If not, why not? Do you support the right of women to mutilate their bodies? If a women wanted to remove all of the skin from her body, should she be allowed to? If not, why not? The child cannot live outside of the woman's body therefore it is part of the woman's body. I am an advocate of suicide. There are worse fates than death in my eyes. Body mutilation happens everyday, it is their business what they do with their body. So now what? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is no longer part of the woman's body at birth. A woman should have the right to control her body. A fetus is a part of her body until it is born. If a woman decides she doesn't want a child after birth and kills it then it is a human being with full rights. I should not even have to explain this, it is obvious. The child is never a part of the woman's body. It has it's own DNA and exists separated from her body by the placenta. Do you support the right of women to commit suicide? If not, why not? Do you support the right of women to mutilate their bodies? If a women wanted to remove all of the skin from her body, should she be allowed to? If not, why not? The child cannot live outside of the woman's body therefore it is part of the woman's body. I am an advocate of suicide. There are worse fates than death in my eyes. Body mutilation happens everyday, it is their business what they do with their body. So now what? LOL There yu go...see how far LIB "compassion" goes, just to make a point???? DUH!!!  People who do harm to thesmelves get locked up as long as they have family that loves them that is. hehehehe |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 10/15/08 03:39 PM
|
|
Abortion is not murder. If it were, there would be a law against it. A fetus is not a person.
If I had been raped and I did not want to have that child, I would gladly have it removed and put into another woman's body if she objected to abortion. Let her have it. We have the technology to do that. Instead of abortions, take the unborn fetus and give it to the women who object to abortions. Let them give birth. Let them raise the child. jb |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instead of abortions, take the unborn fetus and give it to the women who object to abortions. Let them give birth. Let them raise the child. jb That's brilliant! I agree wholeheartedly. We have the technology. So let it be said, so let it be done. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is the child product of a raped responsible for the rape? if we accept that life has the same value in any form full developed or in fetal state then which one has more value that of the mother or the fetus. is the fetus some sort of being which does not have life? the fact that a human being is not full developed make him or her of less value of a full developed human being? who are we to decide who lives or die? it is correct a human being has the absolute right to do whatever he/she wants with his/her body. however, when there is a pregnancy it is not one body anymore there are two bodies there. so does the right to do what i want with my body gives me the right to do what i want with another human being's body? not judging anybody just making questions. at the end questions of life and dead cannot be answered if we are not in the very same position as the person who has to make the decision. God gives guidance to those who has to make these choices. keep the little babies close to you. Amen. But you are not allowing the woman to make a choice. Look at what you just indicated. Your "choice" in other words, is that she MUST be restricted to carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. That is a religious argument and not based on a woman's fundamental right to autonomy. Personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact. Mormon and some Fundamentalist churches believe in personhood at conception; Judaism holds that it begins at birth and abortion is not murder; ensoulment theories vary widely within Protestantism. The religious community will never reach consensus on the definition of a “person” or when abortion is morally justified. Laws have never stopped abortion, but only relegated it to back-alley butchers. The hypocrisy is clear: when illegal abortion was the leading killer of pregnant women in the U.S., there was no Right to Life (RTL) organization to cry out for these ADULT females who were being murdered as they sought to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Clearly you care more about these fetuses than the woman. Then why don't we allow mothers to kill their incorrigible children? What if the baby is two years old and the mother decides she desn't want it any more. Isn't is against her fundamental right to autonomy to get rid of the child whenever she wishes? What difference does it make if the child is 4 months in the womb or 4 years old in the back yard? Well lets take a look at what the bible says about disobedient children shall we? Also you avoided a direct answer to my question. Where were all you anti-choice religious folks when abortion was criminalized? Clearly it is not your overwhelming concern over the welfare of the adult female, but what she can and can not do with her own body. Thats the real point of contention. Here is your bible's take on it found in Exodus 21 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. Kill unruly children. Well that will teach em! You cant be serious. Will you be taking care of all of these unwanted children that these women will now be forced to carry to term? What about the ones that will be born with medical and psychological problems from drug addicted mothers? Hmmm? How many rooms is your house Eljay? In answer to your question - where were we when abortion was criminalised. Standing in disbelief while the court system took our voice on the matter away. You see, we were not allowed to have a say. The american public has no say in the matters of abortion, gay marriage, or even illegal aliens. The court system of this country and the inept congress we have has seen to it the the majority has NO SAY on matters of law - or even how the constitution itself is to be interpreted. Look - I'm not the one who stated that a woman has the right to her autonomy, you did. As to the "unwanted children" who are aborted in this country - and the justification of this because of rape. Absurd argument. The statistics on the abortions done through "necessity" as compared through mere choice make the argument moot. And I don't need any rooms in my house - the amount of couples who would give anything to adopt a child in this country outnumber the amount of available children by the tens of thousands. So this argument has the weight of a feather as an acceptable premise. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is the child product of a raped responsible for the rape? if we accept that life has the same value in any form full developed or in fetal state then which one has more value that of the mother or the fetus. is the fetus some sort of being which does not have life? the fact that a human being is not full developed make him or her of less value of a full developed human being? who are we to decide who lives or die? it is correct a human being has the absolute right to do whatever he/she wants with his/her body. however, when there is a pregnancy it is not one body anymore there are two bodies there. so does the right to do what i want with my body gives me the right to do what i want with another human being's body? not judging anybody just making questions. at the end questions of life and dead cannot be answered if we are not in the very same position as the person who has to make the decision. God gives guidance to those who has to make these choices. keep the little babies close to you. Amen. But you are not allowing the woman to make a choice. Look at what you just indicated. Your "choice" in other words, is that she MUST be restricted to carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. That is a religious argument and not based on a woman's fundamental right to autonomy. Personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact. Mormon and some Fundamentalist churches believe in personhood at conception; Judaism holds that it begins at birth and abortion is not murder; ensoulment theories vary widely within Protestantism. The religious community will never reach consensus on the definition of a “person” or when abortion is morally justified. Laws have never stopped abortion, but only relegated it to back-alley butchers. The hypocrisy is clear: when illegal abortion was the leading killer of pregnant women in the U.S., there was no Right to Life (RTL) organization to cry out for these ADULT females who were being murdered as they sought to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Clearly you care more about these fetuses than the woman. Yes - that was my point. The argument is a subjective one, rather than one that stands as a valid premise for acceptance. It's a matter of "who has the right" to decide the matter of life or death. Obviously, in the case of abortion, the mother maintains the right until she gives birth. So it has, and always will remain a question of when and where does life begin? This is a tremendously grey area in law and our court system. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Wed 10/15/08 04:27 PM
|
|
Here is my take on abortion.
Law is about precedent. Set a precedent where the government has a say in abortion, and you will be giving them future power you did not intend. precedents are powerful stuff, you cant cherry pick law . . . its impact is far reaching. So you tell the government its ok to outlaw a persons right to make decisions about there own body. So where does that lead? People with no clue on law should not be suggesting to make things illegal. Conservative anti abortion judges agreed that the government should not have a say in this . . . . hmmm I wonder why??? maybe they understand the law??? You should really read up on Roe V. Wade and understand US law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade To give the government rule over life within and over our bodies would be setting us up for the time when population is a bigger issue, next thing you have is mandatory sterilization, or if you would make a great baby factory (IE good genes) maybe mandatory pregnancies, or mandatory abortions . . . . why not. Why one law and not another? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can not in any way be effective in lawin your way to a solution to this problem.
It is an individual and emotional thing... If you make a law one way or the other... People will still find a way to do what THEY need to for themselves... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Wed 10/15/08 05:46 PM
|
|
You can not in any way be effective in lawin your way to a solution to this problem. It is an individual and emotional thing... If you make a law one way or the other... People will still find a way to do what THEY need to for themselves... Agreed. If that law just happens to be to criminalize safe and sanitary abortion for women, you will then relegate the procedure to the "back-alley butcher" once again. Or else women will be forced to cross the borders into Mexico and Canada but that will be nearly impossible for teenage girls or drug addicts with no means to accomplish this. I have yet to hear a response to my question posed earlier. Where the hell were all you religious people when abortion was made illegal therefore forcing these women underground and it was the leading cause of death for pregnant females in the US? We certainly didnt hear you crying out for the lives of these ADULT females did we? Its truly hypocritical. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is no longer part of the woman's body at birth. A woman should have the right to control her body. A fetus is a part of her body until it is born. If a woman decides she doesn't want a child after birth and kills it then it is a human being with full rights. I should not even have to explain this, it is obvious. The child is never a part of the woman's body. It has it's own DNA and exists separated from her body by the placenta. Do you support the right of women to commit suicide? If not, why not? Do you support the right of women to mutilate their bodies? If a women wanted to remove all of the skin from her body, should she be allowed to? If not, why not? I am an advocate of suicide. There are worse fates than death in my eyes. Body mutilation happens everyday, it is their business what they do with their body. So now what? People who do harm to thesmelves get locked up as long as they have family that loves them that is. hehehehe So we're back at one person/group enforcing their own moral judgements on another person/group. Enter the Crusades, the Inquisition, Electro-convulsive therapy and Lobotomies. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jess642
on
Wed 10/15/08 07:17 PM
|
|
Doing harm to oneself......
Self mutilation? Define self mutilation... Who's society standards are you going to use? Abortion..... one of those INTENSELY volatile topics.... Personally I am not comfortable with or advocating taking a life... and to me, a zygote, that can separate from a single cell to more complex cells and then into a human form, and develop different organs, a fetus, whilst residing in a host body... is alive. Sound and movement, and spontaneous reactions to outside stimulus at as early as 12 weeks gestation, shows a level of consciousness, and sentience to me.... Euthanasia.... I do not advocate either... Suicide.... who would ever be for a severely wounded, deeply suffering, desperate person taking their life? I don't advocate hunting, nor killing any animals....human or otherwise. Intensely personal... and as the OP pointed out, most are deeply hypocritical, irrespective of religious connotations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Wed 10/15/08 07:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is the child product of a raped responsible for the rape? if we accept that life has the same value in any form full developed or in fetal state then which one has more value that of the mother or the fetus. is the fetus some sort of being which does not have life? the fact that a human being is not full developed make him or her of less value of a full developed human being? who are we to decide who lives or die? it is correct a human being has the absolute right to do whatever he/she wants with his/her body. however, when there is a pregnancy it is not one body anymore there are two bodies there. so does the right to do what i want with my body gives me the right to do what i want with another human being's body? not judging anybody just making questions. at the end questions of life and dead cannot be answered if we are not in the very same position as the person who has to make the decision. God gives guidance to those who has to make these choices. keep the little babies close to you. Amen. THANK YOU!! Someone needs to speak out for the innocent! I totally understand the emotional issues surrounding a rape. Been there. However, I would never have aborted that child as they didn't ask to be brought into this world. If you can't deal with the emotions at least have enough compassion to give the child to a family that will love him or her and give them a life. The percentage of women who commit suicide or have life altering issues after abortions are extremely high. Think enough of yourself to not put yourself through more pain. 2 wrongs never make a right!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is the child product of a raped responsible for the rape? if we accept that life has the same value in any form full developed or in fetal state then which one has more value that of the mother or the fetus. is the fetus some sort of being which does not have life? the fact that a human being is not full developed make him or her of less value of a full developed human being? who are we to decide who lives or die? it is correct a human being has the absolute right to do whatever he/she wants with his/her body. however, when there is a pregnancy it is not one body anymore there are two bodies there. so does the right to do what i want with my body gives me the right to do what i want with another human being's body? not judging anybody just making questions. at the end questions of life and dead cannot be answered if we are not in the very same position as the person who has to make the decision. God gives guidance to those who has to make these choices. keep the little babies close to you. Amen. But you are not allowing the woman to make a choice. Look at what you just indicated. Your "choice" in other words, is that she MUST be restricted to carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. That is a religious argument and not based on a woman's fundamental right to autonomy. Personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact. Mormon and some Fundamentalist churches believe in personhood at conception; Judaism holds that it begins at birth and abortion is not murder; ensoulment theories vary widely within Protestantism. The religious community will never reach consensus on the definition of a “person” or when abortion is morally justified. Laws have never stopped abortion, but only relegated it to back-alley butchers. The hypocrisy is clear: when illegal abortion was the leading killer of pregnant women in the U.S., there was no Right to Life (RTL) organization to cry out for these ADULT females who were being murdered as they sought to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Clearly you care more about these fetuses than the woman. Then why don't we allow mothers to kill their incorrigible children? What if the baby is two years old and the mother decides she desn't want it any more. Isn't is against her fundamental right to autonomy to get rid of the child whenever she wishes? What difference does it make if the child is 4 months in the womb or 4 years old in the back yard? Well lets take a look at what the bible says about disobedient children shall we? Also you avoided a direct answer to my question. Where were all you anti-choice religious folks when abortion was criminalized? Clearly it is not your overwhelming concern over the welfare of the adult female, but what she can and can not do with her own body. Thats the real point of contention. Here is your bible's take on it found in Exodus 21 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. Kill unruly children. Well that will teach em! You cant be serious. Will you be taking care of all of these unwanted children that these women will now be forced to carry to term? What about the ones that will be born with medical and psychological problems from drug addicted mothers? Hmmm? How many rooms is your house Eljay? In answer to your question - where were we when abortion was criminalised. Standing in disbelief while the court system took our voice on the matter away. You see, we were not allowed to have a say. The american public has no say in the matters of abortion, gay marriage, or even illegal aliens. The court system of this country and the inept congress we have has seen to it the the majority has NO SAY on matters of law - or even how the constitution itself is to be interpreted. Look - I'm not the one who stated that a woman has the right to her autonomy, you did. As to the "unwanted children" who are aborted in this country - and the justification of this because of rape. Absurd argument. The statistics on the abortions done through "necessity" as compared through mere choice make the argument moot. And I don't need any rooms in my house - the amount of couples who would give anything to adopt a child in this country outnumber the amount of available children by the tens of thousands. So this argument has the weight of a feather as an acceptable premise. Yeah this is just inaccurate. Who is "our" exactly? The Fundies? Please. What about the voices of the women and other pro-choice defenders of human autonomy? What of their voices? You just wont be happy until you have achieved your goal of a complete disenfranchisement of American women and the right to control their own reproductive health. The “pro-life” concerns of abortion foes are only for fetal lives, not the lives of women or unwanted babies. I dont care if the pregnancy occurs due to rape, incest or an accident or failure of birth control. You can not force someone to carry a child to term and undergo labor. The fact that you still would argue against abortion under these horrible circumstances, just becomes a sadistic rant. Most Americans reject the absolutist position that it is always wrong to terminate a pregnancy and believe that abortion may be the morally right choice under certain circumstances.You don’t have to like abortion to respect the right of choice. Its one thing for you to have your own religious and personal beliefs but you can not force those down the throats of everyone and especially not in a legal capacity. Legislation cannot create morality. Prohibition did not stir moral outrage against drinking; it stirred outrage against prohibition, and promoted widespread disrespect for all laws. Thats why (as I pointed out to you already) our Founding Fathers wanted nothing to do with Christianity. Its trouble. That is absolutely erroneous. Not all of these infants born of drug addicted mothers will be adopted or adoptable. So if you are going to insist that the right to choose is taken away, you better understand the full repercussions of your actions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hats why (as I pointed out to you already) our Founding Fathers wanted nothing to do with Christianity. Its trouble.
Ummmm...no disrespect but maybe you ought to read your history book again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Wed 10/15/08 08:07 PM
|
|
Treaty with Tripoli 1796
Article 11 As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. Im not re-writing all this. Its on that "John McCain and Faith" thread. This is one small piece of supportive evidence. http://mingle2.com/topic/show/170980 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i say spay and neuter everyone - end of story, no laws needed, no one to b!tch one way or the other. worlds getting to crowded anyway, lets put an end to mankind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My bro got himself fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My bro got himself fixed. one down - 61/2 billion to go -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Wed 10/15/08 08:19 PM
|
|
Yeah, thats true. I think its good he took the initiative though. Its not that bad of a procedure and much easier for the male to have it done than the female tubal ligation which is more invasive.
|
|
|
|
|
