Abortion revisited

[cybercoma]

There is no debate. A fetus does not have the same rights...and that's not thanks to some secular-leftist society, as a fetus has never had the same rights.

Hell, an 11-year-old child doesn't have the same rights.

[cybercoma]

If the fetus is deemd human, then it has the same rights as everyone else.

I already explained why it doesn't matter if the fetus is human. If you are dying, no one is morally nor legally required to use their body to keep you alive.

[betsy]

I suppose thats true. someday womens rights could be set back to the point where the state siezes their right to make reproductive decisions from women and their doctors so that politicians living thousands of miles away can make them. Hell maybe well go back to publically stoning women that cheat on their spouses too!

<snort> public stoning of women, tearing up a defenseless fetus limb from limb - Both barbaric practices, both horrific in nature. Yet you're all for butchering - yes that's the right word to describe it - these babies!

The very women you're defending (using the "stoning" card which by the way is still being practiced in some countries like Iran) are now licensed to play judge and executioner of these fetus, deciding who will die and who will live. And you're all for that! You don't care at all whether they're human or not. You seem to have the same mindset as those who advocate public stoning, don't you think so?

Do you support public executions? And to make it even more twilight zonish - Let me guess.....perhaps you're even one of those who rejects capital punishment, baby seal hunt?

Gotta go. Will continue.

Edited May 28, 2012 by betsy

[Black Dog]

<snort> public stoning of women, tearing up a defenseless fetus limb from limb - Both barbaric practices, both horrific in nature. Yet you're all for butchering - yes that's the right word to describe it - these babies!

Yup. Because a fully sentient human being is far more worthy of our protection and concern than a lump of tissue, the protection of which in this sense would violate the rights of said fully sentient human being.

The very women you're defending (using the "stoning" card which by the way is still being practiced in some countries like Iran) are now licensed to play judge and executioner of these fetus, deciding who will die and who will live. And you're all for that!

Yes, as it should be seeing as how the fetus is a part of their own body.

You don't care at all whether they're human or not. You seem to have the same mindset as those who advocate public stoning, don't you think so?

Ironically, if anyone here would line up, stone in hand, it would be you. Like the mullahs of Iran, you too adhere to an outdated, fallible, wholly man-made set of superstitions. And you both think you should get to tell women what to do with their bodies.

[BubberMiley]

Betsy's god on adultery:

"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city." Deuteronomy 22:23-24

[betsy]

Yup. Because a fully sentient human being is far more worthy of our protection and concern than a lump of tissue, the protection of which in this sense would violate the rights of said fully sentient human being.

Blackdog, you're running around biting your tail again. You're still into the circular mode?

You're insisting on your opinion that the fetus is a lump of tissue while pro-lifers are insisting the fetus is human! THAT's the reason why we need to re-open the debate to determine once and for all who is right. Science will be involved! SCIENCE! That should be up your alley guys!

So what are you afraid of?

Edited May 29, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

And don't give that pathetic baloney about the rights of the fully sentient woman! Golly, the way you guys carry on like as if this sentient woman is marching off to her death....when all it is about is whether she'd sacrifice 9 months of her life to do the right thing for this infant who had nothing to do with the fact why he got in her tummy in the first place!

The baby didn't crawl in there!

Edited May 29, 2012 by betsy

[guyser]

THAT's the reason why we need to re-open the debate to determine once and for all who is right. Science will be involved! SCIENCE! That should be up your alley guys!

So what are you afraid of?

Betsy , my my...you know thats BS.

You want to opent eh debate, again, because you didnt like the debate results the last time.

You cannot make an argument that is shot to thell in minutes. You trip up using our science from 50 yrs ago, while quoting the bible as gospel that was written just a wee bit before 50 yrs ago.

[guyser]

And don't give that pathetic baloney about the rights of the fully sentient woman! Golly, the way you guys carry on like as if this sentient woman is marching off to her death....when all it is about is whether she'd sacrifice 9 months of her life to do the right thing for this infant who had nothing to do with the fact why he got in her tummy in the first place!

The baby didn't crawl in there!

Yes or NO. You have one answer to give.

Do you feel it is your right to tell other woman what to do with their body?

[betsy]

Betsy , my my...you know thats BS.

You want to opent eh debate, again, because you didnt like the debate results the last time.

You cannot make an argument that is shot to thell in minutes. You trip up using our science from 50 yrs ago, while quoting the bible as gospel that was written just a wee bit before 50 yrs ago.

Ehhh?

Bye-bye guyser.

[betsy]

But heres the thing... I believe that these decisions should be made by women and their doctors every bit as much as social conservatives believe that abortion is murder. And I think if this comes down to a fight that womb-control advocates are gonna get the living shit beaten out of them.

Speaking of doctors.....actually a prominent doctor, one of the founders of the National Alliance to Repeal Abortion Laws, the forerunner of today's National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) turned against abortion and became an activist for pro-life. I'm talking about the late Bernard Nathanson. Here's a bit of history....

"Anti-abortion laws enacted in the latter half of the 19th century were a result of advocacy efforts by feminists who worked in an uneasy alliance with the male-dominated medical profession and the mainstream media. The early feminists understood that, much like today, women resorted to abortion because they were abandoned or pressured by boyfriends, husbands and parents, and lacked financial resources to have a baby on their own.

Betty Friedan, credited with reawakening feminism in the 1960s with her landmark book, The Feminist Mystique, did not even mention abortion in the early edition. It was not until 1966 that NOW included abortion in its list of goals. Even then, abortion was a low priority.

It was a man -- abortion rights activist Larry Lader, who remains active today -- who credits himself with guiding a reluctant Friedan to make abortion an issue for NOW. Lader teamed up with a gynecologist, Bernard Nathanson, to co-found the National Alliance to Repeal Abortion Laws, the forerunner of today's National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).

Lader suggested to the NOW leadership that all feminist demands (equal education, jobs, pay, etc.) hinged on a woman's ability to control her own body and procreation.[/b]

Dr. Nathanson, who later became a pro-life activist, states in his book, Abortion in America, that the two were able to convince Friedan than abortion was a civil rights issue. Later he admitted that they simply made up the numbers of women dying from illegal abortions, which had been a major point in their argument.

Lader and Nathanson's strategy was highly effective. NOW has made the preservation of legal abortion its number one priority.

http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/Feminism.htm

Edited May 29, 2012 by betsy

[kimmy]

What could you possibly bring to a "debate" that everybody has not already heard thousands of times before, betsy?

I'm sure you've been visiting some pro-life websites and you've got some fresh evangelizing material to try out. Trust me, we've heard it a thousand times. And why would you think it'll be persuasive this time when it wasn't persuasive the first thousand times?

-k

[betsy]

excerpt from

ABORTION AND LIBERTY

by Congressman Ron Paul

Ron Paul is not only a physician, but he was trained in the discipline of obstetrics and gynecology and therefore is a the front lines in the battle against abortion. This physician was then elected to Congress four times and looks back on abortion as a problem he saw in biomedical ethics as a student, then as a resident and finally as a practitioner of obstetrics.

It is true that some of the old arguments about rights, viability, mother versus child, child abuse, health of the mother, and rape are considered in these pages. There is much more. The unique contribution found in this book is the examination of a free society in reference to that society’s responsibilities. Perhaps another way of stating it is that there is an examination of the child’s rights versus the mother’s obligations. The concluding warning is clear: a disregard for human life will not expand human freedom.

The individual rights we all cherish are rooted in the value we assign to human life, especially innocent human life. The author’s credentials are unique and so is his approach to the diverse social problem abortion has become in our day.

C.Everett Koop, M.D., Sc.D.

Introduction

Abortion is the most fundamental issue involving natural rights and individual liberty. Many people wish the issue would simply disappear, but without clear and correct answers to the questions involved, the controversy will continue, and it will be impossible to defend liberty.

It’s no coincidence that today’s argument over abortion comes at a time when freedom in general is threatened in the United States, as well as in other Western countries. Nor was it accidental that genocide, abortion, and euthanasia were all practiced under Hitler, and that all three characterize totalitarian states. Even today, Communist governments vary their positions on abortion strictly on economic calculations of whether more or fewer slaves are needed.

Many books on liberty avoid the issue of abortion because it is so emotionally charged. But we cannot afford to ignore, blur, or be wrong about abortion, because it is of such great significance. If we do, it will keep us from developing a consistent plan for establishing a free society.

As important as the military draft issue is, abortion is even more important, for it involves the deliberate destruction of a living human being. Many students of liberty take contradictory positions on these two issues. But we must have a consistent position, anchored in natural rights, on these two fundamental challenges to freedom. A resolution of the abortion controversy can be achieved only by strengthening the concept of individual liberty, not by limiting it. more....

http://files.meetup.com/504095/Ron%20Paul-Abortion%20and%20Liberty.pdf

[betsy]

What could you possibly bring to a "debate" that everybody has not already heard thousands of times before, betsy?

I'm sure you've been visiting some pro-life websites and you've got some fresh evangelizing material to try out. Trust me, we've heard it a thousand times. And why would you think it'll be persuasive this time when it wasn't persuasive the first thousand times?

-k

Like as if all your rebuttals are not rehash - most of them if not all - are just plain personal opinion with nothing to back them up. And yes, from some it's adhominem, and of course when things get desperate they bring in my religious leanings. They start throwing everything they can get their hands on....

Just because it seems I'm the only one who advocate pro-life on this board, and that there's a bunch of you braying about the same old pro-choice thing (yep we've tackled this before)...it doesn't mean you guys are right.

I'm not trying to persuade you. It is up to you eventually. Depends on how you'll view things, contemplate and weigh things....and if you're open-minded enough to see them as presented without the knee-jerk reactions.

I'm just pointing out your collective irrationality, or senseless rambling, or mis-directed and contradictory positions, as shown by the kinds of rebuttals given here.

There is still this big problem about hitting the bulls-eye too, or the tendency to do the here-we-go-round-the-mulberry-bush kind of jig.

I'm so used to you guys! But I'm not giving up on you....oh no! How can I live with myself if I just simply let you go? After all the time we've had on this board? We'll do this together....There's still hope for some of you.

Edited May 29, 2012 by betsy

[kimmy]

We've heard everything you have to say, and you've heard everything we have to say. So why do you want a debate? The truth is, you don't want to debate, you want an audience to evangelize to.

Shrieking "it's a baby! it's an infant!" over and over isn't going to persuade anybody. It's not a baby. It's a fetus. They're not the same.

-k

[cybercoma]

all it is about is whether she'd sacrifice 9 months of her life to do the right thing for this infant who had nothing to do with the fact why he got in her tummy in the first place!

The baby didn't crawl in there!

Oh, is that all? Just time?

[cybercoma]

Shrieking "it's a baby! it's an infant!" over and over isn't going to persuade anybody. It's not a baby. It's a fetus. They're not the same.

-k

Conveniently, my posts about it not mattering whether you consider it a baby or not go ignored.

[cybercoma]

betsy, I demand you give me your kidney, so I can give it to someone that is dying. If you don't, you're a murderer.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Shrieking "it's a baby! it's an infant!" over and over isn't going to persuade anybody. It's not a baby. It's a fetus. They're not the same.

Right...in Canada...land of the Magical Vagina, which instantaneously tranforms non-person fetuses into legally protected babies...in an instant. Impressive! We used to watch women smoke cigarettes with their vaginas at Subic Bay - Olongapo back in the 70's, but nothing compares to the magic birth canals of Canada. Salute!

[dre]

Right...in Canada...land of the Magical Vagina, which instantaneously tranforms non-person fetuses into legally protected babies...in an instant. Impressive! We used to watch women smoke cigarettes with their vaginas at Subic Bay - Olongapo back in the 70's, but nothing compares to the magic birth canals of Canada. Salute!

Oh good christ, what moronic tripe

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh good christ, what moronic tripe

I agree...there should be no Magic Vaginas just in Canada! Magic Vaginas for ALL!!

[Black Dog]

Blackdog, you're running around biting your tail again. You're still into the circular mode?

You're insisting on your opinion that the fetus is a lump of tissue while pro-lifers are insisting the fetus is human! THAT's the reason why we need to re-open the debate to determine once and for all who is right. Science will be involved! SCIENCE! That should be up your alley guys!

So what are you afraid of?

I already said whether you call it human or not is irrelevant. SAWWY!

[GostHacked]

We've heard everything you have to say, and you've heard everything we have to say. So why do you want a debate? The truth is, you don't want to debate, you want an audience to evangelize to.

Shrieking "it's a baby! it's an infant!" over and over isn't going to persuade anybody. It's not a baby. It's a fetus. They're not the same.

-k

With her level of frustration with repeating the same things, we should soon see the 72 point fonts proving that she is indeed correct.

[betsy]

We've heard everything you have to say, and you've heard everything we have to say. So why do you want a debate?

And what do you think you're doing? You're "arguing". You're debating. Except that your "reasoning" is all askewed. You're not addressing the issue.

You're giving the impression you're out of ammo. Sound and relevant ammo.

truth is, you don't want to debate, you want an audience to evangelize to.

Then for the life of me, why do you torture yourself?

Why do you volunteer yourself as an audience to my evangelizing? Since my return, you've been there in the threads Bible, Video.... and here. Have you become my "follower?"

Kimmy, Kimmy, Kimmy thou dost protests too much.

Shrieking "it's a baby! it's an infant!" over and over isn't going to persuade anybody. -k

I say the same to you.

Shrieking "it's not human. It's a lump of tissue!" over and over isn't going to persuade a pro-lifer. You guys seem to have a hard time wrapping your heads around this issue: RE-OPENING THE ABORTION DEBATE

I do question if you understand the reason for re-opening the abortion debate.

You're all busy doing your collective knee-jerk cliches that you're all demonstrating you're missing the whole point!

So if you're that confident with the fetus' status....why are you so afraid to re-open the debate and get this over with once and for all. This time, with science involved!

Edited May 29, 2012 by betsy

[guyser]

Ehhh?

Bye-bye guyser.

Didnt think you would, or could, answer one simple question.