There is Everything Wrong with Abortion

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#232031 Mar 5, 2014
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
If not understand it, I know you'll get a kick out of this one.
I have the right to freedom of movement until that freedom infringes on the rights of another individual. Under any normal situation, an action that violates the rights of any other person is still a violation of that persons rights whether the circumstances leading to that action are the result of the supposed, or even legal rights of another person. If one's rights are being violated under these circumstances, then we can reason that one of those rights was assumed under a false premise. I should be able to expect certain freedoms and rights, and in order to meet those expectations one right can't trump another.
Rights should not be fabricated so that it would rule out another person's rights. Both rights should be applied EQUALLY in any particular situation, and in society as a whole, without contradictions or double standards. If one of these rights cannot be upheld using these standards, then the other can't be seen as legitimate. The double-standards, contradictions, and hypocrisy of abortion make it very apparent that something is wrong. Abortion clearly contradicts every other similar instance of our social standards and ethical behavior in society, and it acts as another stepping stone to even further degradation, while the right to life does not and is not.
You continue to ignore the rights of a human being to not be forced to gestate against their will.

An embryo in the first trimester has no rights in the majority of states in the USA. Period. Show me ANYTHING that states otherwise.

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#232032 Mar 5, 2014
goodwife wrote:
<quoted text>wow, you haven't changed, have you. Always and forever the spewing of insults-you are such a hater. What a boorish pig you are.. My comments were not directed at you or to you. Butt out. K?
You posted, that makes your post fair game. Don't want to hear from me? Crawl back into the filth from which you came.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#232033 Mar 6, 2014
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously? You believe any of the garbage that spews out of LIP's piehole??? Tell of any person in the WORLD who can spend and eat the amount of money it would take to raise a child on food. Please use at least SOME common sense here.
My existing children were more important than the six week gestational fetus I aborted. I had to make a decision as to the direction of my life for the next few years. I made the best decision I could with the facts and data at hand.
You may not agree, but you weren't there and you weren't walking in my shoes.
And your child isn't here to agree or disagree, either. You killed him/her.

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#232034 Mar 6, 2014
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
And your child isn't here to agree or disagree, either. You killed him/her.
And? Your point being? It was my decision to make. It was my body. You aren't telling me anything I don't know or that I have ever denied.

When it's your body, and your life, YOU make the decisions and you live with the consequences. No one else can or should.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#232035 Mar 6, 2014
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
If not understand it, I know you'll get a kick out of this one.
I have the right to freedom of movement until that freedom infringes on the rights of another individual. Under any normal situation, an action that violates the rights of any other person is still a violation of that persons rights whether the circumstances leading to that action are the result of the supposed, or even legal rights of another person. If one's rights are being violated under these circumstances, then we can reason that one of those rights was assumed under a false premise. I should be able to expect certain freedoms and rights, and in order to meet those expectations one right can't trump another.
Rights should not be fabricated so that it would rule out another person's rights. Both rights should be applied EQUALLY in any particular situation, and in society as a whole, without contradictions or double standards. If one of these rights cannot be upheld using these standards, then the other can't be seen as legitimate. The double-standards, contradictions, and hypocrisy of abortion make it very apparent that something is wrong. Abortion clearly contradicts every other similar instance of our social standards and ethical behavior in society, and it acts as another stepping stone to even further degradation, while the right to life does not and is not.
False. "Rights" only apply to human beings, hence they only apply to those who have been born.

U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States

All persons BORN...

By definition, neither a fetus nor an embryo have been born, hence they are not persons with any rights.

“IMAGINE no religion!”

Since: Feb 09

usa

#232037 Mar 7, 2014
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
And your child isn't here to agree or disagree, either. You killed him/her.
"it" would have killed her first. she has stated several times it was a tubal pregnancy.

if she had died, it would have orphaned her already living, breathing children. who might have then had to be supported by your tax money ( if you actually work and pay taxes that is) which you are ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh so opposed too.
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#232039 Mar 7, 2014
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
False. "Rights" only apply to human beings, hence they only apply to those who have been born.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States
All persons BORN...
By definition, neither a fetus nor an embryo have been born, hence they are not persons with any rights.
Oooops! You forgot..........

1. If you read on a little further it also states “ nor shall any State deprive ANY PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Then if you still didn't get it, it says the same thing in the Fifth Amendment. William Blackstone, whose work “Commentaries on the Laws of England” was used for more than a century as the foundation of all legal education in Great Britain and the U.S. wrote that life is a “right” that “is inherent by nature in every individual, and exists even before the child is born.”

2. Additionally, the attorney for the State of Texas in RV Wade argued that preborn humans are protected under the Fifth Amendment. The portion relevant to the argument states: "No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

During oral arguments, one of the judges contested this viewpoint by asserting that the Fourteenth Amendment defined what the term "person" meant, and that it did not include preborn humans. The relevant clause reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

After some back and forth, the judge retreated from this position and said: "[I suppose] that's not the definition of a person but that's the definition of a citizen."

3. During more oral arguments in RV Wade, one of the judges asked the attorney for Roe if her case was dependent on the assertion that pre-born humans have no Constitutional rights. After some back and forth, the attorney for Roe responded: "Even if the Court at some point determined the fetus to be entitled to constitutional protection, you would still get back into the weighing of one life against another."

After more back and forth, another judge said to Roe's attorney: "[To take this position], you'd have to say that this would be the equivalent after the child was born if the mother thought it bothered her health any having the child around, she could have it killed. Isn't that correct?"

The attorney for Roe responded: "That's correct."

At this point, the Chief Justice cut her off and started to ask another question. He then interrupted himself and asked: "Did you want to respond further to Justice Stewart? Did you want to respond further to him?"

The attorney for Roe stated: "No, Your Honor."

4. I know that it's very disturbing, and hard to believe for most of us, but behind the scenes there has been many decisions made in the U.S. based on the idea of eugenics – RV Wade being one of them. Just a few years ago Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg told the New York Times that “at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth, and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Two obvious questions arise. Who is the “we” and who are those we don’t want to have too many of.

5. I think you get the idea - very simply, each human being has an equal and individual right to live. Since all of this evidence affirms it, and the Bill of Rights was written at a time when it was considered wrong to commit abortion, it would also be wrong to assume that it meant otherwise. So you see, you can make something say anything you want it to when you take it out of context. But in a time when it's so easy for people to find the information for themselves, we(you) need to be a little more careful about doing that.
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#232040 Mar 7, 2014
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? The complexity of the cell is not the question.
<quoted text>
Unless you accept the notion of a human soul. Then the joining of the soul and material body is THE defining moment of transition from wad of goo to actual human being.
<quoted text>
But it is NOT a human being, and that is the point.
<quoted text>
Too bad that most, if not all of the so-called "pro life" are totally opposed to putting human life above more dollars for the already rich.
There is nothing moral or immoral about abortion, any more than for any other medical procedure. You can't talk about the "morality" of a face lift or a hip replacement and an abortion is no different. This is in sharp contrast to trying to stop the food stamp program that allows families living below the poverty line a chance to feed real, live children.
1. So what we have unquestionably is a very complex, individual human being at its earliest stages of life. This is a simple fact that's not just based on any belief. Even if the soul is not present at this time there would be no way to prove it. I could also say that the soul leaves a body while someone is asleep, which many people do believe, but that doesn't give me the right to kill that person during that time, because we know that the soul is very likely to rejoin the body at some point in the near future. I will say though, that this soul argument actually has just as much credibility as any of the other ones I've seen on here recently.

2. There is a big difference between true pro-life beliefs and the politicians who use pro-life to get votes – the just get em born group, who you are referring to. Contrary to many politicians who pretend to be pro-life in order to gain votes, true pro-life sentiments do not deal only with abortion, but also with hunger, poverty, and social and political oppression. To be pro-life is to support the rights and dignity of ALL human beings, from conception onwards. American society has convinced us that many things are disposable, but we should never forget that people are not disposable. Every human being deserves equal respect and the chance at life that we expect for ourselves throughout their entire life.
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#232041 Mar 7, 2014
NWmoon wrote:
<quoted text>No, I am not following a path of evil, and there are no falsehoods in my statements.
Insensate wads of goo are not people, they are not human beings, they have the potential to become one, in most cases, but not in all.
There is nothing right about forcing a woman, who is a sentient feeling human being, to gestate against her will.
Nothing evil about terminating a pregnancy in the first trimester at all.
Don't like abortion? Don't have one. It is that simple.
Even more simple than thatsingle cell brain of yours.
It sounds like you must believe in predestination. But how do you know if someone is predestined to die before birth? I know, you want to determine it for them. That sounds evil to me.
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#232042 Mar 7, 2014
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
You continue to ignore the rights of a human being to not be forced to gestate against their will.
An embryo in the first trimester has no rights in the majority of states in the USA. Period. Show me ANYTHING that states otherwise.
And yet I do recognize the rights of all human beings regardless of race, gender, disability, age, stage of development, state of dependency, place of residence or amount of property. Hmmmm?

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#232043 Mar 7, 2014
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet I do recognize the rights of all human beings regardless of race, gender, disability, age, stage of development, state of dependency, place of residence or amount of property. Hmmmm?
That is YOU. YOU do not have power over anyone BUT yourself.

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#232044 Mar 7, 2014
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
It sounds like you must believe in predestination. But how do you know if someone is predestined to die before birth? I know, you want to determine it for them. That sounds evil to me.
You are being intentionally obtuse. I don't want to determine anything for anyone but myself.
It's not MY place to tell anyone else what to do when they find themselves unintentionally pregnant.
It isn't YOURS either.
Not your body?
NONE of your business.
Are you a GOD? No.
None of your business, ever.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#232045 Mar 11, 2014
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
Oooops! You forgot..........
1. If you read on a little further it also states “ nor shall any State deprive ANY PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Then if you still didn't get it, it says the same thing in the Fifth Amendment. William Blackstone, whose work “Commentaries on the Laws of England” was used for more than a century as the foundation of all legal education in Great Britain and the U.S. wrote that life is a “right” that “is inherent by nature in every individual, and exists even before the child is born.”
Of COURSE no PERSON should be deprived of any of their rights. But we are not talking about any persons here, just fetuses or embryos.

As far as the Blackstone quote goes, please post suitable reference for the quote, since quoting out of context is just another way to lie. Just off the top of my head, it looks like that quote is merely saying that those rights themselves were in existence, but without seeing the entire passage, one cannot say if he meant to say that a wad of goo was entitled to the same rights as an actual human being.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#232046 Mar 11, 2014
LightForce wrote:
...
2. Additionally, the attorney for the State of Texas in RV Wade argued that preborn humans are protected under the Fifth Amendment. The portion relevant to the argument states: "No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
During oral arguments, one of the judges contested this viewpoint by asserting that the Fourteenth Amendment defined what the term "person" meant, and that it did not include preborn humans. The relevant clause reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
After some back and forth, the judge retreated from this position and said: "[I suppose] that's not the definition of a person but that's the definition of a citizen."
3. During more oral arguments in RV Wade, one of the judges asked the attorney for Roe if her case was dependent on the assertion that pre-born humans have no Constitutional rights. After some back and forth, the attorney for Roe responded: "Even if the Court at some point determined the fetus to be entitled to constitutional protection, you would still get back into the weighing of one life against another."
After more back and forth, another judge said to Roe's attorney: "[To take this position], you'd have to say that this would be the equivalent after the child was born if the mother thought it bothered her health any having the child around, she could have it killed. Isn't that correct?"
The attorney for Roe responded: "That's correct."
At this point, the Chief Justice cut her off and started to ask another question. He then interrupted himself and asked: "Did you want to respond further to Justice Stewart? Did you want to respond further to him?"
The attorney for Roe stated: "No, Your Honor."
...
There is no such thing as a "pre-born human". Do try to remember that the ultimate point of Roe v Wade was that Jane Roe had the Constitutional RIGHT to have an abortion...

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#232047 Mar 11, 2014
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
Oooops! You forgot..........
1. If you read on a little further it also states “ nor shall any State deprive ANY PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Then if you still didn't get it, it says the same thing in the Fifth Amendment. William Blackstone, whose work “Commentaries on the Laws of England” was used for more than a century as the foundation of all legal education in Great Britain and the U.S. wrote that life is a “right” that “is inherent by nature in every individual, and exists even before the child is born.”
...
Ooh, looks like you might want to avoid quoting Blackstone in the future:

"FARTHER; the perfon killed muft be “a reafonable creature “in being, and under the king's peace,” at the time of the killing. Therefore to kill an alien, a Jew, or an outlaw, who are all under the king's peace or protection, is as much murder as to kill the moft regular born Englifhman; except he be an alienenemy, in time of warr . To kill a child in it's mother's womb, is now no murder, but a great mifprifion: but if the child be born alive, and dieth by reafon of the potion or bruifes it received in the womb, it is murder in fuch as adminiftred or gave thems ."

From here:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/black...

To translate into modern English spelling, it is NOT murder to a child in it's mother's womb, only if the child is born alive and THEN dies is it murder.

Scroll down (way down!) until you come just below the section labeled as pg 198

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#232048 Mar 11, 2014
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
...
4. I know that it's very disturbing, and hard to believe for most of us, but behind the scenes there has been many decisions made in the U.S. based on the idea of eugenics – RV Wade being one of them. Just a few years ago Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg told the New York Times that “at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth, and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Two obvious questions arise. Who is the “we” and who are those we don’t want to have too many of.
5. I think you get the idea - very simply, each human being has an equal and individual right to live. Since all of this evidence affirms it, and the Bill of Rights was written at a time when it was considered wrong to commit abortion, it would also be wrong to assume that it meant otherwise. So you see, you can make something say anything you want it to when you take it out of context. But in a time when it's so easy for people to find the information for themselves, we(you) need to be a little more careful about doing that.
Eugenics has always been tied closely to racism and unscientific ideas of what constitutes "undesirable". That excess population growth is bad cannot be debated, but the idea that certain segments of society should be selectively reduced is certainly wrong. At least we can agree on that.

Once again, you have not presented any valid evidence that supports the idea that a wad of goo is a person. You claim that abortion was wrong when the Bill of Rights was written, but I would point out that it WAS okay to own slaves at that time, even though there were people back then that saw that it was not compatible with the values put forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. At best, this could be seen as a religious issue, under the 1st Amendment. As such, while any person can state that it is against their religious beliefs to have an abortion, that does NOT allow them the power to deny others their right to get and abortion.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#232049 Mar 11, 2014
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
1. So what we have unquestionably is a very complex, individual human being at its earliest stages of life. This is a simple fact that's not just based on any belief.
No, that is not a fact, that is your belief. That the wad of goo contains unique DNA, that from the time the sperm enters the egg it is a complex process is not in dispute.
LightForce wrote:
Even if the soul is not present at this time there would be no way to prove it.
Currently....
LightForce wrote:
I could also say that the soul leaves a body while someone is asleep, which many people do believe, but that doesn't give me the right to kill that person during that time, because we know that the soul is very likely to rejoin the body at some point in the near future. I will say though, that this soul argument actually has just as much credibility as any of the other ones I've seen on here recently.
That was a primitive belief about souls, I doubt that you could find anyone these days that seriously believes that the soul leaves the body during sleep, although to go much further, we will have to spend time defining terms - like the difference between "soul" and "consciousness".
LightForce wrote:
2. There is a big difference between true pro-life beliefs and the politicians who use pro-life to get votes – the just get em born group, who you are referring to. Contrary to many politicians who pretend to be pro-life in order to gain votes, true pro-life sentiments do not deal only with abortion, but also with hunger, poverty, and social and political oppression. To be pro-life is to support the rights and dignity of ALL human beings, from conception onwards. American society has convinced us that many things are disposable, but we should never forget that people are not disposable. Every human being deserves equal respect and the chance at life that we expect for ourselves throughout their entire life.
Except for the fact that it is not a person until birth, I can agree with this: it is impossible to be pro-life and oppose social programs meant to help people who need food & shelter.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#232050 Mar 11, 2014
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
It sounds like you must believe in predestination. But how do you know if someone is predestined to die before birth? I know, you want to determine it for them. That sounds evil to me.
Except the entire point of predestination is that the choices are only an illusion, that it has already been determined that that fetus would not survive to term and live birth. Whether getting an abortion, or getting hit by a bus, it will happen as scheduled.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#232051 Mar 12, 2014
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
And? Your point being? It was my decision to make. It was my body. You aren't telling me anything I don't know or that I have ever denied.
When it's your body, and your life, YOU make the decisions and you live with the consequences. No one else can or should.
Sadly, it's the life you took that paid the ultimate price.
Life is Precious

South Bend, IN

#232052 Mar 13, 2014
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sadly, it's the life you took that paid the ultimate price.
I agree Grunt but she doesn't care. It was pure selfishness on her part. I don't know how she lives with herself. It's disgusting.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 2 min Riverside Rednek 47,036
Why are Europeans a race of savages, thieves, a... (Jun '15) 3 min Johnny 446
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 8 min Eagle 12 - 990,698
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 39 min Michael 692,109
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 44 min MWHAHAHAHAHHA 619,844
beware of raymond rotolo / ps inspections llc 1 hr BEWARE_RAY_ROTOLO 1
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr waaasssuuup 445,850
More from around the web