ABORTION.......

the L.A. Times wrote:

Yes, an Arkansas doctor says, he destroys life. But he believes the thousands of women who have relied on him have been 'born again.'..........."It's not a baby to me until the mother tells me it's a baby," he says.

An example of the twisted thinking required of the pro-abortion mindset.

0 Replies

He's a doctor?!

0 Replies

Scary isn't it. Couple that with a recent study (NY TImes?) that violent crime has decreased in the last 10-15 years and it is attributed to abortion in that not as many criminal types are being born in poor neighborhood.

The only problem with that reasoning is in the 1940's and 1950's when there was much more poverty by today's definition and abortion was mostly illegal, there was less much less violent crime then than there has been since.

Sort of blows the theory that abortion reduces crime out of the water I think. But then I didn't do a study to 'prove' my point of view.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

He's a doctor?!

Well, he's an abortionist. A veteran of some 20,000 abortions by his estimate. I consider referring to him as a doctor somewhat of a disservice to the medical profession, but the article refers to him as such, no doubt to bolster his credibility as a legitimate medical practitioner.

I would be very interested to hear some of the usual suspects from the pro-abortion side here on A2K try to dispute this abortionist's statement that he is destroying life, when they have tried so hard over the past few months to deny that this is so.

The cat's out of the bag, folks. One of your own is apparently too unguarded to conceal the truth any longer. The abortionist will tell you he's destroying life, and it's a baby if the mother says so but it's not if she says it's not.

C'mon now, folks in the pro-abortion army. Tell Bill Harrison how he's wrong.

0 Replies

I have a question.

If let's say an unborn child at 5 months can be aborted legally by choice of the mother because that unborn fetus is not considered a person with rights.

If this same woman was walking down the street and some other person punched her in the stomache knowing she was pregnant and the fetus aborted. What should the charge be?

Is the fetus now considered a person with rights or is the fetus still considered just another part of the woman's body? Why?

0 Replies

Quote:

Is the fetus now considered a person with rights or is the fetus still considered just another part of the woman's body? Why?

The former in places where abortion is illegal, the latter in places abortion is legal. Can't have it both ways....

0 Replies

So the law defines what a person is and while one fetus is given the status of a person....another is not?

People have the power and authority to define what a person is?

By mere written laws of 'persons'? I guess what defines 'person' is not absolute.

I guess as long as we were all defined as persons and continue to remain defined as such....that's all that matters. Shocked

I think your right though...we can't have it both ways.

If the laws of tomorrow were to define you as something less than a person...would you submit to such authority? Nay.

I don't blame you...I don't put my trust in such an authority either.

I am a person...... and not because the law says so.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/04/nabort.xml

0 Replies

Quote:

So the law defines what a person is and while one fetus is given the status of a person....another is not?

For all intents and purposes....yes.

Quote:

People have the power and authority to define what a person is?

Why not, we've defined everything else that has been defined.

Quote:

By mere written laws of 'persons'? I guess what defines 'person' is not absolute.

Now you're gettin' it.

Quote:

If the laws of tomorrow were to define you as something less than a person...would you submit to such authority? Nay.

For me, a white male, to not fall under the category of person would mean serious trouble for all of us. I don't think that's realistic.

Quote:

I don't blame you...I don't put my trust in such an authority either.

I am a person and not because the law says so.

Man is the only 'authority'. Obeying the authority or disobeying is a choice..but one with repercussions.
You are a person because society defines you as such.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Is the fetus now considered a person with rights or is the fetus still considered just another part of the woman's body? Why?

The answer depends on the jurisdiction. In MO and OH an unborn but viable fetus is granted "person" status for purposes of the state's murder laws. In NC, LA and WV the fetus has no such status. In those states where the fetus is considered a person the law is based on English Common Law going back as far as the 14th Century. Even in those states, if the fetus isn't considered "viable" then there are no charges.

In other states (PA for example) there is a seperate law that would bring the charges of "feticide" instead of murder. The penalties are similar but there is a disctinction the law.

0 Replies

Your right about this:

For me, a white male, to not fall under the category of person would mean serious trouble for all of us. I don't think that's realistic.

Why would 'white male' be the qualifier/disqualifier of what a person is?

Do you seek protection under the vast umbrella of white maleness in society?

You are more than just some white male are'nt you?

Man is the only 'authority'. Obeying the authority or disobeying is a choice..but one with repercussions.
You are a person because society defines you as such.

Do you mean to say that if society considered you less than a person....you would agree? That such a conclusion was true?

Or would you refute societies conclusions as being in error?

Maybe you could show them this:

http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Your right about this:

For me, a white male, to not fall under the category of person would mean serious trouble for all of us. I don't think that's realistic.

Why would 'white male' be the qualifier/disqualifier of what a person is?

Do you seek protection under the vast umbrella of white maleness in society?

You are more than just some white male are'nt you?

Do you mean to say that if society considered you less than a person....you would agree? That such a conclusion was true?

Or would you refute societies conclusions as being in error?

One's humanity is what one believes it to be, and no, society cannot dicatate that. However, the point here is that it is society via its laws and definitions that determines whether you are a person or not.

Society at this time, with concurrence from several posting on this board, has dictated that an unborn human is not a person and has no legal standing. Some will even cite the statute and/or case law to back that up.

Pro-lifers would like to change that to what we believe would be a more reasonable definition and determination.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Bartikus wrote:
Your right about this:

For me, a white male, to not fall under the category of person would mean serious trouble for all of us. I don't think that's realistic.

Why would 'white male' be the qualifier/disqualifier of what a person is?

Do you seek protection under the vast umbrella of white maleness in society?

You are more than just some white male are'nt you?

Do you mean to say that if society considered you less than a person....you would agree? That such a conclusion was true?

Or would you refute societies conclusions as being in error?

One's humanity is what one believes it to be, and no, society cannot dicatate that. However, the point here is that it is society via its laws and definitions that determines whether you are a person or not.

Society at this time, with concurrence from several posting on this board, has dictated that an unborn human is not a person and has no legal standing. Some will even cite the statute and/or case law to back that up.

Pro-lifers would like to change that to what we believe would be a more reasonable definition and determination.

I understand. Most pro lifers I know don't want to eliminate all possibility of abortion. A reasonable definition and determination would be great.

Just because the law says so...does'nt mean it is so. Human Laws are not written in stone.

We might still have slavery in America if they were. There are 'bad' laws in the books. To say we can't question them or challenge them or that we have to just accept them as being right is goofy.

People on the pro choice side challenge laws all the time.

What is the difference between a human being and a person from your perspective foxfyre?

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Bartikus wrote:
Is the fetus now considered a person with rights or is the fetus still considered just another part of the woman's body? Why?

The answer depends on the jurisdiction. In MO and OH an unborn but viable fetus is granted "person" status for purposes of the state's murder laws. In NC, LA and WV the fetus has no such status. In those states where the fetus is considered a person the law is based on English Common Law going back as far as the 14th Century. Even in those states, if the fetus isn't considered "viable" then there are no charges.

In other states (PA for example) there is a seperate law that would bring the charges of "feticide" instead of murder. The penalties are similar but there is a disctinction the law.

Thanks for this fishin.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/person

0 Replies

per·son (pûrsn)
n.
1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.
6. Law A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
7. Christianity Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
8. Grammar
a. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
b. Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.
9. A character or role, as in a play; a guise: "Well, in her person, I say I will not have you" Shakespeare

There is a problem assigning the legal definition (#6). What duty does a newborn have?

The 2nd definition seems to be the prevailing definition applied while ignoring all others regarding abortion. There are holes in this as well.

This is not an easy matter and a matter that should not be taken lightly for the sake of ease in my opinion.... even if you concede to man/society etc. being the only authority.

Even cats and dogs are given rights and protections. Interestingly, so are their unborn.

Many keep telling me to abandon my superstitous beliefs and use my brain with logic and reason. I do and ask where the logic and reason is in all this?

0 Replies

well one judge has an idea about what a fetus is not

Fetuses do not count as passengers

0 Replies

Bart,
This all boils down to one principle.
might makes right

Quote:

Why would 'white male' be the qualifier/disqualifier of what a person is?

Do you seek protection under the vast umbrella of white maleness in society?

You are more than just some white male are'nt you?

All else aside, white males run the industrialized world. White males hold the power in society, and hence define it's parameters. Including what, at that particular moment, constitutes a 'person'

Quote:

Do you mean to say that if society considered you less than a person....you would agree? That such a conclusion was true?

Or would you refute societies conclusions as being in error?

Maybe you could show them this:

http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

Unless I happen to be the head of government at the time, or have some other means of leveraging the direction of society, what 'I' think doesn't ultimately matter.Neither does what you think.
Finding 'error' with social conventions is irrelevant without the capacity to change them

0 Replies

For god's sake, it's a human being. Kill the damn thing if you want to. Just spare us the excuses.

0 Replies

Might makes right? Hmmmm. Don't think so. If that were the case, I don't think so many would be against the Christian right, would they? They seem to be pretty mighty. So, might makes right? Nah! :wink:

0 Replies

echi wrote:

For god's sake, it's a human being. Kill the damn thing if you want to. Just spare us the excuses.

This happens to be my opinion as well.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Might makes right? Hmmmm. Don't think so. If that were the case, I don't think so many would be against the Christian right, would they? They seem to be pretty mighty. So, might makes right? Nah! :wink:

I'm just gonna go ahead assume this is clever sarcasm

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know