flushd wrote:Bartikus wrote:
We will make laws protecting the right to terminate pregnancies even if some protections are stripped from those who CHOOSE the right to have a child.
What protections would be stripped from those who CHOOSE the right to have a child?
They can go right ahead and have as many kids as they like. No one is gonna force them to abort.
Really?......You have'nt kept up flushd.
No one will force a woman to abort? Why not?
Uhh...what the heck are you talking about?
flushd wrote:Uhh...what the heck are you talking about?
Exactly my point.
It all starts here:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=56279&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=3020
to where you say....What the Heck u talkin bout.
Momma Angel wrote: 
But, if it were proven that it is a child from the point of conception how can you say it's not killing a person or can you? How can you say anyone has the right to decide who lives or who dies?
You would be trashing someone else's rights in order for the mother to have her rights? I just don't understand it.
Ok, I'm flabbergasted I won't deny it. Frank, you have said that God is barbaric on many occasions because he would wipe out innocent children. In this scenarior, YOU would be doing the same thing? I don't understand at all.
I'm not sure why you are flabbergasted, MA...you have asked this question before...and I've answered it the same way.
A WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO CONTROL HER OWN BODY!!!
If a fetus is growing in it...if the fetus IS a human being...DOES NOT CHANGE THAT.
It is a unique situation.
A WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO CONTROL HER OWN BODY...and should she choose to terminate a pregnancy SHE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO SO WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT OR ANY NOSY, BUSYBODIES interfering.
A WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO CONTROL HER OWN BODY!!
Frank,
I think the closest I ever got to this exact question was the baby being aborted two minutes before it's birth thing. If not, I don't remember asking it and if I did, I think I'd remember. But, that is neither here nor there anyway.
Why am I flabbergasted? Are you kidding me? I am flabbergasted because even if it were proven to you, it wouldn't matter. You would still give the woman the right to kill the child. I could understand where you were coming from as long as you held the belief/guess/whatever that it was not a human being. I could at least understand that.
But I cannot understand that if you KNOW it is a human being you would still think it is ok to give someone the right to kill it. Heck, let's call it what it would be. It would be murder. Intentional murder at that. You are the one that provided the definition of murder Frank. And it was't considered murder according to you because it wasn't a human being. Well, in this scenario it is a human being and you would still give someone the right to kill it. So, it's murder.
Bartikus, you are off-base, no disrespect intended.
Your arguement was unsucessful.
The right to abort does not have anything to do with the right to conceive.
Consider this: It is always a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body.
Yes, a woman has the choice to abort the fetus within her own body.
She does NOT have the right to abort another woman's fetus at whim - that would be assault or more. A man could not randomly abort a woman's fetus at random, he would need the woman's consent, or else it would be assault or more.
Understand?
Momma Angel wrote:Frank,
I think the closest I ever got to this exact question was the baby being aborted two minutes before it's birth thing. If not, I don't remember asking it and if I did, I think I'd remember. But, that is neither here nor there anyway.
Why am I flabbergasted? Are you kidding me? I am flabbergasted because even if it were proven to you, it wouldn't matter. You would still give the woman the right to kill the child. I could understand where you were coming from as long as you held the belief/guess/whatever that it was not a human being. I could at least understand that.
But I cannot understand that if you KNOW it is a human being you would still think it is ok to give someone the right to kill it. Heck, let's call it what it would be. It would be murder. Intentional murder at that. You are the one that provided the definition of murder Frank. And it was't considered murder according to you because it wasn't a human being. Well, in this scenario it is a human being and you would still give someone the right to kill it. So, it's murder.
No, it would not be murder.
It is a unique situation, MA. Open your mind.
A WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO CONTROL HER OWN BODY.
That right does not end because she is pregnant.
AND STOP WITH THESE PATHETIC HYPOTHETICALS...because we know what a fetus is...it is a fetus. A zygote is a zygote. An embryo is an embryo.
An egg is an egg...and not a chicken.
A zygote is a zygote...not a living human being. An embryo is an embryo...not a living human being. A fetus is a fetus...not a living human being.
WHAT???!!!! Frank, wait a minute here. You have continually said it is not murder only because abortion is not against the law. Surely you cannot deny that killing another human being is murder?
Oh yeah, stop with the hypotheticals? Very funny, Frank. Fact is you just got caught with your foot in your mouth and you know it.
You admitted if it was proven to be a human being it wouldn't matter. The woman should still be able to abort. So, now it's not murder only because it's legal? Good friggin grief Frank! I don't care if you call it pussyfooting around! If you know it's a human being and you kill it, it's murder, and premeditated murder at that! If thinking it's legal to do it makes it okay to kill, think away. But, don't expect me to buy into it!
If something has a heartbeat is it considered alive?
Heph,
I don't think any on here will tell you that the "fetus" is not a life. I am sure what they will tell you is that it's not a human life. Now, Frank thinks it's not a human life until it is out of the womb.
Me, I say it's life at conception.
And, if I stated that incorrectly, please correct me.
Between 5-8 weeks this "embryo" (a lifeless blob of tissue) begins to have a heartbeat. And I would like to know if something has a heartbeat is it considered alive?
flushd wrote:Bartikus, you are off-base, no disrespect intended.
Your arguement was unsucessful.
The right to abort does not have anything to do with the right to conceive.
Consider this: It is always a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body.
Yes, a woman has the choice to abort the fetus within her own body.
She does NOT have the right to abort another woman's fetus at whim - that would be assault or more. A man could not randomly abort a woman's fetus at random, he would need the woman's consent, or else it would be assault or more.
Understand?
My argument I concede may be unsuccessful in changing anyone's mind or at least looking at the issues from a different viewpoint.
That is no indication that my arguments are not valid.
The right to abort has alot to do with the right to conceive under a 'Pro Choice' banner.
Which right do you feel is more important?
The right to abort or the right to have children?
Neither?
hephzibah wrote:Between 5-8 weeks this "embryo" (a lifeless blob of tissue) begins to have a heartbeat. And I would like to know if something has a heartbeat is it considered alive?
At what point does life cease?
I'll answer your question when you answer mine.
Frank,
If a woman has the right to control her own body,then why did the pro-abortion crowd try to FORCE another woman to have an abortion?
The plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvey (Roe), admitted later that her statement of becoming pregnant after being gang raped was a lie. This was a fact that her lawyers knew and chose to overlook. Therefore, the basis for suing for the right to have an abortion was based on a lie.
Incidentally, McCorvey never had the abortion she supposedly sued for. She gave the child up for adoption. In addition to that, in 1995 she stated that she was going to spend the rest of her life working against abortion.
So, the "landmark" decision making abortion legal, through the second trimester, was knowingly argued with false information. The case of Doe v. Bolton is an even more egregious example of this despicable tactic.
The original "Doe" in this case was a pregnant woman who went to the Atlanta Legal Aid and was "encouraged" to file suit in exchange for assistance with a divorce and child custody proceedings. She never wanted an abortion, nor did she get one.
Not wanting to be deterred by such a minor detail as the truth Legal Aid, with the help of the National Organization for Women and an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer named Margie Pitts Hames decided to replace the original "Doe" with another pregnant woman, Sandra Cano. There were a few problems though.
Like the original "Doe," Cano did not want an abortion. In fact, when Hames asked her about her opinion on the matter Cano said she was against it. The only way that she became part of the case is because Hames and her associates tricked her into signing whatever papers were put in front of her in exchange for help with her divorce and custody struggles. Sound familiar?
Hames and her associates even went so far as to set up and pre-pay for an abortion for Cano (remember now, Cano did not want an abortion). Hames was willing to kill another woman's child to further her cause. Fortunately, for Cano and her baby, she ran away before she could be coerced into the abortion.
I already know the answer to my question and was just trying to help you answer your question.
I believe my question actually pointed out some answers.
Logic and science alone would say that life begins and ends by the same measure.
Sorry Bartikus, I wasn't sure if you had an angle there or something. I wasn't trying to be rude. I just want someone to answer the question is all. It's easy, it's yes or no. I'm not trying promote either side of the issue. I have my beliefs and people have theirs. I just wanted to present another angle. Thank you though. So I'll answer your question... I believe it's when the heart stops beating.
hephzibah wrote:Sorry Bartikus, I wasn't sure if you had an angle there or something. I wasn't trying to be rude. I just want someone to answer the question is all. It's easy, it's yes or no. I'm not trying promote either side of the issue. I have my beliefs and people have theirs. I just wanted to present another angle. Thank you though. So I'll answer your question... I believe it's when the heart stops beating.
If that is how a doctor of the medical sciences determines a death then....the heart first beating logically would be the beginning of a person's life. :wink:
mysteryman wrote:Frank,
If a woman has the right to control her own body,then why did the pro-abortion crowd try to FORCE another woman to have an abortion?
The plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvey (Roe), admitted later that her statement of becoming pregnant after being gang raped was a lie. This was a fact that her lawyers knew and chose to overlook. Therefore, the basis for suing for the right to have an abortion was based on a lie.
Incidentally, McCorvey never had the abortion she supposedly sued for. She gave the child up for adoption. In addition to that, in 1995 she stated that she was going to spend the rest of her life working against abortion.
So, the "landmark" decision making abortion legal, through the second trimester, was knowingly argued with false information. The case of Doe v. Bolton is an even more egregious example of this despicable tactic.
The original "Doe" in this case was a pregnant woman who went to the Atlanta Legal Aid and was "encouraged" to file suit in exchange for assistance with a divorce and child custody proceedings. She never wanted an abortion, nor did she get one.
Not wanting to be deterred by such a minor detail as the truth Legal Aid, with the help of the National Organization for Women and an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer named Margie Pitts Hames decided to replace the original "Doe" with another pregnant woman, Sandra Cano. There were a few problems though.
Like the original "Doe," Cano did not want an abortion. In fact, when Hames asked her about her opinion on the matter Cano said she was against it. The only way that she became part of the case is because Hames and her associates tricked her into signing whatever papers were put in front of her in exchange for help with her divorce and custody struggles. Sound familiar?
Hames and her associates even went so far as to set up and pre-pay for an abortion for Cano (remember now, Cano did not want an abortion). Hames was willing to kill another woman's child to further her cause. Fortunately, for Cano and her baby, she ran away before she could be coerced into the abortion.
Don't entice Frank with facts mysteryman. It usually brings on a barrage of insults. Well....you been around longer than me....I'm probably not clueing you into anything you don't already know.
