ABORTION.......

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

........ prenatal organisms still within the mother's womb would not be considered true parasites only if one can successfully argue that the definition of a parasite cannot apply if the survival of the species is dependant on it..............

Good point Chumly, because of course the survival of the species does depend on exactly that.

Real Life and I have congruence! This calls for a peanut butter and jam sandwich on homemade bread, a glass of well water, and a cookie for my dog.

One need only go back over the last few pages to see that I have addressed your point directly, quoting you and contrasting your view of 'rights' with the view that distinguishes the American system.

Your view, (alternately 'there are no rights' and 'the only rights are what are granted by the whim of the government' ) is so far out that you haven't the guts to defend it, so you act like no one has countered your arguments.

When you get over your 'huh? you talkin' to me?' phase, maybe we'll talk. Until then I am thankful that you are in no position to put your cockeyed view of 'rights' into practice in any meaningful way.

Now can we hold hands for two stanzas of Kum-bye-yah?

As to the survival of the species:

Admittedly though, and as Eorl alluded to, if all fertilizations were successful to term, it would decrease the potential survival of the species through overpopulation.

Further, given that there are much more efficient methods of birth control, I am not suggesting abortion as a practical method on a regular basis.

Quote:

One need only go back over the last few pages to see that I have addressed your point directly, quoting you and contrasting your view of 'rights' with the view that distinguishes the American system.

The problem being none of what you said addressed anything at all.You proclaim that the 'founders' (whom, by the way, are not recognized by me as any sort of authority) stand diametrically opposed to my position and then proceed to masquerade that as some sort of challenge to my position.
And none of this even adresses the original point I was making..at what point does a person have 'rights'
Seriously, are you for real?

Quote:

Your view, (alternately 'there are no rights' and 'the only rights are what are granted by the whim of the government' ) is so far out that you haven't the guts to defend it, so you act like no one has countered your arguments.

That was an aside to my point , and besides the alternative to man made rights is god given rights, and that of course rests apon a non demonstrable assertion (that being the existence of said moral arbiter) and is thusly worthless for discussion purposes.

Quote:

When you get over your 'huh? you talkin' to me?' phase, maybe we'll talk. Until then I am thankful that you are in no position to put your cockeyed view of 'rights' into practice in any meaningful way.

yada yada yada...

Overpopulation has been forecast as the doomsday trigger for several centuries now. It's earliest proponents would have told you that there is NO WAY that Earth could support the billions we have now. But by and large most on Earth today fare better than was true 100 years ago.

What will folks 100 years from now say when there are billions more and they look at how we worry about it?

Regarding birth control, most (not all) methods of contraception are abortifacient in that they do not prevent fertilization, but may hinder implantation afterwards.

Going back to what eorl was saying.

I'm actually wondering who in the Pro choice camp (other than flushd who already answered in the affirmative) believes or feels that being pro choice means to protect ALL the rights/choices a woman has about her pregnancy equally?

Do you believe a woman's choice to have children should be protected as much as a woman's choice to abort a pregnancy?

Do you have a bias either way?

What charge do you think should apply to someone who aborts a mother's child without her choosing to do so Pro Choicers?

What level of protection would you give in order to secure and protect her choice to have a child in such a case?

The problem the 'Pro Choice" people have is they CANNOT adequately protect the rights/choices of a mother to have or abort a child without regarding the unborn as both.......

They have to contradict themselves in defining the unborn in order to ensure the protection of BOTH choices/rights.

Pro choice means Pro contradiction of terms. /quote] Where is the proof of this contradiction? Where is your argument that this co-called "contradiction" is a serous problem?

Bartikus wrote:

Will you regard ALL the unborn as mere symbiotic organisms without any right to life in order to not contradict and secure a woman's right to abort at the cost of a woman's right to have a child?

Your question is so vague and generalized and so rife with preconceived unsubstantiated notions as to be approach meaninglessness. You must be specific and define your terms if you expect an answer.

Bartikus wrote:

I would like to see as many people as possible address this. Let's see who has the will and what that will is?

I would be happy when you apply a reasonable modicum of discipline and definition to your points and queries.

Address my just previous question.

Someone has kicked a mother in the stomach repeatedly with the intent of destroying the unborn. The mothers choice and right was to have that child!

What is the charge that should be broght against the person?

What is your "just previous question" please?

Is it this one?

Bartikus wrote:

Someone has kicked a mother in the stomach repeatedly with the intent of destroying the unborn. The mothers choice and right was to have that child!

What is the charge that should be broght against the person?