Piffka wrote:real life wrote:Piffka wrote:real life wrote:
If this is not the case, then at what magic moment do you propose that the unborn is no longer 'a part of the mother' and becomes an individual and worthy of protection? At the moment of birth? Sometime before? Sometime after?
Quickening... generally considered by most to be a reasonable time. I assume from your discussion topics, flushD, that you are approaching the idea that there is a real person there from the moment the penis leaves the vagina. That means that not even the Morning After Pill is moral. (OF course, anybody having sex for any reason other than babies might be immoral in your books, who knows?)
When you get to that level, then... spilling the seed ought to be illegal. And then, let's see, maybe... masturbation?
You are on a seriously slippery slope, sir. My opinion, and it is as conservative as they come IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, is that anybody not directly and personally associated with a pregnancy ought to keep their minds, their noses and their laws seriously away from a woman and her own body.
Your morality is for you... let others have their own. If a woman chooses not to have a child, it is probably for a very, very good reason. Why MEN have the right to say anything about pregnancy at all is nearly beyond me and certainly no man ought to have anything to say UNLESS he has had an active part in the conception.
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Quote:
Many will tell you straight up that they would support 'a woman's {moral} right to an abortion' even if it was illegal.
So where it is legal, abortion fans hide behind the law; and where it is not they are eager and willing to violate it.
And amazingly, people like you who have nothing to do with the lives of either or with the pregancy itself feel it is absolutely necessary to shove their morality down the throats of others. Do you ever see that as an amazingly gross violation of privacy?
Apparently, you wouldn't know the Constitution if it stood up and bit you.
Hi Piffka,
Sounds like you are running for office. Probably Planned Parenthood precinctperson. You have their propaganda down pat.
Where to start ? Hmmm
Quickening -- you seem to indicate that this is a reasonable time to allow protection to the unborn. Tell us. When is quickening?
Should abortion be illegal after quickening occurs? Of course you are aware that in many states it is not illegal even after this point. Are you actively opposed to abortion after quickening, or is it merely lip service, since you have specified an undefined and therefore unenforcable target time?
Quote: anybody not directly and personally associated with a pregnancy ought to keep their minds, their noses and their laws seriously away from a woman and her own body.
Apart from the fact that there are two bodies, the woman's and the unborn child's , that we are discussing IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT ( a point you no doubt would like to gloss over ) , do you hold the same reasoning with other crimes of violence against persons i.e. rape, assault, kidnapping --- that they should concern no one but the immediate parties involved?
If you are finished growling, I would very much be interested in your answer, especially if you think you can cite the Constitution as providing for legal abortion.
BTW after all your huffing and puffing about morality, can you cite ANY law that is NOT an expression of SOMEONE'S morality i.e. someone's concept of what is right and what is wrong?
If you were a woman, which you are patently not, then you'd know exactly when quickening occurs. It is the moment when the fetus begins to move inside one's body and is a very pleasant, life-affirming experience. It is that moment when the fetus makes its will known.
You concentrate totally on the unborn, leaving those who are living in the world to pain and suffering. I don't understand why you are so concerned about someone whose eyes you cannot look into, and scorn the eyes who look right at you. I tell you again... if a woman wants an abortion, she has a very good reason and it is none of your business. It is her business, her private business and to an extent, the business of the man who is the father.
I am not huffing and puffing... I'm totally pissed that you and your ilk think you can ram your morality down my throat and the throats of millions of other women.
Let me tell you something... there will always be abortion... one way or another. The reason we have legal abortion is so that women who will always feel the need to have no more children (for whatever private reason of their own) don't die on somebody's kitchen table with a wire coat hanger ripping out their innards. That is something you forget as you prissily talk of your morality and the "other body." Ripped abdomens... bleeding to death... horrid infections... never the chance for another pregnancy... older children left without their mothers. While you... oh, you.... say that the fetus is the most important part of this equation.
You don't understand quickening, you've never had a child, you've probably never fathered one either yet you preach and preach. Don't you see the hubris of that? Would you like me to come into your life and see what wrongs you do in my eyes?
Have you never heard the parable of the speck in one's friend's eye? Luke 6:41"
And why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own? 42How can you think of saying, 'Friend, let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,' when you can't see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log from your own eye; then perhaps you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye."
The Constitution regards privacy as a paramount right. That is my citation for abortion.
Hi Piffka,
Since I am a father, then you are correct I have never been pregnant.
But I do understand quite a bit about the medical facts during pregnancy. (I may have been in the delivery room more often than you.) Perhaps you, as a woman, would do well to acquaint yourself.
The unborn child has a beating heart and brain waves and is moving long before the mother can 'feel' the movement. This is due to the small size of the unborn at that point.
Yes it is awful if a woman is injured or dies during an abortion. However, she chose to take that risk.
But even if she comes thru fine, a baby ALWAYS dies during a 'successful' abortion. The unborn had no choice to take or refuse risk, and indeed certain death.
The unborn may be hacked and sliced to pieces with a razorlike instrument in a D&C abortion.
Or he may be chemically burned to death inside and out during a saline abortion.
Or she may be allowed to emerge legs, torso and arms from the mother with just the head remaining inside the birth canal when the back of the head is punctured with scissors and her brain is sucked out with a vaccuum during a partial birth abortion.
If you were to rid your household of an unwanted dog or cat using the same instruments in this manner, you would likely find yourself facing jail time.
Contrary to your undocumented assertion, the Constitution says not one word regarding abortion. When you are done studying a little more about the medical details of pregnancy perhaps you should read the Constitution as well.
Also can you cite ANY law that is not an expression of SOMEONE'S idea of what is right and wrong (i.e morality) ?
Now to restate my unanswered question in the case of quickening, are you actively opposed to abortion after the point of quickening which you have defined? Or is this just a smokescreen on your part?
What do you think should be the penalty for an abortionist who performs an abortion after the point where movement is felt?
