Abortion

mysteryman wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
The Constitution requires that government be involved in the first two items on your list...but it is your list, so include whatever you want.

So you do therefore admit than they govt can control abortions?

Only to the extent that does not conflict with people's inherent rights.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The real difference between prolifers and proabortionists is that prolifers can see the contradiction.

Trying to characterize those who support reproductive rights as pro-abortion is so inaccuarte as to render the statement dishonest. I am pro-life and anti-abortion.

0 Replies

If you have no moral problems with abortion or advocate women being able to have one whenever they want, and if you feel no moral duty or responsibility whatsoever for the unborn child, what else would you call that but pro abortion?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Yet these same people would most likely--though I am no longer certain--say that the woman should be FORCED to care for the well being of a born child in her custody.

Could you translate this into comprehensible English? I think it is a strawman argument but I am not sure because it is so poorly written,

And if you understand what a straw argument is, why so you so frequently use them?

0 Replies

No straw man because the point was both accurate and written exactly as intended. I don't use straw man arguments except in humor. I don't use humor when discussing abortion.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

If you have no moral problems with abortion or advocate women being able to have one whenever they want, and if you feel no moral duty or responsibility whatsoever for the unborn child, what else would you call that but pro abortion?

Try calling it what it is: Pro-life, anti-abortion and pro-reproductive rights. It would be the same thing as if I thought that poisoning one's system with alcohol and tobacco was morally wrong. I would still support people's right to do so. Of course, having now read many of your illogical positions, I doubt that you will understand the nuance.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

No straw man because the point was both accurate and written exactly as intended. I don't use straw man arguments except in humor. I don't use humor when discussing abortion.

You still don't know what a straw argument is and only continue appear ridiculous by claiming that you do. Gosh, one would think that you would look it up rather than continuing in your obstinate ignorance.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
The Constitution requires that government be involved in the first two items on your list...but it is your list, so include whatever you want.

Please show me where in the constitution it says that the govt is constitutionally responsible for your or my healthcare.
Also,where are they responsible for your welfare?

You are friggin' kidding right? How about reading the document occasionally rather that exposing your appalling ignorance?

Hint: you won't have to read very far into it.

Here is the entire constitution.
Now,except for the phrase in the preamble..."promote the general Welfare",and here...
http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE

Is the definition of welfare.

So,I ask again,Where in the constitution does it say that your health care and your welfare are the responsibility of the govt.?

The constitution says "general welfare",which means the general happiness of everyone,it doesnt mean your specific welfare.
The founding fathers thought that most people would be willing to get up off their butts and support themselves.

BTW,
Here is the definition of strawman...
2. strawman - a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted
straw man
specious argument - an argument that appears good at first view but is really fallacious

Thats from here...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strawman

So now you know the definition.I hope that helps your education.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
The Constitution requires that government be involved in the first two items on your list...but it is your list, so include whatever you want.

Please show me where in the constitution it says that the govt is constitutionally responsible for your or my healthcare.
Also,where are they responsible for your welfare?

Now,IF they are responsible for peoples healthcare,then they are condtitutionally permitted to ban or put heavy restrictions on abortion.

After all,abortion and pregnancy fall under the heading of healthcare.
So you do therefore admit than they govt can control abortions?

Read the Preamble...and open your mind.

By the way...the Supreme Court says that the Constitution imposes that obligation on the government.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

If the welfare of a born chld and how the child may be treated is the business of the government then, for prolifers, the life of the child begins much earlier than the precise moment of birth.

The only way that pro-abortionists can justify their stance is to deny that the unborn is deserving of any consideration or rights. They further accuse those who believe the unborn is a person of wanting to deprive a woman of her rights or want to FORCE her to bear a child that is inconvenient to her.

Yet these same people would most likely--though I am no longer certain--say that the woman should be FORCED to care for the well being of a born child in her custody.

The real difference between prolifers and proabortionists is that prolifers can see the contradiction.

The real difference between anti-choisers and pro-choicers...is that pro-choicers do not stick their noses in where it is inappropriate.

That is the real difference.

The pro-choicers have enough class and common decency to butt-out where butting-out is the proper thing to do.

0 Replies

So Frank,
Do you agree that the constitution means EXACTLY what it says?

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
No straw man because the point was both accurate and written exactly as intended. I don't use straw man arguments except in humor. I don't use humor when discussing abortion.

You still don't know what a straw argument is and only continue appear ridiculous by claiming that you do. Gosh, one would think that you would look it up rather than continuing in your obstinate ignorance.

I don't need to look it up since I already know. I have pointed to very good illustrations. These may be beyond your ability to grasp, but that's okay. I make allowances for those whose only joy in life is being disagreeable. Would that be you?

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
If you have no moral problems with abortion or advocate women being able to have one whenever they want, and if you feel no moral duty or responsibility whatsoever for the unborn child, what else would you call that but pro abortion?

Try calling it what it is: Pro-life, anti-abortion and pro-reproductive rights. It would be the same thing as if I thought that poisoning one's system with alcohol and tobacco was morally wrong. I would still support people's right to do so. Of course, having now read many of your illogical positions, I doubt that you will understand the nuance.

Terrific post, Rox...but you are aiming it to someone who is selectively blind.

You couldn't get through Fox's concrete with a jackhammer.

0 Replies

Well I know you can call an idiot a genius but it won't make an idiot an Einstein. And you can call the baby growing in the womb any manner of names to avoid recongizing it as human, but it won't change the fact that it is. And you can call a sow's ear a silk purse but it's still a sow's ear.

So as long as some think they're being brilliant by insulting other members with all manner of uncomplimentary characterizations, I think the prolifers are within their prerogative to use the term pro-abortion for those who are fighting tooth and nail to see that abortions are never restricted, discouraged, or regulated in any way.

So sue me.

0 Replies

Frank,

I have already pointed out to you once that anti-abortionists and pro-choicers are doing the same thing. No one is sticking their nose in anyone's business here. If one is, then the other is. We are just having a discussion. So, why keep bringing that up?

0 Replies

http://www.theeastcarolinian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/07/14/40f42e2e93a1e

This is an interesting op/ed piece.
I wont quote all of it,but some parts are interesting...

Approximately 4,000 die every day - that's more than one million dead each year. Compounded over the years, that's more than 40 million human beings killed. That is more than all the deaths - civilian and military - during all of World War II.

The total keeps rising, with no end in sight. Yet all these deaths, and those sure to come, are totally preventable.

I am not talking about the easily preventable deaths from the rampant global spread of AIDS. Nor am I talking about the equally preventable deaths from smoking and other tobacco products.

I am talking about the number of children killed through abortions in the United States - and just the United States.

My opinion of abortion is simple: it's infanticide.

Now, before anyone starts spewing things such as "it's my choice," "stay out of my uterus" or whatever current propaganda slogans are in vogue at the moment, read on.

My opinion was formed long before I drove a friend to get an abortion many years ago, did not change when I saw the physical and emotional pain she suffered as an aftermath of an act of stupidity and desperation (the unprotected sex and the abortion) nor has anything happened in the ensuing years to change my mind, especially considering the facts.

While ways of aborting children have been around since ancient times, the whole issue here in the United States has been based on lies and manipulations by abortion proponents, starting with Roe v. Wade and its lesser known counterpart, Doe v. Bolton.

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.

Long story short, Hames and her supporters argued a case they knew was based on total lies before the Supreme Court of the United States. Their actions resulted in the decision by the court that opened abortion up to the moment of birth to protect the "health" of the mother. In this instance, "health" was defined as physical, emotional, economic, etc.

Two cases that changed the political, social and moral landscape of our country were fabricated for the political and personal reasons of a small group of people. And in an ironic twist, the same groups that foisted these bogus cases on the court now demand that they abide by the arguably illegal decisions that resulted. They can get away with this outrage because they say the American public is accustomed to abortion on demand and the courts should abide by the principles of previous legal decisions, even if those decisions were based on bad information.

The direct result of the actions of a few amoral, unethical individuals has been the murder of more than 40 million of our fellow Americans and many millions more worldwide with no end in sight. The ultimate indirect consequences of the killing of so many children could be just as grave however, if not more so.

Consider the following story:

Mother Teresa asked by a young person why God had not sent us a cure for AIDS. Her reply? He may well have, but we aborted it.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Not so. We say they are deserving of consideration, increasing with gestational age, but the woman's rights weigh more where there is a conflict.

This is probably your view. But it doesn't seem to be the view of most abortion supporters here. Would you say the woman deciding she doesn't want to be pregnant is sufficient conflict?

In the first trimester, absolutely. Further along, maybe not, but it's impossible to regulate reasons. Who would know a woman's reasons besides the woman herself? There is just no other way to do it that makes sense. In every case, the woman is the logical choice to make the decision. She's the one most affected by the outcome, she has a vested interest in the child if she choses to bring it into existence, she assumes all the risk of either abortion or childbirth. There is nobody else who could/should be able to make the decision. We can all sit around and pass judgment on this imaginary woman and agree or disagree with or even condemn her decision, but in the end it wasn't our problem, and it still isn't.

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Yet these same people would most likely--though I am no longer certain--say that the woman should be FORCED to care for the well being of a born child in her custody.

Nobody forces a woman to care for her child. If you don't take care of your child, the state will take care of it for you. That's not quite the same thing.

Oh so the parent is allowed to starve, beat, neglect, or do whatever he or she wishes to the child? The government has nothing to say about it? Come on. You know better than that.[/color]

No, that's not what I said. I said (and it's right there where you quoted it) that nobody forces a woman to care for her child. If you don't take care of your child, you will lose it to the state. If you endanger your child, you will probably face charges. But you can't be forced to care for your child.

0 Replies

Freeduck says

Quote:

No, that's not what I said. I said (and it's right there where you quoted it) that nobody forces a woman to care for her child. If you don't take care of your child, you will lose it to the state. If you endanger your child, you will probably face charges. But you can't be forced to care for your child.

I concede that a parent can give up parental rights. But the law is pretty clear that the parent must provide the child the basic necessities or intentionally hand the child over for somebody else to do that. The parent cannot elect just to 'not be bothered' with the welfare of the child.

Prolifers just see that responsibility as starting earlier than the proabortion choice people see it.

0 Replies

If its ok to kill an unborn child,because you "dont want to be bothered",how long will it be before the pro-abortion crowd morphs into the pro-euthanasia crowd?

If you dont value the unborn,then you will eventually not value the elderly.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well I know you can call an idiot a genius but it won't make an idiot an Einstein. And you can call the baby growing in the womb any manner of names to avoid recongizing it as human, but it won't change the fact that it is. And you can call a sow's ear a silk purse but it's still a sow's ear.

So as long as some think they're being brilliant by insulting other members with all manner of uncomplimentary characterizations, I think the prolifers are within their prerogative to use the term pro-abortion for those who are fighting tooth and nail to see that abortions are never restricted, discouraged, or regulated in any way.

So sue me.

A fetus is NOT a human being or a baby or a person or any of the other fallacious terms you anti-rights people want to call it. Repeating the same lie a thousand times will never make it the truth.

If you can't understand this simple distinction, then I have to assume you truly are mentally challenged. If you want others to think you are intelligent and logical, start communicating logically and intelligently.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know