Liberals say it is fine to kill born babies

[89Hen]

Don't impose your silly religious "babies are people too" mind set on the rest of us!

you are one sick person.

[youngterrier]

In short, it's justified because inside a woman's womb is her business, especially at earlier stages of pregnancy. It's her body, not mine and the only way of which to make sure every life is saved is to infringe upon that privacy.

You said a mouthful there YT. Maybe one day you'll figure it out.

Oh, so you can tell at first glance that a stranger is 3 weeks pregnant?

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

The position is that someone has a right to continue their life without having someone else take it from them when they've done nothing wrong. There is nothing inconsistent at all about saying that someone has a right to be free of direct, fatal, positive attack and at the same time saying that no one has a right to have others assist them.

I can say that I don't think someone should be allowed to take positive action to kill me and at the same time say that I have no right to expect someone else to provide me with food if I have no food. Failing to assist is not the same thing as taking positive action to kill.

Of course, there are WHOLE bunch of conservatives that are OK with killing innocent civilians...they're just a cost of doing business when going after the bad guys. Kill a couple dozen kids with a drone...ooops...but God will understand that we were trying to get the one bad guy and we figured collateral killings of a couple of natives in a foreign land was better than a bad guy planning the potential death of one of our folks.

Those people have a choice.....the baby doesnt.

Also if a woman wants to use the "its my body my womb" BS thats fine as long as she give the guy back his sperm then it is entirely her decision.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

[SeattleGriz]

The whole part I love about this is, how nobody wants to discuss the fact it most likely was two consenting adults who made a choice not to use some form of protection and now want to take it all back.

My wife and I haven't used any form of protection during our marriage because my wife pays attention to her ovulation cycle. When we decided we were going to have kids, she got pregnant within a month both times.

A little effort goes a long ways and people want to be absolved of all responsibility because they are lazy.

[catamount man]

exactly! the baby, if given a choice, would want to live. I don't know a human who doesn't unless one that is old and chronically ill, but I don't support euthanasia either.

[JohnStOnge]

But that wouldn't do anything from stopping the problem. There would still be abortions, and there would still be people hired to give them. It's just like drugs, you can make a law against it, but people will find a way to use them. And like drugs, if it's inevitable that they're going to do it, you might as well legalize it and make it as safe as possible.

Just about any law made to restrict behavior will be violated. There are laws against stealing but people still steal. There are laws against rape and people still rape. There are laws against what we all agree is murder and people still murder.

The key is whether or not it's an attack of one individual upon another. Using drugs is not an attack upon another individual. Well...I guess it could be construed as such in the case of a pregnant woman. But it's quite possible to do drugs under circumstances where it's not an attack on anybody. There is no way to have an abortion without engaging in a direct, fatal attack on another individual.

[JohnStOnge]

Yes, but how do you define the difference between a positive attack and discipline? You'd probably support a woman's right to discipline, but what line do you draw? Either way, the child has less rights than the mother.

I agree that that is one of the most difficult lines to draw. I have posted before that I am tempted to go ahead and support parental choice in abortion just for the purpose of being absolute and consistent in the position that children are the responsibility of parents and not the State.

But I think I can draw the line at saying that as long as the parent does no significant physical damage the parent should be left alone. Obviously if the parent actually kills the child or breaks bones or something they do significant physical damage.

But it IS a tension. I do believe that the primary authority over children should be parents. When it comes down to decisions on the well behing of children, the principle should be that the parental view prevails. It gets very complicated after that. But that should be the fundamental principle. And I"m talking about even circumstances such as parents believing that prayer will heal and so fail to pursue medical care. I would never do that. But that kind of thing should be none of the State's business. That is not a case of parents engaging in attack. That is a case of them disagreeing with the conventional wisdom on what the best intervention is. And they should have the right to do that.

[youngterrier]

But that wouldn't do anything from stopping the problem. There would still be abortions, and there would still be people hired to give them. It's just like drugs, you can make a law against it, but people will find a way to use them. And like drugs, if it's inevitable that they're going to do it, you might as well legalize it and make it as safe as possible.

Just about any law made to restrict behavior will be violated. There are laws against stealing but people still steal. There are laws against rape and people still rape. There are laws against what we all agree is murder and people still murder.

The key is whether or not it's an attack of one individual upon another. Using drugs is not an attack upon another individual. Well...I guess it could be construed as such in the case of a pregnant woman. But it's quite possible to do drugs under circumstances where it's not an attack on anybody. There is no way to have an abortion without engaging in a direct, fatal attack on another individual.

but again, it's impossible to track down with 100% certainty, like drugs, without violating privacy in a police state kind of way. We can track when someone steals something and we can track when someone murders someone else in the realms of society without violating privacy, but we can't do that with abortion.

[youngterrier]

Yes, but how do you define the difference between a positive attack and discipline? You'd probably support a woman's right to discipline, but what line do you draw? Either way, the child has less rights than the mother.

I agree that that is one of the most difficult lines to draw. I have posted before that I am tempted to go ahead and support parental choice in abortion just for the purpose of being absolute and consistent in the position that children are the responsibility of parents and not the State.

But I think I can draw the line at saying that as long as the parent does no significant physical damage the parent should be left alone. Obviously if the parent actually kills the child or breaks bones or something they do significant physical damage.

But it IS a tension. I do believe that the primary authority over children should be parents. When it comes down to decisions on the well behing of children, the principle should be that the parental view prevails. It gets very complicated after that. But that should be the fundamental principle. And I"m talking about even circumstances such as parents believing that prayer will heal and so fail to pursue medical care. I would never do that. But that kind of thing should be none of the State's business. That is not a case of parents engaging in attack. That is a case of them disagreeing with the conventional wisdom on what the best intervention is. And they should have the right to do that.

And that's where I disagree, I think government should be there for those whom can't protect themselves. No way should a child suffer in the name of their parent's religious beliefs, especially when that child doesn't understand them. Now, you could say this is inconsistent with a pro-choice viewpoint but I disagree. The reality of the situation is that people are going to get abortions whether it's legal or not, and it will be impossible to tell if they do so or not. The reality of the situation is that a woman should have a right to say what's in her body and what isn't in her body if at all medically possible and it should be no business of the state of what is and isn't in her body or of what is in her body one day or not the rest. It doesn't influence society in any way if a child isn't born, because as far as society is concerned, the child never existed.

[JohnStOnge]

but again, it's impossible to track down with 100% certainty, like drugs, without violating privacy in a police state kind of way. We can track when someone steals something and we can track when someone murders someone else in the realms of society without violating privacy, but we can't do that with abortion.

There is something to that in terms of abortion as compared to murdering a post-natal individual or stealing because we don't know that the unborn individual exists. But there is nothing that says we have to go that far. Simply establishing the principle that the unborn have a right to life is sufficient. Then if someone IS caught aid in ending the life of an unvorn individual or ending the life of an unborn individual they can be held accountable.

And, again, there it is distinctly different from drug use because it is an unambiguous, direct, fatal attack upon another individual in every case.

[JohnStOnge]

And that's where I disagree, I think government should be there for those whom can't protect themselves. No way should a child suffer in the name of their parent's religious beliefs, especially when that child doesn't understand them. Now, you could say this is inconsistent with a pro-choice viewpoint but I disagree. The reality of the situation is that people are going to get abortions whether it's legal or not, and it will be impossible to tell if they do so or not. The reality of the situation is that a woman should have a right to say what's in her body and what isn't in her body if at all medically possible and it should be no business of the state of what is and isn't in her body or of what is in her body one day or not the rest. It doesn't influence society in any way if a child isn't born, because as far as society is concerned, the child never existed.

Are you saying that your position is that a woman should be able to out and out kill her own progeny if it's a circumstance where the rest of society never knew that progeny existed but if the societey knows it exists then it's wrong for her to decide to rely on prayer instead of medical care in a situation where the society knows the progeny exists? Are you saying that is the distinction? Whether society knows of the existence or not?

[youngterrier]

but again, it's impossible to track down with 100% certainty, like drugs, without violating privacy in a police state kind of way. We can track when someone steals something and we can track when someone murders someone else in the realms of society without violating privacy, but we can't do that with abortion.

There is something to that in terms of abortion as compared to murdering a post-natal individual or stealing because we don't know that the unborn individual exists. But there is nothing that says we have to go that far. Simply establishing the principle that the unborn have a right to life is sufficient. Then if someone IS caught aid in ending the life of an unvorn individual or ending the life of an unborn individual they can be held accountable.

And, again, there it is distinctly different from drug use because it is an unambiguous, direct, fatal attack upon another individual in every case.

Well, I'd say there's a difference between killing a child out of the womb and in the womb. For instance, you show after a certain time in the womb, if you're not showing and all of a sudden there's no baby alive to be found, we know what something is. This is where it gets sloppy because from there you have to draw certain lines of when it's acceptable and when it isn't acceptable, and then there's questions of a baby's survival ability, etc, etc. And I just don't get into that. My point is, that society really can't charge someone with murder if the victim was never recognized by society in the first place. If a woman lived out in the woods alone, got pregnant somehow, had the baby and killed it without society knowing it existed in the first place, she technically committed murder but society can't say she did or charger her with it because they have no evidence of the baby's existence in the first place. Not saying that it's the morally right thing to do, just that with government rules and what not, it's really impossible to go after this stuff without violating privacy.

Sure, you can charge those who commit the action of abortion with murder, but the problem is you can't really "get them" everytime, or any time for that matter without regulating the medical practices and financial records of physicians.

[youngterrier]

And that's where I disagree, I think government should be there for those whom can't protect themselves. No way should a child suffer in the name of their parent's religious beliefs, especially when that child doesn't understand them. Now, you could say this is inconsistent with a pro-choice viewpoint but I disagree. The reality of the situation is that people are going to get abortions whether it's legal or not, and it will be impossible to tell if they do so or not. The reality of the situation is that a woman should have a right to say what's in her body and what isn't in her body if at all medically possible and it should be no business of the state of what is and isn't in her body or of what is in her body one day or not the rest. It doesn't influence society in any way if a child isn't born, because as far as society is concerned, the child never existed.

Are you saying that your position is that a woman should be able to out and out kill her own progeny if it's a circumstance where the rest of society never knew that progeny existed but if the societey knows it exists then it's wrong for her to decide to rely on prayer instead of medical care in a situation where the society knows the progeny exists? Are you saying that is the distinction? Whether society knows of the existence or not?

No, I'm saying it's near-impossible for government to charge with a crime when the government is clueless to the existence of the victim.

As for the child getting medical care, yes I think said child has a fundamental right to be cared for, and because her mother is negligent or has an odd view of reality, she shouldn't suffer when there is an objectively right way to treat someone medically. You have the right to be ignorant and refuse medical care, but children are vulnerable creatures who can't make decisions for themselves, and though one may think they are doing the right thing by praying and refusing medical care, they are not, and that's just a fact.

In a way, yes it does have everything to do with society knowing of the existence of the victim, if you can't prove there is a victim, you can't prove there was a crime, can you?

[89Hen]

You said a mouthful there YT. Maybe one day you'll figure it out.

Oh, so you can tell at first glance that a stranger is 3 weeks pregnant?

We're talking about two VERY different things here YT. You're talking about the enforcement of it, I was talking about the morality of it. Many pro-choice people are OK with abortion early in the term but then get soft on it later in term. That makes absolutely no sense. It's either wrong at any time or not.

[89Hen]

I think government should be there for those whom can't protect themselves... Now, you could say this is inconsistent with a pro-choice viewpoint but I disagree.... The reality of the situation is that a woman should have a right to say what's in her body and what isn't in her body if at all medically possible and it should be no business of the state of what is and isn't in her body or of what is in her body one day or not the rest. It doesn't influence society in any way if a child isn't born, because as far as society is concerned, the child never existed.

[D1B]

Oh, so you can tell at first glance that a stranger is 3 weeks pregnant?

We're talking about two VERY different things here YT. You're talking about the enforcement of it, I was talking about the morality of it. Many pro-choice people are OK with abortion early in the term but then get soft on it later in term. That makes absolutely no sense. It's either wrong at any time or not.

God seems to prefer aborting fetuses earlier in the term too.

it is estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among those women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15-20%. Most miscarriages occur during the first 7 weeks of pregnancy. The rate of miscarriage drops after the baby's heart beat is detected.

nih.gov

[89Hen]

We're talking about two VERY different things here YT. You're talking about the enforcement of it, I was talking about the morality of it. Many pro-choice people are OK with abortion early in the term but then get soft on it later in term. That makes absolutely no sense. It's either wrong at any time or not.

God seems to prefer aborting fetuses earlier in the term too.

Your schtick was old five years ago.

[D1B]

God seems to prefer aborting fetuses earlier in the term too.

Your schtick was old five years ago.

What kind of god creates vessels with a 50% loss rate? Seriously, your church passionately believes in the total sanctity of life, yet worships the most heinous abortionist.

Sorry to expose you to the truth, Hen. Sorry you don't have an answer. I will continue to pound you with this every time you talk about morality and abortion.

[89Hen]

yet worships the most heinous abortionist.

Sorry to expose you to the truth, Hen. Sorry you don't have an answer. I will continue to pound you with this every time you talk about morality and abortion.

Pound away. Your schtick is not the truth.

[D1B]

yet worships the most heinous abortionist.

Sorry to expose you to the truth, Hen. Sorry you don't have an answer. I will continue to pound you with this every time you talk about morality and abortion.

Pound away. Your schtick is not the truth.

Of course it isn't. You're deep in a powerful cannibalistic patriarchal ancestor worship cult and that's why you need my help.

Your god owns at least half of all abortions. You're pro-choice, just as long as god makes the choice.

[SeattleGriz]

Pound away. Your schtick is not the truth.

Of course it isn't. You're deep in a powerful cannibalistic patriarchal ancestor worship cult and that's why you need my help.

Your god owns at least half of all abortions. You're pro-choice, just as long as god makes the choice.

Genetic issues are the reason for the majority of spontaneous abortions, not God. That is the body's way of preventing the birth of a child that would have no chance in life, or a really messed up one.

[youngterrier]

Oh, so you can tell at first glance that a stranger is 3 weeks pregnant?

We're talking about two VERY different things here YT. You're talking about the enforcement of it, I was talking about the morality of it. Many pro-choice people are OK with abortion early in the term but then get soft on it later in term. That makes absolutely no sense. It's either wrong at any time or not.

Which is why we don't dub into morality

[youngterrier]

Of course it isn't. You're deep in a powerful cannibalistic patriarchal ancestor worship cult and that's why you need my help.

Your god owns at least half of all abortions. You're pro-choice, just as long as god makes the choice.

Genetic issues are the reason for the majority of spontaneous abortions, not God. That is the body's way of preventing the birth of a child that would have no chance in life, or a really messed up one.

but if life begins at conception, as said in the Christian faith, it really is God's fault, as nature killed it.....

[SeattleGriz]

Genetic issues are the reason for the majority of spontaneous abortions, not God. That is the body's way of preventing the birth of a child that would have no chance in life, or a really messed up one.

but if life begins at conception, as said in the Christian faith, it really is God's fault, as nature killed it.....

I am not following your logic. By your statement you seem to be saying our bodies require God to run everything.

[89Hen]

We're talking about two VERY different things here YT. You're talking about the enforcement of it, I was talking about the morality of it. Many pro-choice people are OK with abortion early in the term but then get soft on it later in term. That makes absolutely no sense. It's either wrong at any time or not.

Which is why we don't dub into morality

Why do we have any laws?