I do not follow you it's a very simple topic to comprehend A: exterminate the life B: cherish the life you can try to wrap it in as many terms as you wish but it's either life or death; there is no gray area. You yourself are a living hypocricy because you were not aborted. Why do you not care about the life inside the womb? Do not give me mumbo jumbo; why do YOU not care? Yes, that question cuts right to the core of who you are; it's not very pretty, is it?
I agree but the abortionist gets their lifeblood not only from that which it has been contracted to kill .but also everyone who supports the rights of the woman to kill .which includes those who are pro-choice. The blood is painted all over them.
You can sit there and point all you want .YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN ONE THING. And they fact that none of you will come to SHOW ME AGAIN EVERY QUOTE THAT I HAVE PRESENTED IS BOGUS .SHOWS YOU ARE HIDING AND DONT WANT TO COME TO DEBATE IT. You are running grannie..again you run. Those quotes WERE TAKEN FROM HER BOOKS AND ARTICLES .THEY ARE NOT BOGUS. You are just making excuses once again and your ignorance shows. I did not post any picture of Sanger someone else did. So grannie once again you are lying. LOL That is what your posts are made up of. SAnger is hailed as a hero to you people who love killing unborn children. She is as much a part of PP now as she was back when she was alive. PP still targets the WEEDS. AND GRANNIE WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE WEEDS ARE. The ones she wanted in concentration camps. You have yet to denounce her quotes and positions therefore you obviously believe in what she stood for. OWN IT GRANNIE OWN IT.
life or death there is no other choice I really feel for you because you must carry the burden with you throughout your life. You are a living breathing hypocricy For some reason you feel that your life is far more valuable than others because you support terminating pregnancies while you were allowed to go full term; sad and pathetic indeed the arrogance and hypocricy of abortionists is not lost upon sound reasonable people despite your attempted spins
It is not my opinion that a fetus is not a person. That is the US Supreme Court opinion based upon a review of 3000 years of written history. I don't disagree but that doesn't imply that there should be laws restricting abortions after the first trimester. It just means that a woman should have a darned good medical reason for the abortion after the first trimester. No argument from me on this. I'd like to see all laws that are based upon social issues repealed. That includes restrictions on abortions, all drug prohibition laws, as well as repealing all marriage laws that are discriminatory by their very nature. Marriage should be a matter of contract law establishing a personal/financial partnership, period.
Is this your best effort to debate? Did you even come here to debate? Because all you have done is state your position, over and over, ad nauseum, You haven't been able to support it.
That doesn't make it the "correct" opinion. Just because a government system or body of authority comes to agreement on something doesn't make it morally correct. Arguing or implying that it does is the appeal to authority logical fallacy. We can still debate the ethics of what "personhood" is without necessarily resorting to extremes such as invoking the fallacious "authority" of a government and their word as 100 percent truth. Like what? If you wouldn't mind, please provide an example of what would be a "darned good medical reason" for an abortion after the first trimester. The government will always be involved with social issues. I know we've debated government in social issues before, generally different social issues, but the fact of the matter is that the government--as a function of the people--has a vested interest in the social doings of the people who it functions for. Besides, what is and what is not a "social issue" is very subjective. For instance, some people think drug prohibition is a social issue. For a drug like marijuana, it probably is. For harder drugs like heroin and meth, it becomes less of a "social" issue and becomes more of a practical crime-preventative, societal preservation issue. The government needs to control things like that for the safety and general well-being of the public. Just like we believe that the government needs to put restrictions on abortion for the safety and well-being of the innocent lives in danger of "termination," after being created by--in most cases--one or two irresponsible people who just want an easy out of being held accountable for their actions. Basically it boils down to whether or not the government should enforce laws against "victimless" crimes. The answer is yes. Vehicle moving violations are "victimless" crimes, until a pedestrian gets in the way or until the driver inevitably loses control and crashes into another motorist. But the action of speeding or driving erratically by itself is not a violation in which there is a victim. It just so happens that it statistically negatively impacts society, because at some point in time, there probably will be a victim. It's no different from hard drug abuse (which statistically leads to victimizing crime) and abortion (in which there is always a victim). It's just a victim who can't speak for itself and is "terminated"--killed--before given a chance to make any kind of decision, when it didn't really even decide to be created in the first place. Someone else made that decision and then decided to "undo" it (mostly for the sake of their own selfish convenience).
what is there to debate? Do you wish to debate if there is life within the womb at week1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8.....? Do you wish to debate whether society has gone downhill with respect to personal responsibility? If you just simply wish to continue to go around and around about the morality of killing life then there is no point. You support the immoral acts and I do not. We will never listen to each other. I will never convince you that taking life is wrong and you will never convince me that it's simply swell to do it. I do not accept the ruling of the SCOTUS that it's OK to kill innocent life. That does not make it acceptable. I am comfortable in my skin knowing that I favor life. Perhaps you are comfortable in your skin supporting the taking of innocent life. We shall agree to disagree but there is nothing to debate when one side of the debate is morally reprehensible and sickening.
It makes it historically correct. In over 3000 years of recorded history there are no examples of "personhood" being establishe prior to birth. Not being a medical doctor I can only assume that there can be an illness or genetic condition where continuing the pregancy would present a serious threat to the life or health of the woman. An auto accident might also create a situation where continuing the pregnancy would be very hazardous for the woman. While these situations are relatively rare we do know that they exist. In many of these cases I believe the fetus would die anyway but then, as noted, I'm no doctor. I do not deny that the government is likely to continue to be involved in social issues but I would state uncategorically that the founders of America would have opposed it. In literally all cases when the government gets involved in social issues it tromping all over the Liberty of the People and Liberty was an expressed inalienable Right of the People defined in the Declaration of Independence. Our government cannot be protecting the inalienable Right of Liberty, and protecting the inalienable Rights of the People is the very reason for our government, when it is violating our Liberty with the social engineering of society.
How about what is so magical about a vagina that crossing one during birth magically turns a lump of tissue into a person? That's what your position boils down to. Before you pass through the magic vagina, you're nothing and I can end your life without even feeling guilty. After you cross the magic vagina, you are a person, and if I harm you in any way, I can be prosecuted for assault. Unfortunately, now pro-abortionists have discovered the magic vagina fallacy and now to be logical and consistent, we have to kill newborns.
"Crossing a vagina" doesn't change a lump of tissue (actually, a single cell) into a person; nine months of growth and development does, so that once born, the baby can survive without attachment to another person.
"Historically" correct and "morally" correct are not the same thing. Now your argument appears to be going from the appeal to authority to the appeal to history. I understand that your argument is to claim that it's a well-established law throughout societal history (though I haven't seen evidence to support that claim), but my argument was ensuring that your argument wasn't using "history" or "governmental authority" as a judge of objective "correctness." Coincidentally, they're not alive here to confirm or deny your statement. Perhaps their writings, biographies, etc. imply that, but to absolutely "uncategorically" claim for 100 percent fact that all the founding fathers of America would have opposed it is bold to say the least. It cannot be confirmed nor denied. Also, another thing to think of is how many people the Founding Fathers had to deal with. What was the population back then, about 4 million or so, give or take? That's what it was in 1790, when the first census was taken, and that's 14 years after this nation declared its independence. We have cities now which dwarf that number. There are far more factors and people and cultures and opinions and EVERYTHING to consider than what the founding fathers had to deal with, so again, to claim that the "founding fathers" would oppose government intervention in social issues and use that as an argument for why government should stay out of social issues is fallacious. It's a combination of the appeal to history and the appeal to misleading authority. Besides, the founding fathers were rich, all white, slave owning colonists who were pissed off at Great Britain for being heavily taxed without having a say in Great Britain's governmental policies. I'm not trying to knock them as the founders of our great nation, but as far as their expertise or knowledge on how to govern more than 300 million people (our current population) all with incredibly different views, cultures, religions, races, creeds, etc. as opposed to the 4 million mostly white colonists who tended to agree on most things and shared the same cultures, beliefs, creeds, etc. that they had scattered across the East Coast back in 1790, I don't believe their outdated opinions can be considered a reliable source for how things should be today. Our Declaration of Independence is a magnificent document, that's for sure. A historical masterpiece. This debate comes down to where liberties begin and where they end. Liberty is great, but when someone's personal "liberties" negatively impacts someone else's liberties or rights, it becomes an issue. Frankly, that right there is why government needs to have social policies. Because meth users are statistically more violent and dangerous than non meth users. Because people who drive at unreasonable speeds and in unreasonable fashions are statistically hazardous to the well-being of those who do not. Abortions statistically kill millions of innocent lives and those lives should be granted the same liberties which all other human lives in this country have, or at least one of them, and that is the right to exist. That's what we're trying to change.
Proof positive that abortion is nothing more than killing for convenience. The ability of the human mind to completely bull(*)(*)(*)(*) itself to justify anything it desires no matter how cruel or unspeakable is just astounding to me. This is textbook sociopathy. Note the completely arbitrary definition of "person" being used here not dissimilar to the sliding scale that is used by the modern day abortion defender.
But do you know why they would have opposed it? Because they trusted the people of that day to be moral enough to govern themselves. Something they could not do today. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments. - James Madison "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible." - George Washington Now stop and consider how far we've moved away from those principles as a nation. Rest assured that the Constitution would look a lot different if it had been written in today's climate of moral relativism.
Great quotes .unfortunately Historical revisionists and those who hate religion, especially Christianity will deny that the Founders even said this and if they did, they certainly couldn't have meant it. And then of course society changes so we should change with the times .sigh. You bring up a great point and it makes me wonder .if those in office today were to construct a new Constitution I can only imagine what would be in it. Gonna think about that one
Unfortunately, at least 3 of the quotes are questionable or fake. http://candst.tripod.com/studygd7d.htm http://candst.tripod.com/boston2.htm
The US Supreme Court was faced with a huge challenge in the case of Roe v Wade in that it had to address the inalienable Right of Life. Inalienable Rights had always been a Right of Person and so they looked and asked for any precedent that would establish "personhood" prior to birth. They grilled the attorneys about it and searched the historical records related to it. It wasn't (and isn't) an issue of subjective morality but instead of inalienable Rights. The US Supreme Court does not establish subjective morality but instead was addressing Constitutional protected Rights and key was the Right to Life as the Right to Life relates to the person. Some believe the US Supreme Court erred in it's decision but if it did then it would only be based upon historical precedent related to personhood being recognized prior to birth. I don't agree with all US Supreme Court decisions but to argue against them compelliing evidence that establishes an error in that decision must be presented. I've repeatedly asked the "anti-abortionists" to provide any evidence that reflects a historical foundation for "personhood" prior to birth and not one person has provided that compelling evidence. Not one. Subjective morality is not an argument under the law nor should laws be based upon subjective morality. Our laws should relate to the protection of the inalienable Rights of the Person. It is the foundation for our government and, without question, a woman is a person and has inalienable Rights. To establish the inalienable Right to Life for a fetus first the fetus must be a person entitled to inalienable Rights. Without that establishment there is no discussion. Even if personhood could be established prior to birth it brings forward the next problem related to establishment of the inalienable Rights of the Person and that is they must be inherent in the "person" not dependent on others and cannot infringe upon the inalienable Rights of Others. What inalienable Rights would the preborn have that do not in anyway infringe upon the inalienable Rights of the Woman? The issue is inalienable Rights and not subjective morality. Well written but it fails in one important regard. Should the inalienable Rights of the Person be discarded simply because of the number of people? I would agrue that they cannot be discarded based upon that criteria. At what point in the size of the population do we lose our Freedom of Speech? At what point in the size of the population do we lose our Right of Association? At what point in the size of the population to we lose our Right of Self-Defense. At what point in the size of the population do we lose our Right to Life? We're seeing today that our government, or more specifically the Office of the President, can secretly order the extra-judicial execution (murder) of a person without any criminal charges and without the review of the Courts. http://www.salon.com/2012/03/06/attorney_general_holder_defends_execution_without_charges/ If our President can murder one person without any judicial process can not the President also murder 100 people, 1000 people, or even 6 million people without any judicial process? What is the difference then between a President of the United States and Adolf Hitler that ordered the murder of millions of people that were not guilty of any crimes? Is this violation of the Right to Life of a Person no longer protected as an inalienable Right simply because the US has 300 million people? Have we now lost that Right? The Right of Liberty is no different when it comes to social engineering by our government. There can be infringements on inalienable Rights but that infringement must always be limited to cases where the infringement is to protect the inalienable Rights of other people and even then the infringement must be to the least extent possible to accomplish that end. Traffic speed laws are very limited only applying to public streets and do not prohibit a person from driving at 200 mph at Daytona or even 500 mph at the Bonneville Salt Flats. Some gun control laws such as a limitation on the ownership of automatic weapons are reasonable because we can still own an M1919 machine gun or Thompson submachine gun if we get a permit. They are infringements but the infringement is limited. When it comes to abortion laws they really don't make any sense. We're not protecting the inalienable Rights of a Person if we outlaw abortion because there is no precedent establishing that prior to birth a zygote, embryo or fetus is a person that has any inalienable Rights. The woman does have inalienable Rights and no one can argue against that fact and there is no justification for infringement upon those Rights as the infringement does not protect another "person's" inalienable Rights.
LOL you are so predictable what you forget is that history books are written most often after the times. So the "proof" that those are fake, could be just as fake. BTW just because the Jefferson quote can be broken down into his other works that doesn't men he DIDN'T say those things. Sacred Fire was a book once recommended to me. I didn't read it but I hear its a good book about Washington. Here is one to answer, what about Patrick Henry?
Are you saying it's OK to attribute quotes to someone if it can't be proven " he DIDN'T say those things"? David Barton actually issued a list of questionable quotes (can't be authenticated) including this one: "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible." - George Washington
I understand your argument and it's very well laid out. However, I disagree with the concept of how "objective" inalienable rights are, and I'll get into that more later in this response. Personally, as I hold the principles of logic in high regard and do my best to live for the most part according to them, I do not believe that evidence which reflects a historical foundation for "personhood" prior to birth is required in order to argue with the Supreme Court's decision in this case. Similarly to my response to the above text, I'll get into that in more detail below. We don't believe giving the preborn the right to exist infringes on the woman's rights at all. She did after all make a conscious decision which statistics and science say leads to the conception of the preborn. This is where I'll explain in more detail how my position comes together regarding the above arguments. I would argue that inalienable rights were initially based upon subjective morality. Where else could they have come from? Divine intervention? God? I don't think that would be appropriate given that our founding fathers emphasized a separation of church and state. I think it's safe to conclude that one or more persons (ie the founding fathers) decided that people have these inalienable rights and that a government system is needed to enforce these rights and function for the people in that regard. But where did their decision come from? I don't believe it can be rationally argued that they simply "knew" that it was to be so. It was their opinion. Granted, they were doing what they thought was best for the growth and development of this new nation they were creating, but it could have been very different if they had different upbringing, different world experiences, and different views. Say they were a clan of rowdy anarchists--they could have simply made the case that only the strongest, fastest, etc. have those sorts of rights and that debate regarding "personhood" is not the defining factor, but that the rights come from the strength, speed and "superiority" of the individual/s who has/have them. In that hypothetical scenario, this nation would have turned out to be a much different place, all because of some different initial views. I agree with this concept, but because I don't agree that inalienable rights come from anywhere other than the founding father's deliberation and opinions, I still cannot conclude that they are acceptable points of reference for a very different present day 21st century America. I didn't actually know that and frankly I find that disturbing. However, at the same time, I argue that killing preborn children, while it may be said by current standards that they are not "persons" is a different type of government sanctioned mass-killing with similar factors--being that the government has deigned to determine that based on "historical evidence" or I suppose rather a lack thereof, "personhood" cannot extend to the preborn, therefore they should not be granted inalienable rights, which my position contends is a fallacious conclusion--as I've explained above. I have no disagreement with this section of your post. By Daytona, you're referring to the racing events, correct? If so, I see your point, at the same time, the racers know the risks and are all willing to drive under similar conditions. I wasn't sure what this was until I looked at it as well, it looks like a race track also. Racers know the risks and I wouldn't doubt it if they even sign documentation which nulls the possibility of the track being liable for injury, though I could be wrong. Again, I see your point, but my disagreement rests with where inalienable rights come from. They came from the views of men. Sure, they were men who had a hand in creating the nation, but in terms of logical deduction, does their deliberation combined with no other record in history of preborns ever being entitled to "personhood" status or inalienable rights in this nation exclude them from ever being considered for those rights? My position contends that logically, it does not.
I've shorten the response to focus on key issues as it relates to inalienable Rights as it relates to the Right to Life as well as a couple of other points I would make. There is actually extensive records related to the development of the belief in inalienable and the foundation for them. They are not a product of morality but instead, as you allude to in another statement, a product of logical deduction. There are actually specific criteria as to what an inalienable Right is: It is inherent in the person and not subject to the actions of anyone else. It cannot infringe upon an inalienable Right of another person. It cannot impose a burden on another person as that would be an infringement. From this criteria virtually anything can be addressed as to whether it is an inalienable Right of the Person or not. Freedom of thought, of self defense, of expression, of religion (or from religion), of property, of association based upon voluntary consent of those involved in the association, of citizenship to the territory of birth, of equal treatment under the law, of freedom and liberty are all clearly inalienable Rights of the person. They are based upon logical deduction using the above criteria. Someone mentioned earlier about the "Right of a baby to be fed" but that is not a Right as it is dependent upon the actions of others. We do, as a society, require the voluntary guardian of a child to feed and take care of the child but it is not a Right of the Child. As I noted at the time the "mother" is not required to feed the child as she can turn the child over to the State and the State (or more accurately society) will feed the child. Some say I'm horrible for taking that position but I'm not. I merely draw the line between a Right and an Obligation that a person volunarily accepts (i.e. being the guardian of the child). The statement was made that a woman makes a conscious decision to steps that lead to the conception of the preborn. I would argue that this is a false statement. Overwhelmingly sex does not lead to conception and, in fact, it is a rather rare occurance. Generally speaking a woman can only concieve for about 3-4 days per month so it's basically about 10% of the time. When we include statistics for miscarriage where 75% of all miscarriages happen within the first two weeks of conception, normally without the woman even knowing she's pregnant, the odds of a child being born drop even further. The normal expectation when having unprotected sex is that it will not result in pregnancy or childbirth. Statistics back this belief up. Considering that most adults have sex thousands of time and the number of children resulting from it can normally be counted on one hand we're probably talking about a 1:1000 chance of pregnancy overall. But back to inalienable Rights and Persons as I've addressed this previously but perhaps it was missed. As noted there is no historical precedent for personhood prior to birth. Anyone that has researched this knows that it's true. It was key in Roe v Wade and based upon precedent, which the Court depends upon, the decision was correct. But precedent can be changed and new precedent establised in the United States. It's called a Constitutional Amendment and Article V of the Constitution establishes how that is done. If we, as a society, believe that personhood should be granted to the "preborn" then we can do that in the United States by Constitutional Amendment. We could decide that all preborn from conception on are "persons" or from the embryo stage of from the fetus stage or anything we want and we can codify that into the Supreme Law of the Land. The Right to Life of a Person already exists but what is lacking is the "Personhood" of the preborn and that has to be established by new precedent being created. That is the only recourse for those that want to change the current laws of the United States related to abortion. Yes, the criteria of 3/4ths of the States to ratify is a high standard for establishing the protection but it is justifiably high to ensure that the Rights protected are indeed really Rights deserving of protection.
Western man has decided human rights begin when a child becomes sentient...nature had decided a human begins at conception. Legalities don't negate murder of an unborn child. They attempt to justify it. Abortion is murder. However it is couched, that is what it is as much as any murder. Post birth murder even more so, there is no question that the child is sentient or that it is capable of surviving.
