I just noticed there was 666 threads in this topic, so I thought I would take away the devils moment by adding one more. Now steering away from the religion aspect of the topic I would like to concentrate on the moral issue with abortion. I still find it amazing that people would favor a person right not to be inconvenienced over the right that another person may live. How can anyone have this mindset?
You will never be able to understand the mindset if you're still telling yourself that abortions are done purely out convenience. Believing this is a cop-out so that you don't have to dig any deeper and learn anything.
Fill me in to the deep thought of why a woman would choose an abortion other than convenience. The only thing I can think about is if the circumstances would lead to the risk of the woman life, but that is extremely rare.
Are you really minimizing pregnancy and childbirth as nothing more than some mild inconvenience women have to go through? What an insult to mothers everywhere.
I find it ironic, that someone who criticizes liberals as being lazy in their signature, takes the same path when deciphering why women are having abortions in the first place. Even if you condemn the act of abortion, I find it ignorant to that you'd render parenthood as a mere inconvenience like having to wait for water to boil on the stove while making pasta. Parenthood, or even pregnancy, is a stressful life changing event which will alter your path in life permanently. Even if I were to grant you that point as being correct, it doesn't change anything about the reality of abortion and is irrelevant. Even if pro-"lifers" could soundly establish the unborn as being people, it would do nothing to reduce abortion or save the lives of people either. It would only succeed in appeasing a mindset, but not change what the abortion rights debate is really about; whether abortion should be ultimately practiced by trained physicians or some back-alley butchers. And this is why the international community has every right to marginalize you; you don't have any solutions to offer.
These people never learned from Dred Scott. So they don't find anything wrong with denying basic rights to people who look different from them. They used to call them "(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s." Today they call them "fetuses." The group is different and the word is different, but the attitude is still exactly the same; "It doesn't look like me, therefore it is not a person."
Do you expect me to agree with you on that opinion? If you honestly believe that, you wouldn't have any reason to oppose the establishment of their personhood the way you guys do. Unfortunately for the pro-aborts who feel that way, our Constitution doesn't give any one group of persons the right to deny rights (and protections) to any other group of persons like that. Children's constitutional rights to the EQUAL protections of our laws - is not something that we (anti-aborts and pro-lifers) feel we have a right to make compromises with.
The personhood debate is one large red herring which detours the discussion into irrelevancy, most pro-choicers just go with the flow of the discussion which the pro-"life" have set. Even if you and I agreed on personhood at conception, it doesn't change the reality that abortion is a highly demanded service that isn't affected by legislation. It would almost make as much sense as two individuals debating about the geographical source of a tsunami before the incoming surge of water engulfs them. The funny thing about laws is that they are just about as objective as the concept of personhood itself. And wrapping the unborn into the broad banner of "children" exposes that you don't feel they have any merit of their own as the unborn. I find it fascinating that you go out of your way to make the language as vague as possible...as if proponents of abortion rights are someone defending the right to abort 11 year olds.
If that's so, why do pro-aborts fight so hard to deny personhood rights to children in the womb? They are human beings (the young of the parents who created them). They are children in the biological sense and as 'human beings' they are - by legal definition- "persons." No amount of denials are ever going to change any of that.
No amount of assertions on your part are going to make it true. Either a fetus has a right to life, or a woman does. Both of them cannot.
Cady if you are sure about that, why hasn't Planned parenthood or NARAL or any other pro-abort group challenged the language of these laws and convictions yet? There are people sitting in jail for MURDER - for killing a child in the womb. If the child they killed has no rights..... why aren't you speaking up for them and against their wrongful convictions?
Your entire argument is based on a bill that was passed by deception and appeal to emotion, and exploited pregnant women who were/are physically attacked to take away women's rights. If your position were correct, you would have an honest basis for it.
My basis for my argument is in the language of the Constitution itself. And... A whole lot of other things besides the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
Every single time you link your other online debates I feel like you want us to bring that debate here or something. Just copy and paste whatever it is you want us to see. That makes it so much easier than skimming through an entire other debate you're having with someone else.
The Supreme Court examined the Constitution to determine if the unborn were included in protections for persons when they decided Roe v. Wade.
Fetus Death Brings Murder Conviction Pennsylvania woman is found guilty in an attack on a pregnant adversary. "ERIE, Pa. — A woman was convicted Wednesday of third-degree murder for kicking a pregnant romantic rival in the abdomen and killing the fetus she was carrying." ________________________________________ Fla. man tricked pregnant girlfriend into taking abortion drug, feds say "A federal indictment unsealed Thursday charged Welden with product-tampering and first-degree murder under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, charges that could carry a life sentence. " _______________________________________ Induced Abortion Murder Trial of Ariel Castro May Test Roe V Wade UPDATE: In a plea arrangement Castro PLEAD GUILTY TO MURDER of an Unborn Baby. ______________________________________ Alleged impaired driver charged in unborn baby's death "Eyewitness News has learned murder charges are now being filed against a suspected impaired driver accused in the death of an unborn child. The crash happened Saturday afternoon in southeast Houston. The mother survived, but the baby she was carrying did not."
Our Constitution says that "all persons" are to have equal rights... That's pretty inclusive. I never claimed that the Constitution defines what a person is. Our laws do that. - - - Updated - - - That's true. They did the same thing when deciding Dred Scott - too. Your point?
Our laws do do that and as it currently stands we have one Supreme Court decision that states that the unborn are not persons to be protected under law (Roe v Wade) and apparently another 'law' that says they are but only under special circumstances, i.e. if the woman is assaulted.
Rarely used and clearly only used because of the amount of violence that was perpetrated against a pregnant woman. ________________________________________ Charged is not the same as convicted. _______________________________________ UPDATE: In a plea arrangement Castro PLEAD GUILTY TO MURDER of an Unborn Baby.[/quote] My location won't allow me to view this link so I'll have to get back to you on that one. ______________________________________ Charged is not the same as convicted. It is so obvious though that fetal homicide laws are put in place to try and prevent extreme violence against PREGNANT WOMEN. I am ok with these laws, hypocritical as it may sound, because I actually do believe the ends justify the means in these cases. No other person besides the woman herself gets to decide if she keeps her pregnancy or not. No one has a right to forcibly induce a miscarriage on her or force her to remain pregnant against her will in my opinion and especially not use violence against her to get what they want. It is horrible when pregnant women are beaten into miscarrying, what an evil and horrible thing to do to someone. So yes, these laws serve a good purpose, you severely injure a pregnant woman and end her pregnancy against her will and you will spend a long time in prison for it. So here's the thing, we have to have laws in place to protect pregnant women from being forced to miscarry/abort against her will by violent people and then we also have to have laws put in place to prevent pro-lifers from trying to force her to stay pregnant against her will as well, who also sometimes use violence to get what they want. It's insane but it's the truth. Basically, it is not your CHOICE, it is HERS.
probably because honorable anti-choice people would pervert and misrepresent that in order to ban abortion, much the same way you do in your posts. They are human beings (the young of the parents who created them). They are children in the biological sense and as 'human beings' they are - by legal definition- "persons." No amount of denials are ever going to change any of that.[/QUOTE]
