OK so where were we, ah yes Granny says that not allowing women to commit at will premeditated homicides against their children in utero is tantamount to enslaving women. Explain that again Granny!
Why, you didn't get it the umteen times I explained it before, including why abortion is NOT a homicide?
Well if you are basing your entire position on the issue on that faulty premise, it is no wonder you have come to the wrong conclusion.
OK, I'll bite. I'm always willing to learn a new vocabulary word. What do you call the taking of an innocent life by force?
Actualy........ So!......while "abortion" in the first and second trimester may be "homicide"...it isn't "murder". I'm in favor of the mother's right to kill her baby during the first or second trimester on demand. I'm also for killing people in vegetative states that haven't signed DNRs. I'm for the death penalty. I'm for killing known terrorists without trials. I'm for killing enemy soldiers during war time.
Completely FALSE! http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pr...murder-for-eating-rat-poison-that-killed-baby http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/14/local/me-usc14 http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/07/woman-charged-w.html Furthermore, fetal homicide laws deem the fetus a "person" and any killing of one person by another is , by literal definition, a homicide!
No it shouldn't. During the first and second trimesters the fetus has not yet formed a cerebrial cortex, so it is not yet sentient. Once a fetus becomes sentient it should get irrevokable rights equal to other living humans. Before that it should have no more right to life that supercedes or is equal to my own than my liver should. And if you knew about my past, and thought my liver should have rights because it's living human tissue...it would sue me blind for abuse for sure.
"Homicide" is the killing of a person by another person. Or the killing of "a human being" by another "a human being." So now you have refined your understanding of "homicide."
Sentience is a trumped up bs threshold. A human being is a human being before this arbitrary "sentience" threshold is reached. Well heaven knows I have no desire to know anything about your liver, but is your liver a human being?
It's not trumped up in the least...maybe it is with bible thumping revisionist pseudo scientist/doctors out there. Until living tissue is sentient...it is nothing but a blob of tissue...thus the whole Roe V Wade thing. The only thing my liver has to do with a baby that has no cerebral cortex is that they are both NOT sentient and have never perceived, felt, or experienced anything they'd miss. If a baby was born without a cerebral cortex naturally...would you force the mother to keep it alive on life support forever? If you would not...that's yet another exeption to the whole "rights begin at conception" thing. If this happened...there would be no signed DNR for the cortexless baby. There are plenty of valid and legal reasons to kill a human being. You should kill a human being that's trying to kill you. You should kill your grandma in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's. You should allow the state to kill somone who murdered your third trimester fetus or post birth child. A woman should be able to chose to kill her first or second trimester baby on demand. What sucks is the puritanical emotion driven case pro lifers puport to support their controlling nanny state efforts to take away a mother's right to kill her first or second trimester baby
Well we all know the "whole Roe V Wade" thing was nothing but a political foregone conclusion looking for a rationale. The one they landed on is weak. There is now a federal law called the "unborn Victims of Violence Act" that does not recognize the arbitrary "sentience" threshold, so things aren't looking good for the future of wanton at will premeditated homicide of children in utero by their mothers. You are building quite the ridiculous smoke screen here, in actuality the only thing your liver has to do with a baby is NOTHING AT ALL. Well you give a rationale for the self defense scenario and the Alzheimers scenario, but none for the abortion scenario. TRy again. What sucks is that you can't feel good about your position on this issue without lashing out at and slandering those who oppose your opinion.
I feel great about championing a mother's right to kill her first or decond trimester fetus. Women's rights are something to feel good about. What I don't feel good about are people who have nothing to do with a mother's sitution subverting a mother's right to sovereignty over her own life by applying their moral codes to her situation when abortion is legal. If we found a way to extract a fetus at any point during pregnancy, then implant it into a surrogate, and anti abortion folks paid taxes collected specifically for the care and education of unadoptable fetus tranfers....I'd be all for a consitutional ban on abortion. But until anti abortion meddlers are willing to clean up the entire mess their controlling policies create, abortion needs to stay legal in the first two trimesters.
Then why does your attitude turn so nasty and hateful? I FEEL GREAT ABOUT IT! A defenseless child's life is at stake. News flash! Pregnancy is NEVER caused by a pro lifer's opinion! We could solve nearly all of societies' problems if we allowed wanton homicide at will. But that is not the right way to solve them, and it is not the right way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy either!!!
Why the continued dishonesty? One case refers to a live birth the other two to charges brought. You you understand the difference between being charged, accused, and being proven guilty?
I think you have a point here, but I want to clarify that I don't hate people, I only hate opinions. Now I do hate Rupert Murdoch, and maybe Rush, or Ann Coulter, or Hannity, or Andrew Breitbart...but that's a whole nother story. I honestly don't mean to be rude to YOU. Let me try to explain..... There are some pro lifers who genuinly see themselves as protecting innocent "children", and carry no prejudical animosity for the mother who may be involved in one of the toughest decisions of her life, because I bet no woman has ever enjoyed, or looked forward to having an abortion...at least it seems impossible to me given maternal instincts. Then there are the bigots who assume all the women who want abortions are liberal Democrat minority whores who hate God and frivolously use abortion as birth control, then laugh about the death of the baby on the way back to their drug dealer's house, where they'll have unprotected sex to get another score. Rush Limbaugh is one of the people who try to get people to think this stereotype is the common abortion recipient. Of course these descriptions are the ends of each spectrum, and most people lie somewhere in between. I kind of touched on this in previous posts. A child without a cerebral cortex hasn't "lived" in my opinion. And my semantically incorrect version of "lived" in this case means acheiveing "self" or memories to chersih, or happiniess to enjoy, and so on.... When someone is no longer experiencing those things the plug should be pulled IMO. Whether or someone has not "lived" yet, or is done "living", they are both not "living" IMO. I do not desrespect life...but you need to be "living" to deserve rights as a human, especially if you're non-life might negatively affect someone who is living. And on top of that....then we have the whole woman's right to sovereignty over her body thing. I don't feel good about abortions, nobody does...but I feel good about possibly doing my part to help women retain sovereignty over their rights in the face of intolerance. As you can imagine...I'm a huge Margaret Sanger fan. If the results of an unwanted pregnancy could be solved without killing the cerebral cortexless baby...everybody I know would be in favor of it. But it seems to me like most of the people who want abortion outlawed...are not going to be the ones who take care of, love and nurture the crack babies and other children middle class folks never adopt. It seems to me to they are the ones crying for tougher sentences for the crack babies when they grow up in lousy Foster homes, then grow up to rob or murder someone that grew up in the nice middle class home with pro life parents. And that is the big problem that would be created by unconditional bans on abortion. If you're still reading...thanks for indulging me. Again...I apologize if what I said sounded nasty and hateful.
SO you beleive that charges can be brought without any justification whatsoever. Well I don't know why I am even responding to such idiocy!
Assuming that unwanted pregnancies are to blame for socieities' criminals is extremely presumptuous. Many people who grew up in modest environments have ended up as some of our greatest citizens. I likewise apologize if I came across as nasty and hateful. Most of the pro abortion posters here are imbeciles quite frankly (there are a miniscule few exceptions)
Yes charges can be brought by self righteous ******** prosecutors. Welcome to the real world. Convictions much less so. Now do you care to actually post something that in some way supports what you said or the standard drivel and misdirection is still the best you can do?
