Dem's Killing off their Future Voters

[Dan4510]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sbc350gearhead:
Well......I have asked this question many times before......and still haven't received a rational answer.

A woman discovering that she is pregnant, informs her boyfriend. She also informs him that she intends to keep the child, in spite of his wishes. He then hits her in the stomach causing her to lose the child.

Is this "$250 fine and a night in the can" assault and battery?.........or is it murder? Under the definitions used by abortionists......there is no in between.

---

There is an in-between, not nearly as black and white as either pro or anti-abortion sides argue.This totally depends on the jurisdiction. In some if the baby could not live outside the womb, assault at worst, some its murder, totally depends on jurisdiction and attitude of the prosecutor, if he finds out.

Dan

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Al:
]O.K. this must be the first to argue it then:

yadadadada ...

---

I will make a minor correction to what I said. No LOGICAL argument has come forward to explain how the US Constitution and an invented "right to privacy" allows abortion on demand up to the moment of natural childbirth.

It was fun reading about oak trees and acorns I guess. But who cares if you kill an acorn? Oh, I forgot about the oak trees "right to privacy" that is NOT there in the Constitution.

"It is only the mother who has rights..."

So if the boyfriend doesn't want any part of this, he won't be liable for paying any child support, right?

Abortion supporters must also therefore support the new laws that make the "unnatural" death of a fetus, e.g. murdering the mother, a double homocide and be praising President Bush for protecting womens rights? I must have missed that.

Seem to be few chinks in the "right to privacy" invention.

I find the linked argument to be weak. "The fetus may become a human being, but until it is born and the umbilical cord is severed, it is part of an actual human being: the mother."

I didn't realise that the unborn baby is not human until the umbilical cord is cut. Before that, it is a rabbit maybe? That sure explains why it can be conveniently exterminated. The argument is totally centered around the moment the umbilical cord is cut, which I don't believe is the moment the baby becomes "human" or "viable". This falls under the category of "junk science".

To each his or her own. Not trying to change any minds, just curious how people justify abortion and find contortions to make it so it is anything other than killing a human. Of course, there are some abortion supporters that do believe it is killing a human.

I found it most interesting recently that JFKerry spoke out and said that life begins at conception (and not at some arbitrary moment up to 9 months later). What's that about? Trying to get back into favor with the Catholic Church? Nobody asked him to speak about abortion, and it seemed to be a deliberately chosen message. I guess JFKerry is in the "knows it is human, but it can be killed" camp?

Keith.

 

[Al]

Well Keith , there is no way to reconcile both sides on the issue. I and the Supreme Court feel that a mother is a viable human being and a fetus is not a human being. The mother has rights a fetus does not.

But I'll give you some insight on the reason for my deep belief in the mothers right to choose.

I know that this was before your time. But I went to college in the 60's (before legal abortion. Abortions were being performed by non-medical types and the death rate from abortions was higher than today in clinics.

I had a very good friend in college who was "date raped" She lived in the Williamsport region of Pa. The main center for abortions was Reading Pa. She made the arrangements (actually thru one of her college professors). The "abortion bus" took her to Reading with a number of other girls. The abortion clinic actually had doctors-Relatively speaking it was better than probably 90% of places. The abortion was done and she survived. About a week later she got a very serious infection. The infection was treated and she lived.

I keep in touch with her and she has had a great life with two great kids. Many girls were not that lucky.

So although this story has no relationship with right or wrong or the Constitution. It deals with real life.

No matter what happens to R v W abortions wil continue. Those that can afford them will get safe ones ond those who can't aford them wil die.

You will never in this lifetime see R vs W overturned-IMHO
Its very unfortunate too bc this one issue will allow the Democrats to control this country. But you younger folks will have to deal with it-not me.

And its similar to Republicans insane fixation on Stem Cell Research. A research that if fully supported might have saved Ronald Regan-its biggest enemy-probably a lesson on poetic justice. I read the other day that a rat grew a new liver (I believe that was the organ) from a stem cell.

Absolutely insane-but thats another topic

Have a good one Keith-we can still agree on lots of other topics

[ July 08, 2004, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: Al ]

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Al:
Well Keith , there is no way to reconcile both sides on the issue. I and the Supreme Court feel that a mother is a viable human being and a fetus is not a human being. The mother has rights a fetus does not.

But I'll give you some insight on the reason for my deep belief in the mothers right to choose.

I know that this was before your time. But I went to college in the 60's

---

Not as much before my time as I would like it to be

I have NO problems with folks that support abortion. It does bother me that an unborn baby is considered not human in order to justify abortion.

Surely there are better excuses than that? A baby at 8 months 3 weeks after conception is not human? I have a BIG problem with that, but that's just me.

Not wanting to play into the "my compassion is bigger than yours game", but I have a close family member that was raped and became pregnant, so I am not unfamiliar with the anguish and how this impacts real lives.

Keith.

 

[STSinNYC]

Al, my wife and I agree that women who choose abortion must have safe and appropriate medical care. She also saw friends of hers suffer from back-alley butchery.

But she is also (as obviously I am) a staunch opponent of abortion. Please do not take offense, Al, but saying a mother has rights, and a living child inside her does not-- how do you rationalize? The mother has rights because her mother carried her to term, didn't she? The child is viable through gestation. We all know this in our hearts. Unwanted pregnancies are sad, but must the child die so that the mother can carry on with her life the way she wants to? So many families want to adopt; two couples, friends of ours, had to adopt children from China and Russia. There is far less stigma today about pregnancy out of wedlock.

The child in the womb is true life. I want to change hearts so that those lives won't be lost in future generations.

 

[Chris B.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by STSinNYC:
Al, my wife and I agree that women who choose abortion must have safe and appropriate medical care. She also saw friends of hers suffer from back-alley butchery.

But she is also (as obviously I am) a staunch opponent of abortion. Please do not take offense, Al, but saying a mother has rights, and a living child inside her does not-- how do you rationalize? The mother has rights because her mother carried her to term, didn't she? The child is viable through gestation. We all know this in our hearts. Unwanted pregnancies are sad, but must the child die so that the mother can carry on with her life the way she wants to? So many families want to adopt; two couples, friends of ours, had to adopt children from China and Russia. There is far less stigma today about pregnancy out of wedlock.

The child in the womb is true life. I want to change hearts so that those lives won't be lost in future generations.

---

Well said! You can't argue with that no matter how you cut it!

 

[needtoknow]

What I see here is a lot of good arguments, proving this issue is not black & white. As someone who supports abortion rights/access I also have to resolve the responsibilty of a mother to make sure her child is born healthy. So what do you do when a mother smokes, drinks, takes drugs during pregnancy? My wife has seen the effects of alcohol and drugs on new borns. Do you consider that fetus a non-entity in those situations? I don't think so. But all this rational discussion shows this is a case by case discussion, not to be solved with a one, no abortion solution for everybody. Abortion results from un-wanted pregnancies, ask why those pregnancies are un-wanted and you're closer to solving the abortion issue than banning it outright.