TMA_1 Posted July 14, 2004 Posted July 14, 2004 lol yes!dukeleto, you said "if the guy has already got life, then why add to that sentance with the assault on the fetus?"yet people who say this very thing are for the act against hate crimes, and all the while people who are against the use of hate crimes have said "if a person kills someone out of racism, than they shouldnt be tried for the racism because they killed somebody. if the guy is getting life, then why add the hate crime status to it?"and I remember you being a favorer of that as well, so yes, I am glad I could point that out.lol
DukeLeto Posted July 14, 2004 Author Posted July 14, 2004 This is all very fascinating, but weren't we talking about WMDs in Iraq and Al Qeada and such at one point? Could we get back on topic? Abortion and mother's rights and such are very important topics, to be sure, but we have threads on that already.
DukeLeto Posted July 14, 2004 Author Posted July 14, 2004 Well, I don't understanmd your last sentence. Are you saying I support hate crimes? because I'd like you to dig up that post. ???
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 15, 2004 Posted July 15, 2004 I don't believe that the government has the right to decide what medical procedures a consenting adult citizen can or cannot have performed on his or herself.Yes but it is not right to say that because some people out there want to ban all abortion that we should refrain from making any laws to protect a fetus that a mother wants... but gets killed by an assailant.That would be fear and we shouldnt be afraid of interest groups when we design laws. We should look at what is "Just". After all .... laws are to bring forth justice not to "hide" from "interest groups"... i agree with you that any lawyer could put a spin on anything for a "stepping stone"... because thats what a lawyer does... but thats why legislators and judges get paid the big bucks to have the final say.
TMA_1 Posted July 15, 2004 Posted July 15, 2004 okay it will take a bit.but it was largely a statement that there are a lot of holes in many ultra conservitive or liberal arguments.
Wolf Posted July 15, 2004 Posted July 15, 2004 Wait a second, Duke, you brought up the abortion thing when you tried to correct someone about Bush's stance about the Laci Peterson law. This post is about Bush. Bush made a decision on this issue. We are debating the issue. As far as I can tell, this is still on-topic, and I don't feel you addressed my objections to classifying a fetus as a non-human.
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 15, 2004 Posted July 15, 2004 i think he didnt reply wolfwiz because he wasnt prepared to go in depth into that issue because he was trying to get away with using it as a quick side jab and then wanted to move on.
DukeLeto Posted July 15, 2004 Author Posted July 15, 2004 Fine. Here you go then.My stance on abortion: Up until that child is born, every aspect of it's existence relies on the mother. It is part of her body, and if she wants (or needs) and abortion, the government should not be telling here what she can and cannot have done. (And yes, there are situations in which abortions are necessary, which is a fact too often overlooked in your zeal to ban them.)The Laci Peterson law: To make it a seperate crime to "kill" a fetus during an assault is not the logical way to proceed. When you kill someone, it's murder. If you chop up their body into little pieces, it's still just murder, but you'll get a longer/harsher sentence. Killing a fwetus should be handled in the same way. But as this law is written, it's "If you kill a fetus during an assault, we'll charge you with a seperate crime carrying harsher punishment than murder!"
Wolf Posted July 15, 2004 Posted July 15, 2004 Okay, now I'm satisfied. Thank you for replying to that. I may disagree with that definition -- because I believe that a fetus, while totally dependent on the mother, is still a separate entity. A fetus could be removed, and survive on other life support -- such as in cases of premature birth. As could a horribly wounded adult human being. Regardless of the child's dependence, it is still a human being. It should not be deprived of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness without due process of law.Also, I want to bring up another question about your definition of abortion. If the fetus is part of the mother's body, than she is killing part of her body, right? Is she then allowed to kill herself, so should she choose?
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 15, 2004 Posted July 15, 2004 i just wanted to clear up something.I get sick and tired of hearing pro-choice people use
Dunenewt Posted July 15, 2004 Posted July 15, 2004 Exactly, no-one else should mess about with their life.
Wolf Posted July 15, 2004 Posted July 15, 2004 That's the problem, though, isn't it? It's not really their life to some people; its the life of another human being. The real problem is that, yes, a woman should be willing to choose whether or not she will continue to provide life support services to another human being. The moral issue, now, is that in 100% of abortions, when a woman chooses not to do this, that other human being dies.
exatreide Posted July 15, 2004 Posted July 15, 2004 Its not alive till its born, its just the zygot going through mitosis untill its developed enough to be born.And how often do you hear a mother call it "The baby?"Its alwas "My baby" and right it should be no one has the right to tell a mother what to do with her unborn baby, Not the goverment, not the church, not a group of conservitive's holding up pictures of dead babies. Its her's and no one else's and she should have the right rather to choose the baby to be born into poverty, death, warfare,hate,or a crowded orphenage, or not born at all.. You don't have the right to know whats right for it. The mother knows whats right and she will either keep it or not. Its her decian not yours. :)
Wolf Posted July 15, 2004 Posted July 15, 2004 Number one, I hear "the baby" about as much as "my baby." And even were it anything else than this, I don't think that's a convincing argument for either side.Number two, why is it human only after birth? Why did you assign it the title of humanity only after leaving the uterus? If a <entity> died a day after it was born or a day before it was born, it would be physically identical. Why arbitrarily assign human-status to the moment of birth? The moment of existence seems much more logical.
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 15, 2004 Posted July 15, 2004 Its not alive till its born, its just the zygot going through mitosis untill its developed enough to be born.And how often do you hear a mother call it "The baby?"Its alwas "My baby" and right it should be no one has the right to tell a mother what to do with her unborn baby, Not the goverment, not the church, not a group of conservitive's holding up pictures of dead babies. Its her's and no one else's and she should have the right rather to choose the baby to be born into poverty, death, warfare,hate,or a crowded orphenage, or not born at all.. You don't have the right to know whats right for it. The mother knows whats right and she will either keep it or not. Its her decian not yours. :)thats a shitty way to look at it.... abortion is one of the most barbaric things imagineable to man.. you are destroying the life of someone... who will never get to experience ANYTHING... poverty, hate, warfare, crowded orphanage.....
exatreide Posted July 15, 2004 Posted July 15, 2004 No the arrogent way of looking at is thinking that YOU know whats best for a child, when You really dont know sqaut about the living conditions or how the baby would be treated or anything about the baby.YOU DONT KNOW WHATS BEST FOR THE CHILDTHE MOTHER DOES.Bada Boom, bada Bing thats the end of that.So wernt we talking about Bush or something?
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 15, 2004 Posted July 15, 2004 The mother knows whats right and she will either keep it or not. Its her decian not yours. :)Yea those stupid ass 16 yr old girls who get pregnant are really intelligent mothers who know what is best for themselves and their babies.Perhaps if i didnt know some personally i wouldnt be so passionate about it.Badda bing thats the end of it.
exatreide Posted July 15, 2004 Posted July 15, 2004 And you know what its like to be a women? You know what its like to carry a child? You know what that feels like?NO you dont and you never will so you really cant comment on that, compared to a 16 year old girl your clueless.Now...back to bush..
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 15, 2004 Posted July 15, 2004 YOU DONT KNOW WHATS BEST FOR THE CHILDTHE MOTHER DOES.Can you prove that?I may be rich and could adopt the perfectly healthy baby she is about to murder.It would grow up and i would name him Bob
Wolf Posted July 15, 2004 Posted July 15, 2004 In what situation is killing a child doing what's best for it? Truly, I would like to know. How is that justified?And, as Gunwounds pointed out, only in 1% of abortion situations -- at most -- is non-life better than leading a horrible life. And even this is debatable. What about the other 99% of situations?Further, no one has adequately addressed my question. Why is an <entity> human at the moment of birth, rather than at the moment of conception? An <entity> at birth may be physically identical to an <entity> a day from birth. Yet, one is human and one is not. I do not fully understand the reasoning.Assuming that an <entity> is, indeed, human before it is born, then it is the child of the parents, and the parents must make the decisions for it. That is how law is currently practiced. The real question, however, is should parents be persecuted for killing this <entity>, if it is indeed human, and if the killing took place before birth.Let me illustrate the gravity of this issue for either side.Pro-choice; you feel the other side is arrogant for telling an individual what to do with her body, as you see it. You feel that the real crime is taking away the freedom of individuals.However, pro-lifers are much more agitated. As they see it, countless human beings -- 4,000,000, if I may assume that Gunwounds told us the truth -- have been killed. And more are being killed with each day.What crime is worse? Slavery or murder?Oh -- and as I said above, this relates to Bush. Bush made a decision on this issue, and now we are evaluating that issue ourselves.
exatreide Posted July 15, 2004 Posted July 15, 2004 What forget my last post[qoute]And you know what its like to be a women? You know what its like to carry a child? You know what that feels like?NO you dont and you never will so you really cant comment on that, compared to a 16 year old girl your clueless.[/qoute]Apparently Gunwounds has never heard of the expression..Dont judge a man till you walk a mile in his shoes...
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 15, 2004 Posted July 15, 2004 And you know what its like to be a women? You know what its like to carry a child? You know what that feels like?What would you say to me if i was a woman ? thats a pretty sorry ass argument. Let me go get my mother... and you ask her the same question... now do you see how stupid it was to say that?
Wolf Posted July 15, 2004 Posted July 15, 2004 "Don't judge a man 'till you have walked a mile in his shoes."Have you been the American President for three and a half years, Rookie? No, this is the PRP forum. If we couldn't judge people without having lived their lives, this forum would not exist. Yet, we can, and we do. However, I will admit that having experienced what others have experienced lends your argument more weight. So, while Gunwounds has the right to say what he wants, whether or not we should heed it is a different matter. Gunwounds, I just use you as an example, please take no offense.
Recommended Posts