'It's a child not a choice...but not if you were raped'

Good call

It seems easy for me to resolve ... persons like Bells on the other hand will probably have a hard time explaining exactly whose body it is.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I hate the state i live in. just when I think they can't get any dumber and more harmful they go and prove me wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you said the same thing about nine months ago ... too which the reply was and is ......

there are some traditional customs in other cultures that recognize the embryo at different stages through different ceremonies (or "samskaras") ... before western models became more popular, new born children were aged at 1 (since it seemed quite absurd to think it was 0 up until it came out the womb ) and similarly, in the case of twins, the first born is recognized as the youngest (since the second born is actually conceived first)

:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LOL. You are seriously saying that a woman's reproductive system is not hers because she can't control it at will?

You cannot control your renal system at will, you know. Does that give society in general the right to rule that your kidney may be removed and given to a sick person?

 

LOL. Yes, there is no justification for treating your body as your own, rather than as an incubation device.

 

Actually I would argue that you've already sold out your body image if you refer to it as a potential "incubation device"

 

How prevalent would you say is this kind of thinking in Georgia?

 

And so it is and so they are. You can only base the law on what can be proven? What else would you base it on? What cannot be proven?

Even in societies or cultures that rely on religion these societies and cultures change as indeed religious interpretation changes or the society and culture changes its relationship to religion. We know very well that societies and cultures that base all of their values on religious text turn out to be intolerant.

Signal: As long as you insist in a caricature of what a particular person's reservations about abortion are, there cannot be much of a sensible discussion with you on the topic.

I find that ironic since you bring up slavery vis a vis abortion in the same way Paul Hill who was convicted in the death of a doctor who performed an abortion believed he was in par with John Brown who attempted violent insurrection to abolish slavery. Hill's argument of the fetus is the same as yours and LG's save he likes to throw in his so called christian virtues propaganda. How can anyone have a sensible discussion with you when advocate abstinence as if it were really an applicable solution? How can anyone have a sensible discussion with you when even some Catholics like the Catholics for Choice, are willing to acknowledge

'In Catholic theology there is room for the acceptance of policies that favor access to the full range of reproductive health options, including contraception and abortion. At the heart of church teachings on moral matters is a deep regard for an individual’s conscience. The Catechism states that “a human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.” The church takes conscience so seriously that Richard McBrien, in his essential study Catholicism, explained that even in cases of a conflict with the moral teachings of the church, Catholics “not only may but must follow the dictates of conscience rather than the teachings of the Church.” Casual disagreement is not sufficient grounds for ignoring moral teachings. Catholics are obliged to know and consider thoughtfully Catholic teaching." Catholic teachings on abortion have changed over time. Although the Catholic hierarchy says that the prohibition on abortion is both “unchanged” and “unchangeable,” this does not comport with the actual history of abortion teaching, and dissent, within the church.

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/abortion/documents/TruthaboutCatholicsandAbortion.pdf

Obviously you have a lot to learn concerning society, culture, religion, morality in relation to 'change'.

I would go further to say that its difficult to have both a serious and sensible discussion with you when you cannot address the fact that at least 10,000 women died every year from illegal, self-induced botched abortions until it was legalized in 73'. These women were mostly poor since the wealthy women always had access to SAFE abortions illegal or not. Entire wards of hospitals dedicated to aiding women suffering from complications from botched abortions could be devoted to other uses. In New York City, after abortion was legalized in 1970, maternal mortality dropped by 45 percent.

"illegal abortion accounts for an estimated 78,000 deaths worldwide each year, or about one in seven pregnancy-related deaths. In some African countries, illegal abortion may contribute to up to 50 percent of pregnancy-related deaths. In Romania, where abortion was outlawed from 1966 to 1989, an estimated 86 percent of pregnancy-related deaths were caused by illegal abortion. In countries where abortion is legal, less than 1 percent of pregnancy-related deaths are caused by abortion."

The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy 2003-
Envisioning Life Without Roe: Lessons Without Borders:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/2/…

You are full of judgement and yet short on answers. Until those who would have abortion illegal open up their trap they should at least to pretend to have options that serve society instead of their own self glorified standards of morality.

 

That's another concept which is often misunderstood about the legal system yes.

I guess that's sarcasm but it sounds irrelevant anyway.

 

Why draw such a line of distinction between a three month embryo and a more than three month old embryo.

Consider that an embryo is not a fully developed baby but it's a potential human. Say a woman gets an abortion and feels no remorse about it, rather she encourages other women about abortion by sharing her story of abortion with them. Do you think en masse abortion can cause the level of humanity in a civilization to diminish any?

 

fairly prevalent. there are quite a few people here that would specificly vote for some with such an attitude,

 

garcon!
convene the tribunal!

 

err ... no

the similarity is that they both are designated without right due to arbitrary political language .. as we have explained several times already now ...

Tell me do you think a slave should be given more rights than a plantation owner?
.... or even in wider terms, that an employee should be given more rights than an employer?
:shrug:

(yada yada yada ...)

If however you want to actually venture in to fresh ground for the discussion, perhaps you could explain exactly who owns the body of conjoined twins (since you got this argument of one body = one owner) and why?

And if you think abortion is not killing perhaps you can offer some salient explanation for the survival of

Gianna Jensen

Today, a baby is a baby when convenient. It is tissue or otherwise when the time is not right. A baby is a baby when miscarriage takes place at two, three, four months. A baby is called a tissue or clumps of cells when an abortion takes place at two, three, four months. Why is that? I see no difference. What are you seeing? Many close their eyes...

The best thing I can show you to defend life is my life. It has been a great gift. Killing is not the answer to any question or situation. Show me how it is the answer.

There is a quote which is etched into the high ceilings of one of our state's capitol buildings. The quote says, "Whatever is morally wrong, is not politically correct." Abortion is morally wrong. Our country is shedding the blood of the innocent. America is killing its future.

or Ana Rosa Rodriguez

Look at the picture of Ana Rosa Rodriguez on the left. At first glance, she might look like an average little girl to you. However, if you look closely, you'll notice that this child is missing her right arm. That's because her arm was ripped off in the process of an abortion on New York's Lower East Side in October of 1991


or Heidi Huffman

Heidi herself says, "I believe that all young people are survivors of abortion, just like I am, because they too could have been killed under the current policy of our government, which declared us "non-persons" when we were in the womb."



or Sarah Smith

"As I stand before you today," Sarah told her Rome audience, "I am painfully aware that this is only possible because my twin brother took a scalpel for me, and I stand in his place and memory, giving him honor and a face. Statistics are coldly impersonal and cannot convey the human tragedy of the abortion slaughter. Thirty-two million babies [have been] killed in the United States alone. Yet every one had a face, a life, a Creator who loved them and created them in His image. As you look at me today, you realize that I am no different than you, yet I stand before you today a representative of the dead - a representative of the innocent lives who today may lose their lives. Who will speak for them?"

http://joseromia.tripod.com/survivors.html

I'm guessing you will also need another disingenuous term other than "survival" to explain their existence .......

I think even in your books you place the killing of defenseless persons as a graver moral blight than the mere sexual aberration of social norms

(BTW god knows what you would think your daughter has been up to if you found FMLTWIA on her mobile)

Was Gianna Jensen considered viable?
Was the only thing that made her viable the fact that the abortionist wasn't due in the office for another 3 hours?

Answering these q's will no doubt illuminate other q's, such as to what degree pregnancy is solely a question about a woman's uterus and so on.

 

Bells I think you missed my post again, straight after your last post I think

 

And with that question you win the socratic dialectic method award:bravo: Oh the irony of ironies.

 

Is she saving up to send them to college?

 

just as slaves were designated bereft of rights due to arbitrary judgments (eg skin color) you pull the same party trick to also deprive children in the womb rights (eg not formed ... although as a side note, if a child in the womb gets fumbled in the attempt to kill it and does form, you play another card deck of intellectual dishonesty)

hence political language sways the difference ..... much like your application of politically surcharged terms (like "viability") in regards to abortion/double homicide to make distinctions when there are none

I guess we can add "primary squatters" to your repertoire of political terms

made all the easier because no one was engineering your death within the womb

well you did totally fail to answer this

And if you think abortion is not killing perhaps you can offer some salient explanation for the survival of

Gianna Jensen

Today, a baby is a baby when convenient. It is tissue or otherwise when the time is not right. A baby is a baby when miscarriage takes place at two, three, four months. A baby is called a tissue or clumps of cells when an abortion takes place at two, three, four months. Why is that? I see no difference. What are you seeing? Many close their eyes...

The best thing I can show you to defend life is my life. It has been a great gift. Killing is not the answer to any question or situation. Show me how it is the answer.

There is a quote which is etched into the high ceilings of one of our state's capitol buildings. The quote says, "Whatever is morally wrong, is not politically correct." Abortion is morally wrong. Our country is shedding the blood of the innocent. America is killing its future.

or Ana Rosa Rodriguez

Look at the picture of Ana Rosa Rodriguez on the left. At first glance, she might look like an average little girl to you. However, if you look closely, you'll notice that this child is missing her right arm. That's because her arm was ripped off in the process of an abortion on New York's Lower East Side in October of 1991


or Heidi Huffman

Heidi herself says, "I believe that all young people are survivors of abortion, just like I am, because they too could have been killed under the current policy of our government, which declared us "non-persons" when we were in the womb."



or Sarah Smith

"As I stand before you today," Sarah told her Rome audience, "I am painfully aware that this is only possible because my twin brother took a scalpel for me, and I stand in his place and memory, giving him honor and a face. Statistics are coldly impersonal and cannot convey the human tragedy of the abortion slaughter. Thirty-two million babies [have been] killed in the United States alone. Yet every one had a face, a life, a Creator who loved them and created them in His image. As you look at me today, you realize that I am no different than you, yet I stand before you today a representative of the dead - a representative of the innocent lives who today may lose their lives. Who will speak for them?"

http://joseromia.tripod.com/survivors.html


.... so it seems my guess proved correct

well I guess that leaves you with the problem of explaining exactly how Gianna Jensen sustained her injuries

Its called being part of the real world ... which plays an essential part in comprehending contemporary literary tools

If you find FMLTWIA on your daughter's mobile and think she's giving oral sex to strangers, you probably have a few literacy issues surrounding the usage of the word "whore" that would make answering your question difficult

Her mother was all for it (the abortion that is).
The problem was that there wasn't a person legally permitted to crush her head in attendance for another three hours.

Part of the procedure for installation abortion is induced pregnancy, so I am not sure what makes you think the mother didn't have a clue what was going on.

Rest assured that the mother and doctor (sic - abortionist) had steadfast certainty about the viability of Gianna ...

As shown with the case of gianna, popping out in the audience of someone legally permitted to crush your head seems to also relegate one to property of a woman's uterus ... at least in your books

the cases illustrated of persons who have survived abortion (and who, btw, have heavily criticized the lack of moral insight behind such actions ..... which I guess makes them misogynists in your books) clearly shows that your ideas are total bs (abbreviated form "Bullshit" ... just in case you aren't in the know)