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.
Last edited:
'It's a child not a choice...but not if you were raped'
- Thread starter visceral_instinct
- Start date
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.
Here's another really bright anti-choicer who really really loves 'life':
'Georgia State Rep. Bobby Franklin, a Republican from Marietta, Georgia, has introduced a bill that would criminalize miscarriages, making abortion and miscarriage -- or "prenatal murder" in the language of the bill -- potentially punishable by death.'
Phillips notes that last year Franklin -- a graduate of Covenant College who's served in the Georgia House since 1997 -- proposed a law that would reclassify victims of domestic violence as "accusers."
Franklin's online bio also states that he "has been called 'the conscience of the Republican Caucus' because he believes that civil government should return to its biblically and constitutionally defined role.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelo...lYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDZ2FsYXdtYWtlcmNs
Punishable by death
I love these types because they highlight just how backward and the anti-choice camp really is, an american version of the Taliban, its like they're their own worst enemy.
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.
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:
Last edited:
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"
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
How prevalent would you say is this kind of thinking in Georgia?
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
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.
Last edited:
That's another concept which is often misunderstood about the legal system yes.
I guess that's sarcasm but it sounds irrelevant anyway.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
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?
Last edited:
fairly prevalent. there are quite a few people here that would specificly vote for some with such an attitude,
Bells
Staff member
Must be some "unborn child" that's out picking cotton for the masta...
Tell me, do you think a zygote should be given more rights than the mother?
Should its rights be recognised above that of the mother's?
Should a zygote be given the same rights as you for example?
If the mother's life were in danger from the pregnancy, should her life be forfeited to try to keep that zygote inside her?
Most importantly, since so many seem to be overly attached to the slavery argument.. Do you think a slave is akin to a zygote or an embryo? (ie undeveloped and has the potential to become a human being)..
Do you understand now, how this argument is offensive? I am from slave stock, so to speak. To have LG continuously compare a zygote to slaves is unbelievably racist and deeply offensive. If you really must know, slave masters considered slaves as cattle.. Commodities to be traded. We know that slaves were human beings and thus, should have been granted the same rights that governed others. A zygote or embryo is not yet fully developed and has the potential to be a human being if it survives. Can you see the difference between the two?
Does it sink into anyone's head just how fucking offensive it is to be continously told that slaves or black people are undeveloped human beings and just how dishonest it is to even use this argument when it comes to abortion? Do any of you god damn retards even understand or comprehend the very notion that slavery was about controlling another person and their body and that comparing a woman claiming ownership of her own uterus to slavery is so far off the mark that you virtually deny her the right to her body, just as masters denied their slaves their rights to their own bodies? That's right folks, many pregnant slaves were killed a form of fucking population control.. that is how far masters went in birth control... they denied them their rights over their bodies.
Now here we have god damn poster boys for birth control, like LG, trying to say that a woman daring to say "my uterus" is akin to a slave owner saying "my slave". Do any you have any idea how offensive that is to women and to black people? Any idea at all? What? Do you think or assume that my uterus is somehow yours or LG's? Do you wish to deny me ownership of my own bodily organs? And he has the audacity to say that my saying 'my uterus' is like owning slaves? Seriously?
And for this, I get told that I am worse than a whore?
And worse still, here you are trying to explain this as if it is a valid argument? Were you dropped on your head as a child?
Did your mother consume vast amounts of alcohol that rendered you somehow brain damaged?
Not when she is 3 months pregnant. It counts as a double homicide if the child is deemed viable.
Pregnant women kill the children in their wombs all the time. It's called a miscarriage.
Tell me, if the mother is dying (has cancer, has developed a heart condition that will kill her quickly that was brought on by the pregnancy), do you think she should be forced to give up her own life to 'save the child'?
At what point do you think a woman should be allowed to control her own body? At what point do you wish to deny a person their rights to their own body? When is it convenient for you to tell a woman that her body is now your property or the community's property?
You want me to explain to you that my intestines, for example, is a part of my body and therefore mine?
What about my ovaries? Are they mine? Or are they someone else's? What about when a woman gets a period? The detrius that is expelled from her uterus? That's is not hers? Is it yours? Should women start posting you their bloody tampons for example since you know, apparently all that come from women are no longer hers to call her own.
My body is mine. It is not yours or anyone else's. No one makes decision about what other entity grows in it aside from me and my children did not grow there without my explicit consent. Another can squat in it only on my say so and on my terms. Not yours or anyone elses. If you don't like it, get the fuck out.
Yes, it is that god damn simple.
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
And with that question you win the socratic dialectic method award:bravo: Oh the irony of ironies.
Bells
Staff member
Again, is a slave the same as a zygote?
No.
A slave is a human being, fully born and developed. A zygote has the potential to be a human being if it is not expelled from the mother's uterus in 9 months.
In no way are they even remotely the same and your continued comparison is offensive.
Both are human and born and thus, should have equal rights.
Half and half. In other words, they are in possession of it and thus, it is theirs. They have primary squatters rights over their own bodies.
Hello, my name is Bells..
Many years ago I survived by managing to implant into my mothers womb instead of being expelled onto a sanitary pad.
Disingenuous? From you that is a laugh.
Certainly. A zygote however is not a "person".
I had never heard of that. Interesting that you know about this stuff..
Don't you think?
Tell me, is this the kind of thing you are into? The whole 'whore' thing? Is that how you view women?
According to her mother, no.
You'd have to ask her mother and the doctor that. But seeing that the mother was in labour and probably had no idea what was happening to her, I am sure had the doctor been there, she may have been delivered anyway.
Until it pops out.
From conception to birth, it is about the mother's uterus, without which, there would be no debate. It stops being about the mothers uterus when she finally expells the placenta and the midwife places it into a dish and then shoves it under your nose and asks you if you want to keep it, whereupon you gag and retch and clutch the baby closer and desperately try to breastfeed to try to forget the pain and utter exhaustion..
Which proves that South Australians really are not all there..Asguard said:
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)
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
Which "child" have I denied womb rights?
And intellectual dishonesty? You have been smearing it across this forum with your "black person" argument.
Viable is how we deem our pregnancies you twit. When I was pregnant and fighting to not miscarry (and it was a struggle), the running mantra from my doctors was 27 weeks viability.. It is not a politically surcharged term. It is a medical term. Ask any woman who has had a difficult pregnancy and ask them about viability. Ask any pregnant woman who has had to have her cervix sewn shut until the fetus was viable..
It is how the law is written and how the medical profession terms it.
And we can add poster child for birth control to yours.
When a woman is pregnant, her body will at times try to expell what it deems the foreign object and sometimes, in fact, many times, it is successful. The womb often engineers the death of the fetus. It's called a miscarriage and the majority end up that way.
I did answer it..
Pay attention..
They survived a surgical abortion? Guess what? We all survived a natural abortion.
What guess?
Thus far I have been asking you to stop with the "black person" argument and you keep being dishonest by using it. I have asked you to show me what my personal opinion is on abortion after you lobbed several accusations at me about it, to no avail... And then I repeatedly asked you to explain what I had supposedly done wrong, again, to no avail.
Should I rub two sticks together and hope God provides me with the answers to the questions I asked you in the smoke?
Her mother gave birth to her in an abortion clinic after a botched abortion?
That is how she sustained her injuries. How else are we to explain it?
You'll have to excuse me if I do not spend time researching in how many different ways a woman can be called a "whore". But apparently in your real world, degrading women and calling them "whores" is not uncommon, so you look up ways of how else it can be done. To each their own I guess.
I don't think you quite understand. "Whore" is not something that I normally associate with women, especially my own daughter if I had had one.
Is it something often do? Are women whores to you?
Would you call your daughter a whore if you found out she "gave" oral sex?
Now you are being dishonest. When she came out alive, she was instantly given the necessary medical care and sent to hospital. So can the hysterics and the lies.
Okay.
Then they did.
So you come into it where exactly?
Where do you fit into that picture? Into the mother's picture?
Not at all. When she popped out, she was immediately transferred to hospital and given medical care she obviously needed. Once you're out, you're out. Legally the mother had done nothing wrong, nor had the doctor.
But again, in your opinion, what do I personally think about abortion in "my books"?
I would imagine some of the few who have a right to comment would be the survivors. But then again, they are not in the position to determine or make that decision for all women, and neither are you.
No one is except the individual woman herself. Which is what 'pro-choice' is about. Letting women decide for themselves and not have overbearing twats try to force it on them..