What is it?

You compared pregnancy to "going into debt".....not a very positive view of pregnancy, is it?

 

then fight to adjust that disparity by calling for men to have the right to remove themsleves from the situation should they decide the child is unwanted.

When a man carries a pregnancy in the same way and for the same time you may have a point until then you don't.

See you are still peddling the same old falsehoods, do you have no concept of continued consent, does the fact that a woman who consents to sex with a man mean that she has implied consent to him that he can have sex with her in the future and does her consent imply that another separate individual also has the right .. I mean you pro-lifers keep going on about the zef being a separate individual, if it is then it needs to gain separate consent to be inside the woman, consent given to one person does not mean consent is given to another, regardless of the actions that lead it to be where it is.

The only denial is your denial.

 

how so when the majority of the issues involved in pregnancy fall directly onto the woman. It is her body that is invaded, it is her body that is injured, it is her body being used to sustain another.

Nice emotional projection, and I would say a woman with an ectopic pregnancy would certainly find abortion advantageous, as would a woman with a dead fetus inside of her.

Same old, same old

Of course this is true IF we are prepared to over ride the rights of the individual in deciding when and how their body should be used bu another .. free and careless with other peoples rights is the pro-life way.

An exceptionally high hurdle.

Personal anecdotes not with standing there are plenty of women who feel nothing but relief after an abortion.

A typical pro-life point of view to say that anything that doesn't adhere to what they believe is right is based on "lifestyle" or as others put it convenience.

Life at conception or fetal recognition or definition are not the golden arrows you think they are.

 

Since when are innocent children punished for the crimes of their fathers?

 

To Bear and the pro-aborts who have (so far) responded to my earlier post.

Get back to me when you all agree with the fact that an abortion kills a child.

In the absence of a complete agreement about whether or not an abortion kills a child, debating any or all of the other aspects to the abortion debate with you is a complete waste of my time.

 

Since when are innocent girls and women punished for the crimes of their attackers?

 

Two wrongs don't make a right. Innocent girls and women shouldn't punish innocent children for the crimes of the aggressor.

 

It's only your opinion that abortion is wrong. Most people don't see an embryo as a "child."

 

Do you believe that third trimester abortions should be legal, if the woman got pregnant from rape? Most people would see a third trimester fetus as a child.

 

Whoa. I did not expect so many replies. Can't even read them all! Again, I will only reply to Fugazu, since it seems he's directly speaking to me. It's also probably a good idea to be a little more selective in order to reduce the number of multi-quotes.

I see, so let me make sure I understand what you're trying to say. Please tell me if I'm wrong. For the sake of conversation, let's say it is a human. Now you're saying, "Women can decide that murder is the right thing, and commit homocide." Now, if it isn't a human, that's a differenct story.

Also, can you please explain the difference between caring for human life and thinking it's "special".

First, abortion itself can cause injury which would not have happened otherwise.Now, you may say this is a rare circumstance and probably won't happen. You probably also say that by consenting to have an abortion, they are consenting to any possible complications that can come of that.

However, that seems hypocritical because you just said that by having sex, the woman is not consenting to pregnancy because it's possible, not probable.

Disregarding that, is the mild injury caused by a pregnancy really worth the death of another human (assuming it's human)?

Of course she doesn't have to. The question is whether it's right, not whether it's necessary. What necessary? Well, nothing. Plenty of people have kept their baby who was a result of rape.

Okay, so we've established that being dependent is not the issue. You're saying adding the word biological makes homocide (assuming it's human) fine. Can you please tell me about this magical word and why it changes the picture?

First, we need to stop talking about necessity, see the answer 2 questions ago. Now, paraphrasing your words in a briefer way makes it a little more clear, "Whether it's right or wrong to kill a child comes down to individual perspective." Interesting.

If I am not incorrect, consent can be granted to multiple people at the same time. Also, I'm not sure there are currently any laws about living inside someone else, especially considering that the fetus can't do anything about it.

Sorry, I forgot to add an exception for professions such as investigator, doctor, and mortician. Excuse me.

Self-defence is not legal against one who has no responsibility for their actions, has the defense of infancy, and necessity. That's a total of three legal defenses. I'd say that's enough, especially when the person who presumably acted in self-defence fully is aware the fetus perpretrator would not be found guilty in a criminal case.

 

Sorry, Sam....not subject changes.

How many times have you (or somebody like you on the "pro-life" side) compared pregnancy to something NEGATIVE...even as a "punishment" for women for being sexually active.

Going into debt isn't "good"...is it? Yet, you compared getting pregnant to it.

 

I only compared going into debt with pregnancy because both situations involve obligations.

 

Look for a start no one is saying that a zef is not human.

What I am saying is that it doesn't matter if it is human or not, being human does not give anyone the right to use another human in order to sustain their life .. you for example cannot hook yourself up to another person in order to keep yourself alive, so if a zef is an individual person from conception why should it have rights greater than any other person.
The person you are hooked up to can remove themselves from you regardless of if it causes your death, even if they have given consent previously .. consent can be removed at any time for any reason.

Anyone can care for human life without thinking it is special - "better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual" - I care for lots of humans, I do not think they are any better, greater or otherwise different.

You hit the nail on the head, it is all about consent .. just as you consent to any injury caused by any medical procedure (except for negligence)

Sex and pregnancy are two different items, one does not even have to have sex anymore in order to become pregnant, they are not inclusive of one another.

Do you think the following are 'mild' injuries -

Hormones may rise to 400 times their base levels.
A woman's respiratory system drastically changes, causing a 40 percent increase in cardiac volume and a 15 percent increase in blood pressure.
A new organ is grown in a woman's body, the placenta
Her entire circulatory system is rerouted in order to make her blood supply usable for the growing fetus.

There are plenty of others as well.

Would you accept these injuries if they were happening to you?

Then you are asking for a definition of what is right, what you feel is right may not be the same for another person and please don't fall into using generalization as an argument to support your views.

no that is what you have tried to establish, not all dependency is the same, there is a vast difference between being dependent on a single person through a physical connection in order to sustain life and being dependent on any person.

Who is talking about necessity, it would seem only you are and your paraphrasing only serves to try and put words into my mouth that I did not say -

There is no 'child' I would ask that you use the correct terms so there is no misunderstanding on what we are talking about. The usage of 'child' and/or 'baby' when talking about a zef is simply disingenuous.

Explain how consent can be granted to something that does not even exist at the time of sexual intercourse and only has a 15-20% chance of ever existing (and that does not include the approx 1/4 that fail to implant).
With your reasoning if I tell you that there is a 15-20% chance of you being injured if you go skiing and you do go then you have consented to any injuries that may occur and as such should not be given medical treatment for those injuries.

Have you ever heard of a person being refused medical treatment for injuries incurred for taking a risk?

no problem, I have found through bitter experience that when it comes to debating on abortion one has to be pretty precise.

Given that a woman has no other recourse except deadly force to avail herself of the unconsented injuries being performed upon her body then your comments above have little to no relevance. regardless of the responsibility of the person causing the injuries a person may use deadly force in order to cease those injuries.

Pregnancy is already cited in law as a serious literal injury in some cases.

Defense of infancy assumes that a zef is an 'infant' this is a presumption that does not equate in law.
Defense of necessity requires for a reasoned decision to be made, a zef cannot make a reasoned decision. - Defense of necessity - A defense asserted by a criminal or civil defendant that he or she had no choice but to break the law

 

In that case, let's both just assume that it is while speaking, answering the original question.

Could you please inform me about which law in the United States states this?

As far as I know, once you've "signed the contract" (so to speak), there's no going back

In that case, no need to bring up the word, "special". (Also, no need to reply to this one, no point in talking about it)

Just because there are multiple ways to get something doesn't mean the ways are not linked to the end result. Example: I go skiing and get injured. I go skydiving and get injured. How does the fact that both can result in injury mean skiing is not linked to injury? Both activities require consent to injury, even though it's not very likely. Less likely, in fact, than pregnancy.

So, now hormonal fluctuations are injuries?
Normal processes also count? How is an increase in cardiac volume an injury? And the 15 percent increase in pressure? That's not permanent.
Pleacenta? What's wrong with a placenta? Are we going to complain about having a liver too?
Again, what's wrong with rerouting? That qualifies as an injury?

I'm asking not for an opinion, but a fact. For example, stealing is wrong. That is an objective truth that has nothing to do with my views. Something is either right, or it's wrong.

Please, read your own stuff before trying to say I tried to do something... you just said it was okay to be "socially dependent", which is a specific type of dependency, which implicitly means that dependency is okay. You're just putting a qualification on it.

How does this "vast difference" make any changes in the discussion?

You're talking about necessity...

It also seems that you did say it...

The subject at hand here is throwing killing a baby once it's born, in the seciton of my post that you quoted. Then you say "Whether it is". The new, paraphrased edition replaces the 'it' with the subject, resulting in a sentence which makes your statement clearer, but does not put words into your mouth.

I am comparing it to a child and using a child as an example for a hypothetical question, because we have assumed (above) that a zygote+ is indeed a human. I can use any example I want. However, the child one is closes. Do you want me to use the example of stabbing an old man instead?

I thought we had already extablished that chance would have nothing to do with it. Especially if you use the example of skiing, don't start talking about probability. You're much more probable to get a pregnancy than be injured skiing.

Since we're assuming personhood at the moment, homocide does not qualify as medical treatment. Otherwise, we could all pay off a doctor to say, "If this person doesn't die, my patient is going to be mentally ill! We must get treatment by killing the person."

First, see the response to your injury list above. Pregnancy hardly qualifies as a condition worthy of self-defence. Also, please tell me where the law says that we can kill someone who we know would be found innocent in court.

The defense of infancy is that the person has not reached the criminal age of responsibility. Something younger than an infant has more reason to use the defence.

So, first requirement is that it be asserted. Let's assume a civil defendant does. The "zef" (where on earth did you get that word?) still had no choice but to break the law, assuming that it was, in fact, breaking the law. If they had no choice, there was no decision to make.

 

Notice Sam's eternal Last Move....whenever the discussion goes against him, he tries to move to "third trimester abortions".

Never mind that it would be rather odd for a rape victim to continue the pregnancy to the sixth month, if she opposed being pregnant by a rape that took places months earlier.

Sam, like many "pro-lifers", gives away their weak position....they can't argue FIRST trimester abortion very well and they know it.

- - - Updated - - -

What happens to a person who doesn't pay their debts eventually???

 

Abortion is horrible enough and I am sure each woman feels deeply about that , I hate abortion but it is not illegal and nor it should be , it is a decision that is not taken lightly , why do people think they have a right to impose their beliefs on others ??

 

Can I get a detailed explanation of why you think abortions are horrible?

Again, with specifics please - Why do you hate abortion?

For me it has nothing to do with my beliefs.

I see an inconsistency in our laws. (specifically between the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and Laws which keep abortions legal)

May I assume that you support laws against other forms of child molestations and abuse?

If you do, why then do you make an exception to allow for molestations in the form of an abortion?

 

Chuz, why do "Bible-believing" "pro-lifers" make excuses for God killing babies in the Old Testament?

 

I hate Abortions because I believe life starts at conception

I think they are horrible because of the emotional toll they may take on the families

Yes molesters including Priests, teachers, Ministers, Daycares whatever the source should be executed after a fair trial, (my only support of the death Penalty)

The abortion is not a molestation it is a legal medical procedure , the baby is the property of the mother and father (if God is Mad about this then he will deal with it) I will not judge and you should not either.

 

If only more pro-life people felt like this. While I may not agree with you on all of it I have the upper most respect for your position.

 

So, you believe that begins at conception (answer to the topic question) and say you hate them because of that. But then you say that it's a legal medical procedure. Combine those and we get, "Destroying a life that began at conception is a legal medical procedure." So, you're telling me that you, knowing that a life is being taken, would still allow people to "make that choice?"

Also, when telling me not to judge, isn't that forcing your viewpoint upon me?

 

That's about as vague as hating the lumber industry because a tree's life begins at germination.

Could you be a little more specific?

How does this jive with what you first said?

You first said that you 'hate abortions' because 'life begins at conception' and now they are horrible because of the emotional toll they may take on the families?

Can you appreciate they way that seems a bit ambiguous?

Is it too much for me to expect someone to be consistent with a position like that?

Is it too much for me to want you to recognize and to be protective of all children that way?

Are you offended when I show you that you are turning your back on the children being molested and killed by abortions?

Legality doesn't make it any less of a molestation.

Legal or not, does an aborted child escape 'unmolested' from the womb or procedure?

The answer is no - because they don't.

I'm sure you know that one person owning another would be a violation of the 13th Amendment.

Would you like to try that again?

Also, You say you won't judge and that I shouldn't judge either and you said it right after you said that you would execute other child molesters.

How do you reconcile that?

 

I missed that... I thought there was something strange about the property statement.

 

Of course this just begs the question of prove that a zef is a person.

 

You can 'beg the question' all you want to.

I'll remind you that we already have laws (the UVVA and others) which not only say they are persons.... but they already make it a crime of murder to illegally kill one. Remember when I mentioned the disparity between the UVVA and laws which (for now) make an exception for abortions before?

(please read and note my signature line)

Our most recent laws already say what they are persons - by making it a crime of murder for illegally killing one.

So, the legal debate is not about whether or not it is a child (person) in the womb.

The legal debate is now about when and under what circumstances their rights as persons can be Constitutionally denied.