If your wife was raped, would you make her have the baby?

[lashicoN]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You only took part of my quote. I can selectively edit too, but I'm not going to waste the time.

I'm a big fan of that document. But, you're making claims about things you believe, like Jefferson believed. Facts can be proven. Can you prove that all men are created equal? What about people born with mental illnesses or fewer limbs than all other men? What does the word equal define? Physical ability? Mental capacity? Everything? Clearly, not every man is created equal.

What happens to the mother's unalienable right to liberty when she is raped, decides she doesn't want to carry her rapist's baby, but someone holds a gun to her head for nine months and forces her to give birth? What happens to her pursuit of happiness to live life as she saw fit prior to being impregnated against her will?

I would love for you to look my 10 yr old in the eye and tell her she has no right to exist.

Once again, only posted part of my quote. And secondly, why would you love that? That's weird. Your ten year old has the right to exist. In my opinion, if her mother was raped and didn't want to have the baby, then she would have no right to exist. Clearly her mother decided she had the right to exist, since she willingly gave birth.

Here is my full quote.

It doesn't matter to me if it is a baby or not, because in my opinion, according to my personal beliefs, it has no right to exist, since its life was created against the mother's will, and if people like you get their way, the mother would be forced to continue to carry it against her will.

 

[GBuck]

 

[Ted]

.......Just don't tread on me.

Interesting. You're stating that the exercise on one's rights is contingent upon not violating another's rights.

Based upon the presumption that a human fetus is endowed with that of human life, that being the organismic state that is characterized by the capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction; how does one not violate the rights of the fetus when the host organism decides to unavoidably terminate life by terminating the pregnancy?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Really? The dishonesty of your reasoning is awesome!

Do you apply the same to everything you believe in?

I have never, in my life, heard someone say that abortions make them happy.

Only a complete psychopath would be "proabortions".

Supporting the idea that it is not necessarily my place to make that decision for everyone else in the country - well that is completely different, isn't it?

Categorizing the first as the latter is the dishonest "reasoning".

 

[Ted]

I have never, in my life, heard someone say that abortions make them happy........

I know a wealthy doctor that almost exclusively performs abortions, that is very happy with her life.

 

[GBuck]

Based upon the presumption that a human fetus is endowed with that of human life, that being the organismic state that is characterized by the capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction; how does one not violate the rights of the fetus when the host organism decides to unavoidably terminate life by terminating the pregnancy?

This is the crux of the issue, as has been discussed repeatedly. Just because YOU make that presumption, doesn't mean everyone else has to.

 

[Ted]

This is the crux of the issue, as has been discussed repeatedly. Just because YOU make that presumption, doesn't mean everyone else has to.

So how else does one label an organism with characterizations of capacities for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction?

 

[GBuck]

So how else does one label an organism with characterizations of capacities for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction?

Cells?

ETA: this definition could be used for a plant, virus, fungus, bacteria, etc.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I know a wealthy doctor that almost exclusively performs abortions, that is very happy with her life.

But that is not the same thing, is it?

Oh, I have heard people say that they are happy they got an abortion, because at that time in their life they would have been a horrible parent - but that is not the same thing either, is it?

People don't have to believe an act is a good thing to believe that the act being done may result in an overall positive situation.

I don't like to hurt people. I have hurt people to defend myself before. I would make the same choice again in a heartbeat if I had to. I still don't think hurting people is a good thing.

 

[Hotdoger]

I have never, in my life, heard someone say that abortions make them happy.

Only a complete psychopath would be "proabortions".

Supporting the idea that it is not necessarily my place to make that decision for everyone else in the country - well that is completely different, isn't it?

Categorizing the first as the latter is the dishonest "reasoning".

Referring to someone who is pro-choice as "proabortionist" would be like referring to someone who supports the second amendment as "pro-killshot".

Really? The dishonesty of your reasoning is awesome!

You think there are not people and groups that don't support abortions?

Dishonest because the second amendment has nothing to do with abortion.
Basically you analogy REALLY sucks!

What is "prokill shot" anyway? Can you define that for me?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

You think there are not people and groups that don't support abortions?

Dishonest because the second amendment has nothing to do with abortion.
Basically you analogy REALLY sucks!

What is "prokill shot" anyway? Can you define that for me?

I have already summed this up...

People being shot does not make me happy. I still defend the right to bear arms, and believe that to be a positive thing.

Abortions do not make me happy. I still defend the right to choose, even in many situations where I disagree with the choice - because it is not mine to make.

In either situation, equating supporting the right with morally agreeing with, or being happy about, each individual action itself - is disingenuous at best.

Which is exactly why a phrase like "proabortion" is pretty ridiculous, and pro-choice is the commonly used term.

Do you think there are not groups that support the second amendment? Would you make the blanket statement "they are in favor of people being fatally shot"? (pro-killshot, defined)

When roughly half the population disagrees with something, do we truly have the right to force our morality on them? I do not believe we do.... morality is subjective.

 

[Delmar]

You only took part of my quote.

I quoted the part of your post that I chose to speak to.

 

[Ted]

Cells?

ETA: this definition could be used for a plant, virus, fungus, bacteria, etc.

Cells are autonomous and self-replicating unit that exist as a functional and independent unit of life (unicelluar organism), or that of a sub-unit in a multicellular life organism (animal and plant) that is specialized into carrying out particular functions towards the cause of the organism as a whole.

The key word, however, is life.

 

[Ted]

But that is not the same thing, is it?

To this doctor, the means justify the ends. I would equate it to being contract killer.

 

[Delmar]

I'm a big fan of that document. But, you're making claims about things you believe, like Jefferson believed. Facts can be proven. Can you prove that all men are created equal? .

I offered no proof!
I, like the founders, hold it to be self evident that all people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

I get the point that you do not!

 

[Ted]

Though this argument is really non seq.

All four photos display life, while the fourth photo may or may not be human life.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Though this argument is really non seq.

All four photos display life, while the fourth photo may or may not be human life.

Actually it does follow - they are all things that have the potential to be something else, but are not that "something else". The things are what they are - not what you perceive they could become in the future.

It is not illustrating the difference between a human and a chicken, it is illustrating the difference between an acorn and a tree, an egg and a human - etc.

 

[Delmar]

Though this argument is really non seq.

All four photos display life, while the fourth photo may or may not be human life.

You got at least one thing right! An unferfertilized egg that has already been busted out of its shell is not an adult chicken and can never grow into one. Good job!

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

You got at least one thing right! An unferfertilized egg that has already been busted out of its shell is not an adult chicken and can never grow into one. Good job!

LOL that is a perfectly valid point....

If they chose this image for the first, would you feel better?