BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Is the fetus a canine or feline fetus? Of course not: it is human. That's not your argument. Your argument is that you think murdering a first or second trimester, living, human fetus is fine.
We Finance Barbarism
- Thread starter BedellBrave
- Start date
Is the fetus a canine or feline fetus? Of course not: it is human. That's not your argument. Your argument is that you think murdering a first or second trimester, living, human fetus is fine.
Runnin
Well-known member
THIS is a great idea!
"The men in our lives, including members of the General Assembly, generously devote time to fundamental female reproductive issues—the least we can do is return the favor," Senator Turner said. "It is crucial that we take the appropriate steps to shelter vulnerable men from the potential side effects of these drugs.
"When a man makes a crucial decision about his health and his body, he should be fully aware of the alternative options and the lifetime repercussions of that decision," Senator Turner said today. Men will be more easily guided through the process of obtaining treatment for impotence so they can better understand and more effectively address their condition.
"The men in our lives, including members of the General Assembly, generously devote time to fundamental female reproductive issues—the least we can do is return the favor," Senator Turner said. "It is crucial that we take the appropriate steps to shelter vulnerable men from the potential side effects of these drugs.
"When a man makes a crucial decision about his health and his body, he should be fully aware of the alternative options and the lifetime repercussions of that decision," Senator Turner said today. Men will be more easily guided through the process of obtaining treatment for impotence so they can better understand and more effectively address their condition.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
See, you're using your rhetoric again.
In my post you even saw the definition of murder, and you still used it when it doesn't apply.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Zito, your sophistry (i.e., denying the humanity of the fetus so that the intentional taking of it's life can be said to be something less than murder) doesn't work. Again, what sort of fetus is it? It is human. So, your position is that murder is okay in certain circumstances (i.e., when the human is a 1st or 2nd trimester fetus). Own it. Don't try to soften it by a silly denial of the humanity of the fetus. You can say that it isn't a fully-formed human being, but it is still a human being. A fetus is one form - one stage - of being a human being. I think that's scientifically sound.
And if you are stressing the "unlawful" part of the definition of murder then that is begging the question. To what law do we turn? I think we can all envision certain law codes that would make that which is morally murder legal.
sturg33
I
So we've had babies born and survive during the 2nd trimester, and yet you still advocate being allowed to abort?
Your argument was that you can abort them until they're able to survive. Yet we have examples of 2nd trimester babies surviving. But you think it's OK to abort during the 1st and 2nd trimester...
See what I mean about hypocritical?
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
It's not hypocritical. You need to look up what that means in the dictionary.
I said first is in, 3rd is out, 2nd is gray area then explained why in that last post. How is offering an explanation hypocritical?
Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Again, murder is an unlawful killing. Unlawful means "not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules." so inorder for abortion to be murder, abortion would have to be illegal. Otherwise it's legal killing. You may consider it murder, but I don't. Just like how an environmentalist nut may consider cutting down a tree murder. Doesn't make it murder.
57Brave
Well-known member
"Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes. Was there any wrongdoing? I didn't find any," he said during a Judiciary Committee hearing on the family planning provider.
LINK BELOW
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...d-parenthood-funding_5616ed01e4b0dbb8000de134
LINK BELOW
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...d-parenthood-funding_5616ed01e4b0dbb8000de134
sturg33
I
Your hypocrisy is about how the man has no say in the decision, but is completely obligated to whichever decision the woman makes. Can't have it both ways.
Your inconsistency with when an abortion is OK is just you being stupid. You very clearly said earlier that the reason you're OK with early term abortions is because the fetus can't survive on it's own. Then you go on to say third trimester is the cutoff. Then you admit that you can survive in the 2nd trimester... make up your mind kiddo.
sturg33
I
Your opinion is irrelevant to any decent human being as you've already described that you would support an abortion up until the chord is cut. You're a loser
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
That's what I mean by begging the question. Sure it's legal. Just like owning slaves was once legal.
I do think it is "unlawful" though, because I'm appealing to a higher law.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
that's just your opinion then and i would suggest for you to never get an abortion personally
cause your "higher law" has no place in our law imo
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
I didn't say anything you said in that last paragraph, I said (and I'm quoting from my earlier post)
"It is living, but it's entirely dependent upon it's mother for existence. Once outside the womb there are ways to raise the child. Inside the womb there are none. To me it's perfectly fine first trimester, second it requires more thought and care (and you've gone 3 months, how have you not noticed anything yet), and third it should be 100% illegal unless the mothers physical health is really in danger (read she'll die)"
If you read that as it's 100% fine when it's surrounded by 2 statements like that. You suck.
As far as the whole man thing, the man part of the equation comes with sex, he doesn't have to deal with any of the short term and long term effects of the pregnancy. THat's why he doesn't have a say either way. Hardly hypocritical.
sturg33
I
"Thought and care" is not an objective point of the law. It seems to me PP never errs on the caution of thought and care.
And for the man? I see... So his choice was sex (I guess the woman didn't have that choice?), but even though the baby we're discussing his half his, he has absolutely no say in the matter.
Gotta love it
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
It deserves better place than your higher law. And that's what we all do here, we offer our opinions. That's how it works you know.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
His own. He thinks that abortion should be lawful. Any time we make moral judgments we appeal consciously or unconsciously to some moral code. And that appeal is always personal.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Correct.