Abortion

Originally posted by Bardock42
What does that have to do with anything? They will still have the choice, you are the one denying people the life they want.

Nah,....

We're just re-affirming what God already told them they didn't have the right to do.

Despite popular opinion you DONT have a right to f*ck whoever you want, and not deal with the consequences of your f*cking.

Despite popular opinion you DONT have the right to kill an unborn child who has committed no wrong.

Despite popular opinion you DONT win the argument by saying it doesn't have a life,.... it's on its way to having one.

A dog is alive, but has no life....... you can still go to jail for killing one for no reason. (self-defense is excusable, but nobody needs to defend themselves from a baby that they made the choice to create when having sex.)

People will plain and simple, have to start OBEYING.

This law being passed, headed to the Supreme Court where it will be upheld, and then considered, drafted, and passed in many more states is just the beginning of a larger movement that will no longer tolerate the B.S. of people who just want to be disobedient to what we were all taught as children not to do.

🤘

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Nah,....

We're just re-affirming what God already told them they didn't have the right to do.

Despite popular opinion you DONT have a right to f*ck whoever you want, and not deal with the consequences of your f*cking.

Despite popular opinion you DONT have the right to kill an unborn child who has committed no wrong.

Despite popular opinion you DONT win the argument by saying it doesn't have a life,.... it's on its way to having one.

A dog is alive, but has no life....... you can still go to jail for killing one for no reason. (self-defense is excusable, but nobody needs to defend themselves from a baby that they made the choice to create when having sex.)

People will plain and simple, have to start OBEYING.

This law being passed, headed to the Supreme Court where it will be upheld, and then considered, drafted, and passed in many more states is just the beginning of a larger movement that will no longer tolerate the B.S. of people who just want to be disobedient to what we were all taught as children not to do.

🤘

You still DON'T have the right to tell someone else what to do with their body when it infringes upon NOONE.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Nah,....

We're just re-affirming what God already told them they didn't have the right to do.

Despite popular opinion you DONT have a right to f*ck whoever you want, and not deal with the consequences of your f*cking.

Despite popular opinion you DONT have the right to kill an unborn child who has committed no wrong.

Despite popular opinion you DONT win the argument by saying it doesn't have a life,.... it's on its way to having one.

A dog is alive, but has no life....... you can still go to jail for killing one for no reason. (self-defense is excusable, but nobody needs to defend themselves from a baby that they made the choice to create when having sex.)

People will plain and simple, have to start OBEYING.

This law being passed, headed to the Supreme Court where it will be upheld, and then considered, drafted, and passed in many more states is just the beginning of a larger movement that will no longer tolerate the B.S. of people who just want to be disobedient to what we were all taught as children not to do.

🤘

Despite whatever "God said" we DO have the right to "kill an unborn baby".
At least in the US.

Originally posted by Eis

Despite whatever "God said" we DO have the right to "kill an unborn baby".
At least in the US.

Time will tell.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Another point that has to reiterated in this thread over and over again.

"Pro-lifers" keep harping on this whole "is it alive" thing like it actually even matters. It's the only slightly valid point they have, yet it still makes no difference.

Utter nonsense.

It is the ONLY pertinent point. If the foetus is considered to be alive in the way a baby is, then the mother has no right to terminate for any reason. If it is NOT considered to be so, then the mother can terminate it for absolutely any reason she likes.

It doesn't actually go beyond that at any point. Either it's just a bundle of cells, as disposable as skin cells, or it's a living being with all the rights of a Human. First case you can do anything, second case you can do nothing.

The poster who said that one side's argument is finished if the point at which it becomes alive in the way a baby is is irrefutably proven is absolutely correct. There will be no pertinent argument that could be raised afterwards other than that which relies entirely on non-rational grounds.

South Dakota's law is at least consistent. If abortion is going to be allowed it should be allowed at all cases before that point at which it is considered the foetus becomes a proper life, and if it is going to be banned it should be banned for all reasons unless it is a medical case (i.e. it's going to kill the mother and therefore the baby too). Of course, only a tiny fraction of abortions are done for the medical reason.

You can't say abortion is not ok, meaning you think the unborn baby has a right to live, and then say it IS ok in the case of rape. If the baby had been born already you wouldn't think it legal to kill it becuase it was the product of a rape, and as the entire Pro-Life argument revolves around an unborn baby having the same rights as a born baby the hypocritical stance to take is one which leaves such exceptions.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Time will tell.

So my statement remains correct.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Utter nonsense.

It is the ONLY pertinent point. If the foetus is considered to be alive in the way a baby is, then the mother has no right to terminate for any reason. If it is NOT considered to be so, then the mother can terminate it for absolutely any reason she likes.

It doesn't actually go beyond that at any point. Either it's just a bundle of cells, as disposable as skin cells, or it's a living being with all the rights of a Human. First case you can do anything, second case you can do nothing.

It's the woman's body. She can do with it what she likes.

This thread is old and repetitive. Its just the same shit back and forth. Nobody will ever agree on this issue.

You're right powerfulone1987, it was only a matter of time before SD passed the bill. It wont be long before other states start catching on.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
We're just re-affirming what God already told them they didn't have the right to do

Atheist: What God? Sperm fertilised my egg, hence the baby. No religion or God involved.

Your argument is out the window, kiss it goodbye.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Utter nonsense.

It is the ONLY pertinent point. If the foetus is considered to be alive in the way a baby is, then the mother has no right to terminate for any reason. If it is NOT considered to be so, then the mother can terminate it for absolutely any reason she likes.

She does actually have the right to terminate it, unless you're speaking from that socially moral point of view.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It doesn't actually go beyond that at any point. Either it's just a bundle of cells, as disposable as skin cells, or it's a living being with all the rights of a Human. First case you can do anything, second case you can do nothing.

Both cases: YOU do what is right for you. Don't like abortions? Stay away from the clinics. Nobody is going to force you to have one.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The poster who said that one side's argument is finished if the point at which it becomes alive in the way a baby is is irrefutably proven is absolutely correct. There will be no pertinent argument that could be raised afterwards other than that which relies entirely on non-rational grounds.

It will always come down to what each person thinks is right and what each person thinks is not right, unless you are intent on applying that majority accepted moral code to every human being ever, which is just dumb.

If a baby is proven to be a baby at a certain point then it still doesn't mean people will say "Oh...well, better not have that abortion." If they want one and it's available, they'll have one. It's that simple. You seem to be of the belief that if it's proven to be a human at any point (And courts do consider it so, in some cases) then nobody can realistically want an abortion. Which is silly.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
South Dakota's law is at least consistent. If abortion is going to be allowed it should be allowed at all cases before that point at which it is considered the foetus becomes a proper life, and if it is going to be banned it should be banned for all reasons unless it is a medical case (i.e. it's going to kill the mother and therefore the baby too). Of course, only a tiny fraction of abortions are done for the medical reason.

Which is exactly why abortions shouldn't be banned, because then it forces women to birth offspring that were conceived out of rape, for crying out loud.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You can't say abortion is not ok, meaning you think the unborn baby has a right to live, and then say it IS ok in the case of rape.

I did say this earlier in the thread and you came in with: "I maintain that it's ridiculous to claim you can't be for one type of killing and against another." When I said "You're either for abortion or against it."

-AC

Originally posted by Eis
Um, no.
Maybe and quite possibly it will be outlawed in the near future but NOW we DO have the right to abort fetuses.

So my statement remains correct.

Actually, in South Dakota, since the govenor signed the law that the state legislature already passed, it IS illegal.

It may be ruled unconstitutional by a judge soon enough, and then sent to the Supreme Court for a decision (the law will stand, I bet your life on it),.......

But as of now, it is illegal to abort a baby (except for medical emergency) in the United States.

(south dakota, anyway)

Originally posted by Ushgarak

You can't say abortion is not ok, meaning you think the unborn baby has a right to live, and then say it IS ok in the case of rape.

Word!

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Actually, in South Dakota, since the govenor signed the law that the state legislature already passed, it [B] IS illegal.

It may be ruled unconstitutional by a judge soon enough, and then sent to the Supreme Court for a decision (the law will stand, I bet your life on it),.......

But as of now, it is illegal to abort a baby (except for medical emergency) in the United States.

(south dakota, anyway) [/B]

Good thing I don't live in the US though... It's gonna be a VERY long while before it's illegal here. And I couldn't stress enough on the word VERY.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Actually, in South Dakota, since the govenor signed the law that the state legislature already passed, it [B] IS illegal.

It may be ruled unconstitutional by a judge soon enough, and then sent to the Supreme Court for a decision (the law will stand, I bet your life on it),.......

But as of now, it is illegal to abort a baby (except for medical emergency) in the United States.

(south dakota, anyway) [/B]

There is no reason to believe that the five Supreme Court Justices that continually uphold "Roe v. Wade" are going to suddenly change their minds. There may have been two pro-life justices appointed to the Supreme Court in recent years, but there is still not a majority to overturn the ruling. By all means, continue to celebrate your hollow and meaningless victory.

Originally posted by Eis
Good thing I don't live in the US though... It's gonna be a VERY long while before it's illegal here. And I couldn't stress enough on the word VERY.

Yeah, I wonder how he would feel if he lived in a coutry that has to deal with the reality of the worlds largest population on a daily basis.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Yeah, I wonder how he would feel if he lived in a coutry that has to deal with the reality of the worlds largest population on a daily basis.

Are you talking about China?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Are you talking about China?

Yes, that is where Eis lives.

"If the bill becomes law, doctors could face up to five years in prison if they perform an abortion."

The message here though is unclear. They obviously don't think that abortion is the equivalent of murder or manslaughter, but they've outlawed it as protecting an unborn baby. So from what I can tell, they're protecting the potential of a foetus to become a human being, in which case they should also outlaw contraceptives, masturbation and force women to have their eggs removed every month that they don't plan on having a child.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You can't say abortion is not ok, meaning you think the unborn baby has a right to live, and then say it IS ok in the case of rape.

Actually you can. And many do. I guess the orguement most be some sort of weighing up interests.

You're either for abortion or against it.

You can't be against abortion as a concept and then say "Oh, but that's alright." Unless of course you're ok with being a hypocrite.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're either for abortion or against it.

You can't be against abortion as a concept and then say "Oh, but that's alright." Unless of course you're ok with being a hypocrite.

-AC

Unfortuantely some people are. Check the Brokeback Mountain thread for reference on one such douche.