Abortion

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I imagine you would regard this as outrageous

Nobody has the "right" to choose murder.

Most rights have limitations, I cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre and hide behind the right of free-speech. So obviously these same limitations apply to our posession of our own body. We cannot use it in such a way that would end someone else'es life.

Those who call themself prochoice are only prochoice for the woman, they don't care how it effects the child, the family, or anybody else. They're narscistic bastards is what they are. Every human being has the right to develop to full term.

If you cannot understand why a human being needs to be protected at the moment of conception then you have no understanding of human rights. None. If you can't garantee you'll make it to birth, you can pretty much forget about any of your other rights.

You say you won't tell a woman what to do with her body, but it's perfectly fine to tell the child what to do with it's. Rollover and die.

How this came to be classified as the liberal (thus more freedom oriented) position I do not know. Might be all the drugs that are taken.

Originally posted by Captain King
I find your crappy story outrageous. My God, I've heard less bullshit out of Christians.

Nobody has the "right" to choose murder.

Most rights have limitations, I cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre and hide behind the right of free-speech. So obviously these same limitations apply to our posession of our own body. We cannot use it in such a way that would end someone else'es life.

Those who call themself prochoice are only prochoice for the woman, they don't care how it effects the child, the family, or anybody else. They're narscistic bastards is what they are. Every human being has the right to develop to full term.

If you cannot understand why a human being needs to be protected at the moment of conception then you have no understanding of human rights. None. If you can't garantee you'll make it to birth, you can pretty much forget about any of your other rights.

You say you won't tell a woman what to do with her body, but it's perfectly fine to tell the child what to do with it's. Rollover and die.

How this came to be classified as the liberal (thus more freedom oriented) position I do not know. Might be all the drugs that are taken.

Good point.

Agreed.

This:

Originally posted by Captain King
I find your crappy story outrageous. My God, I've heard less bullshit out of Christians.

Nobody has the "right" to choose murder.

Most rights have limitations, I cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre and hide behind the right of free-speech. So obviously these same limitations apply to our posession of our own body. We cannot use it in such a way that would end someone else'es life.

Those who call themself prochoice are only prochoice for the woman, they don't care how it effects the child, the family, or anybody else. They're narscistic bastards is what they are. Every human being has the right to develop to full term.

If you cannot understand why a human being needs to be protected at the moment of conception then you have no understanding of human rights. None. If you can't garantee you'll make it to birth, you can pretty much forget about any of your other rights.

You say you won't tell a woman what to do with her body, but it's perfectly fine to tell the child what to do with it's. Rollover and die.

How this came to be classified as the liberal (thus more freedom oriented) position I do not know. Might be all the drugs that are taken.

Does not address this:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years, or longer still?

What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but now you've got to stay in bed with the violinist plugged into you for the rest of your life, because remember this: All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons; granted, you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body, so you cannot ever be unplugged from him."

Try again.

It's a simple question of being either selfish or selfless. Kill for yourself or suffer for others. It's not the baby's fault it's being developed. Will you deny it the ability to grown and learn simply because you're not ready yet?

As for the analogy, which I sarcastically commented on earlier (after, though, I realized it could be mistaken for a sincere comment), it's a rare occasion when a woman is kidnapped and wakes up pregnant. Most of the time they have a choice, but most of the time they make the wrong one. Also, pregancy rarely requires one to lie on a bed for nine months or longer. The effects of pregnancy have been exaggerated. They feel sick, yes, but time and again it has been proven that the effects usually fade afterwards. If you want my opinion, I'd rather be sick for a few months and have a moment of unimaginable agony than to have never existed because my mother got sick of having babies.

Originally posted by apoc001
It's a simple question of being either selfish or selfless. Kill for yourself or suffer for others. It's not the baby's fault it's being developed. Will you deny it the ability to grown and learn simply because you're not ready yet?

No, what is in question is which right is more stringent than the other.

Originally posted by apoc001
As for the analogy, which I sarcastically commented on earlier (after, though, I realized it could be mistaken for a sincere comment), it's a rare occasion when a woman is kidnapped and wakes up pregnant. Most of the time they have a choice, but most of the time they make the wrong one.

What of instances in which a woman is impregnated against her will?

Originally posted by apoc001
Also, pregancy rarely requires one to lie on a bed for nine months or longer. The effects of pregnancy have been exaggerated. They feel sick, yes, but time and again it has been proven that the effects usually fade afterwards.

To the contrary, the effects of pregnancy are understated. It is not as if the term died in childbirth exists because it only happened once or twice.

Originally posted by apoc001
If you want my opinion . . .

No, I do not.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Being plugged into the famous unconscious violinist will not necessarily leave one incapacitated for life either, so the analogy stands.

it would be more believable if the violinist was a guitarist instead. instantly keith richards comes to mind

It's all about accountibility.

As a libertarian i'm offended everyone wants to be responsible for thier own life, what partof responsible are you being by solving your problems with murder?

I guess I should kill everyone who annoys me. That would be the prochoice thing to do wouldn't it? It's inconvient to me, so it has to die. It's rights be damned, my wants comes before whomever esle'es needs.

Family? Pheh...
Morals? Relative...
Common sense? Who needs it...
Socio-ramifications? Not my problem...

The irony is prochoicers cannot afford to live in a society of prochoicers. They depend on the tolerant, toolbox pushover prolifers.

If we were all prochoice, there would be massive slaughters. Chaos would ensue. I cannot say it would not be well deserved.

Originally posted by Schecter
it would be more believable if the violinist was a guitarist instead. instantly keith richards comes to mind

Originally posted by Captain King

If you cannot understand why a human being needs to be protected at the moment of conception then you have no understanding of human rights.

I take it you are for full health care and social security. Abolishment of war. Free handouts of everything for everyone. Against the Death Penality. For a full gun ban. For a huge government with extreme authority. A strong police force. Against rights to privacy. And all that other stuff that protects human beings from conception.

Also, spelljammer, you are not a libertarian, stop claiming that, it's idiotic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I take it you are for full health care and social security. Abolishment of war. Free handouts of everything for everyone. Against the Death Penality. For a full gun ban. For a huge government with extreme authority. A strong police force. Against rights to privacy. And all that other stuff that protects human beings from conception.

Also, spelljammer, you are not a libertarian, stop claiming that, it's idiotic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I take it you are for full health care and social security. Abolishment of war. Free handouts of everything for everyone. Against the Death Penality. For a full gun ban. For a huge government with extreme authority. A strong police force. Against rights to privacy. And all that other stuff that protects human beings from conception.

Also, spelljammer, you are not a libertarian, stop claiming that, it's idiotic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I take it you are for full health care and social security. Abolishment of war. Free handouts of everything for everyone. Against the Death Penality. For a full gun ban. For a huge government with extreme authority. A strong police force. Against rights to privacy. And all that other stuff that protects human beings from conception.

Healthcare:
People have a right to decide thier own healthcare plans. You want to talk about your body? Well that involves your body. Abortion doesn't. Abortion involves you making descisions for somebody else. So no, it's not the same thing.

Death Penalty:
Yes, I am against the death penalty. I'm against giving government enough power to decide life or death for someone else. The government is not all-knowing, if someone did not kill in self defense then the crime commited is probably not worth executing over.

Gun Bans:
Most ceartainly not. That would leave people open to psychotic individuals who would rape and kill them. I mean let's face it, if they can kill babies, what's stopping them from killing you?

Police Force:
Unnesscary 9 out of 10 times. The few times police could be needed, they're defused to instead focus on less important cases. Drugs, tax evasion, and making a scene are not viable reasons for the police to get involved. Unless it involves someone's life being in eminent danger or the investigation of a lost life, police are not nesscary.

Privacy:
This depends on what you mean by privacy. For the sake of other people's lives, you can be investigated and arrested, but the constitution protects us from unwarranted searches and excessive force for a reason. There is right and there is wrong, being in government does not exclude you from this.

I have no idea where the hell that nickname for me came from, my advise to you is layoff the drugs.

Originally posted by Captain King
I'm a libertarian, not a socialist.

Funny coincidence, me too.

Originally posted by Captain King
[b]Healthcare:
People have a right to decide thier own healthcare plans. You want to talk about your body? Well that involves your body. Abortion doesn't. Abortion involves you making descisions for somebody else. So no, it's not the same thing.[/B]

No, abortion involves you making decisions about your body, nobody elses.

Originally posted by Captain King
[b]Death Penalty:
Yes, I am against the death penalty. I'm against giving government enough power to decide life or death for someone else. The government is not all-knowing, if someone did not kill in self defense then the crime commited is probably not worth executing over.[/B]

That's good.

Originally posted by Captain King
[b]Gun Bans:
Most ceartainly not. That would leave people open to psychotic individuals who would rape and kill them. I mean let's face it, if they can kill babies, what's stopping them from killing you?[/B]

The people that abort fetuses are not in any larger percentage of killing and raping real people, so that's void.

Originally posted by Captain King
[b]Police Force:
Unnesscary 9 out of 10 times. The few times police could be needed, they're defused to instead focus on less important cases. Drugs, tax evasion, and making a scene are not viable reasons for the police to get involved. Unless it involves someone's life being in eminent danger or the investigation of a lost life, police are not nesscary.[/B]

But human beings need to be protected.

Originally posted by Captain King
[b]Privacy:
This depends on what you mean by privacy. For the sake of other people's lives, you can be investigated and arrested, but the constitution protects us from unwarranted searches and excessive force for a reason. There is right and there is wrong, being in government does not exclude you from this.[/B]

Every form of privacy is a risk. Human beings NEED to be protected.

Originally posted by Captain King
I have no idea where the hell that nickname for me came from, my advise to you is layoff the drugs.

Sure thing.

Originally posted by apoc001
You're talking about programs for full-grown citizens, who are able to make choices and do things for themselves. Unborn children can't do that. They must rely on the mother until they're able to do that.

Bardock, would you agree that the government should have a neutral stance on abortion?

Everyone claims they want government to stay out of abortion and remain neutral, but government uses the power of the state through courts and police to protect those committing and getting abortions, therefore it is not a neutral position.

The only 'neutral' position, would involve an unlikely and unattractive scenario of "free-fire zones" where government would neither stop abortions for occurring, nor protect abortionists from harm. As this is obviously not a situation most anyone would endorse. The battle for life or a false sense of choice continues.

You can't even choose to smoke where you want too, but somehow you think the government was nice enough to give you reproductive rights.

Originally posted by Captain King
Bardock, would you agree that the government should have a neutral stance on abortion?

Everyone claims they want government to stay out of abortion and remain neutral, but government uses the power of the state through courts and police to protect those committing and getting abortions, therefore it is not a neutral position.

The only 'neutral' position, would involve an unlikely and unattractive scenario of "free-fire zones" where government would neither stop abortions for occurring, nor protect abortionists from harm. As this is obviously not a situation most anyone would endorse. The battle for life or a false sense of choice continues.

You can't even choose to smoke where you want too, but somehow you think the government was nice enough to give you reproductive rights.

Both sides make this a black or white situation, and it's not.

A woman has the right to refuse child birth, a rather painful and body altering process.

However, I tire of people claiming that the Foetus is not human. It is human. Get over it already. I don't understand why certain people feel a human isn't really human until it leaves the vaginal canal ?

If a woman feels the need to have an abortion, then I feel she should do so as early as possible, so the foetus doesn't get closer to full term. But she should also recognize that she killed what would have been her child. As long as she can do that, I then in my eyes she is a responsible person.

Originally posted by Nellinator
It depends on the details. Is this violinist conscious?

He is a famous unconscious violinist. 😕