Confused
- Thread starter ohhrico1969
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Well, I'm no doctor and I could be way off here, but I'm pretty sure that a newborn is at least aware of their presence in a different environment than a womb even if they aren't asking themselves, "Why am I here?"
Edit: At what stage of development would it feel pain, for example?
Sentient:
My ex-wife wasn't sentient very often ....
high daily dosage of alcohol ....
combined with her Schizophrenia medications
she used to cut herself too, said she couldn't feel pain....
She's in her 50s, never had gainful employment or contributed to society
and is once again, a burden to her parents.
(Not sure which of those arbitrary criteria/"setpoints" apply, but her parents still keep her)
high daily dosage of alcohol ....
combined with her Schizophrenia medications
she used to cut herself too, said she couldn't feel pain....
She's in her 50s, never had gainful employment or contributed to society
and is once again, a burden to her parents.
(Not sure which of those arbitrary criteria/"setpoints" apply, but her parents still keep her)
yeah, this is a touchy issue. overall i dont support abortion, but at the same time, it seems a tad heavy handed to say there are no situation where this is a viable option.
but it is jsut to close to eugenics for me to be comfortable with it. i was nearly a daddy once, and was devastated to learn that my fiance had it aborted without consulting me.
it was heart wrenching and completely ruined our relationship. however, in the long run, it was probably for the best. i cnat imagine her being a mother, let alone a full blown wife. and the quality of life for the child would have been substandard at that time in my life for reason which i wont go into here.
but at the same time i still resent that decision. but in her eyes it was 'her body and her right'. that it was half my body didnt seem to matter....
but im getting off topic yet again. im good at that.
the point of the story is, it isnt something to brag about or to do on a whim, to be used as an alternative to contraceptive. and outlawing the medical procedure wont stop abortions form happening anyway. as i see it, a parsley pissory and chronic dosing of vitamin C is way cheaper than the procedure and safer as well, and unless uyou ban vitamin C and parsley or other herbs like pennyroyal you wont be able to stop this from happening, the best you can hope for is to make it a service availible at hospitals and turn it into a source of revenue.
and something else interesting going back to the eugenics points, look at the abortion demographics.
but it is jsut to close to eugenics for me to be comfortable with it. i was nearly a daddy once, and was devastated to learn that my fiance had it aborted without consulting me.
it was heart wrenching and completely ruined our relationship. however, in the long run, it was probably for the best. i cnat imagine her being a mother, let alone a full blown wife. and the quality of life for the child would have been substandard at that time in my life for reason which i wont go into here.
but at the same time i still resent that decision. but in her eyes it was 'her body and her right'. that it was half my body didnt seem to matter....
but im getting off topic yet again. im good at that.
the point of the story is, it isnt something to brag about or to do on a whim, to be used as an alternative to contraceptive. and outlawing the medical procedure wont stop abortions form happening anyway. as i see it, a parsley pissory and chronic dosing of vitamin C is way cheaper than the procedure and safer as well, and unless uyou ban vitamin C and parsley or other herbs like pennyroyal you wont be able to stop this from happening, the best you can hope for is to make it a service availible at hospitals and turn it into a source of revenue.
and something else interesting going back to the eugenics points, look at the abortion demographics.
holy crap, this whole thread has gone haywire looking back at the OP.
just remember and this point is key, the left right paradigm is what hinders the american people from throwing off the chains of the oppressive gov't.
the false choice we all subscribe to every 4 years is completely bogus and quite frankly has turned into a nearly complete joke.
we need to get rid of electronic voting, use paper ballots and vote for THE RIGHT PERSON FOR THE JOB. we need to get out of the tribal mindset of left vs right. reps vs dems.
this isnt football. this isnt baseball. this is the future of our country which we all claim to love. time to start voting liek you love this country people and not vote for people becasue they seem liek a nice guy to go have a beer with, and vote for the person who is going to do right by you and do right by the country.
IMHO somone like Ron Paul.
just remember and this point is key, the left right paradigm is what hinders the american people from throwing off the chains of the oppressive gov't.
the false choice we all subscribe to every 4 years is completely bogus and quite frankly has turned into a nearly complete joke.
we need to get rid of electronic voting, use paper ballots and vote for THE RIGHT PERSON FOR THE JOB. we need to get out of the tribal mindset of left vs right. reps vs dems.
this isnt football. this isnt baseball. this is the future of our country which we all claim to love. time to start voting liek you love this country people and not vote for people becasue they seem liek a nice guy to go have a beer with, and vote for the person who is going to do right by you and do right by the country.
IMHO somone like Ron Paul.
Whew!! Now I now that I said that this thread was getting off track and that this whole thread wasn't about abortion, however I can't read this and stay quiet. First I believe we need to put aside the "moral-ethical" card for a moment. Let's just focus on the legal component. From a a purely factual perspective:
A woman's choice to have a baby or not involves THEIR body, health and their entire future. Sure you can sit there as a MAN and not EVER having to be put in that situation and spout higher moral rhetoric, but the fact remains that you can never truly understand being in that situation. ESPECIALLY if you are a victim of RAPE, SEXUAL ABUSE, INCEST or have a medical condition that could endanger your life by carrying a baby to full term! Sure you can sit there in your comfortable chair and talk about "wiggling zygotes" and how we should cherish them but explain that to an 11 or 12 girl raped by some asshole uncle who is now pregnant and having to deal with all the maturity having to give birth comes with! One of the first things you jumped to about abortions are how a way to discard and inconvenient baby(not an exact quote) as if the only reason woman have abortions are because they want to use them as a method of birth control. Assuming that the majority of women see it as a way to flush away their problems. that shows a lot of faith in human kind.(sarcasm). You talk about the zygotes rights. What of the rights of the mother? Are her's negated because you think your morality is better?
Second, just because someone is pro-choice doesn't mean that they are anti baby or pro-abortion! They just believe that a woman's right to their body, and future shouldn't be mandated by some guy sitting on capital hill who has no "skin" in her or her baby's life!
What if abortion was made illegal? Are you naive enough to believe that they would not exist? Let me clarify. They would happen anyway but in a lot more unfortunate circumstances. like behind some laundromat or back alley. Or perhaps the woman would doe something crazy like take some kind of medicine to create a miscarriage and end up taking her own life. Having abortion legal ensures a woman or little girl has proper, safe, sanitary, medical treatment.
Now I can't disagree with your statement about protecting your own life from a bad guy,I totally agree with you. If you looked at my comment I stated that someone who was adamant about gun control could use that statement because of it's vagueness. Anyone can say that your right to punch me ends where the tip of my nose begins unless the complete story is the guy being punched in the nose just pinched my wife's ass or has a knife in his hand moving in a threatening manner. That's semantics and up fro interpretation. Thats why i don't particularly care for one line quotes. They can sometimes be taken out of context. I used quotes from the same man that you did because in my perception, you were only brining to mind one side of his persona to add weight to your argument.
My quotes:
"...men make their own laws; that these laws do not flow from some mysterious omnipresence in the sky, and that judges are not independent mouthpieces of the infinite.The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky." At first it may seem that this is only about "law" however that is part of the discussion. The "evangelical right" uses the Bible, and their own religious doctrine to influence and mandate legislation( like abortion legislation)!
"It is very lonely sometimes, trying to play God." And these same people who sit in "judgement" of others for making these kind of tough choices and scream "It's God's will" etc.. etc..I ask them...Abortions have been going on for a very long time. In fact it was legal during the Roman rule during the time of Jesus. So how come it has never been explicitly mentioned in the Bible?
Now I am not saying that your views are religiously based. Perhaps they are, perhaps not. I am not saying that your views are "wrong" per se. We are all entitled to our opinions. But having an opinion and then forcing me to follow your same "moralities" is a slippery slope. Maybe we will end up like China, deciding how many babies you can have and what their sex should be. Invading the privacy of a woman's body and using legislation to do it is a slippery slope.
I am an open-minded, gun-loving, fiscal-conservative, social moderate Libertarian Jarhead and I beleive that we should all believe what we want to believe and thats OK. Just don't force it down my throat with "evangelical moral legislation!"
If you ever manage to say something profound, I'll eat my own shoe.
First. I'll state:
1) All humans have inalienable rights.
2) Discrimination "justified" by ANY arbitrary criteria, or setpoint, in depriving any human of the right to continue aging and developing, is dangerous.
Invading the rights of any human based upon any arbitrary criteria or setpoint and using legislation to do it is a slippery slope.
Especially any human's right to grow age and develop because of some arbitrary criteria. That's exactly why I say it is dangerous. Although Hitler pulled it off for a while, as did the Mayans, and many civilizations in the uninformed past. That's one reason I have great respect the polititcian, Abe Lincoln for not hanging all 300 Indians, but only hund 38 or so after he had promised to kill or remove every Indian from the state. Regarding the largest mass hanging in history, he stated that he could not hang more Indians just to get more votes.
I'm ALSO talking about the elderly being dissed in the Healthcare plan ... I'll address your concerns though too
You state : I believe we need to put aside the "moral-ethical" card for a moment. Let's just focus on the legal component. From a a purely factual perspective:
Then you immediately strayed from the facts and the legal:
"A woman's choice to have a baby or not involves THEIR body, health and their entire future. Sure you can sit there as a MAN and not EVER having to be put in that situation and spout higher moral rhetoric, but the fact remains that you can never truly understand being in that situation"
Sir, I do not sit here as a man and spout anything about morals.
Since you say "just focus on the legal component"
I agree it involves the woman's body, actually their physical health as well as their metal and emotional health. I agree that a woman's choice to have a baby or not affects the rights of at least 2, the Human fetus and the Human mother and very often 8 humans if you include the Fathers' rights and grandparent's rights, at least one of which will have its rights terminated without being consulted. Yes, it's the WOMAN'S body, which affects the rights of many othe humans, including one HUMAN who may or may not have it's right to continue aging and growing determined by her choice.
If you want to discuss "facts"
We could sit here all day posting statistics, showing many current clinics in trouble for underreporting and covering up problems, but as a person who has also worked as a psychiatric tech, and was senior staff at a crisis hotline connected with Texas Research in Mental Science in Houston and at a hospital in Dallas, I assure you that in many cases the abortion mills are not reporting all the problems following the women out the door of their clinics, nor those which continue to follow them for many more years.. Neither are they allowing women to make informed choices by revealing to them the risks to their physical, mental and emotional health. Those not having the experiences treating nor counselling any of those women, probably won't ever understand what happens to women and their health following their uninformed choice, and what they will go through mentally and emotionally at least once a year afterwards. and Abortions, more often than not have a negative effect on the woman's health than carrying a baby full term does. If women were truley fully informed of the risks and detrimental effects they might undergo in the future, it would be a much more informed "Choice" in whether to terminate another humans right to grow, age and develop further, and their conscience years later affecting their mental and emotional health, when remembering what they have done.
RAPE, SEXUAL ABUSE, INCEST would have already had a negative effect upon a woman's health mentally and emotionally, they are bad, and the woman's health is not NECESSARILY helped by causing the woman more pain. In fact, I raised one girl who was a product of a rape whose mother seriously consider an abortion, but chose to continue to carry the child. She works at a Credit Union in Houston now and does rather well supporting herself and has a good relationship with her mother. I imagine that as her mother ages and needs a caretaker, her daugter will be there to assist in taking care of her mother's health too. As her mother's caretaker of her mother's health, I hope she does not decide to terminate her mother's right to continue to age either.
You say:
Second, just because someone is pro-choice doesn't mean that they are anti baby or pro-abortion! They just believe that a woman's right to their body, and future shouldn't be mandated by some guy sitting on capital hill who has no "skin" in her or her baby's life!
Actually pro-choice, as used by those profiting from the abortion mills, does mean pro-abortion, and offers the youngest human whose rights are affected the most no choice at all now does it?
You asked me:
What if abortion was made illegal? Are you naive enough to believe that they would not exist?
Of course not, murder is illegal and has been around since Cain and Able, and I suspect always will be regardless of the law, it occurs behind some laundromats or back alleys anyway, that's one reason I am armed, but I don't believe it should be legalized.
You say:
perhaps the woman would do something crazy
Sir, having lived with a Schizophrenic with both psychotic and depressed episodes, and me coming home for lunch to blood all over the floor, other times stopping her from leaving the house with butcher knives sticking out of her purse, and stopping her from hitting cchildremn with flashlights until they break, and at other times administering CPR, .... I have no doubts that some women might "do something crazy" I suppose that is their CHOICE.
You say:
Having abortion legal ensures a woman has proper, safe, sanitary, medical treatment.
I disagree. Even the skewed mis-reported statistics covered up by the abortion mills disagree. Still I'll ask, what medical condition is being "treated?" Is there some illness involved which is improved by said "treatment"?
I absolutly agree with you about "Just don't force it down my throat" I have not brought up anything about any religion etc. Nor am i proposing any legislation. I'm merely asserting that all humans have inalienable rights which should not be infringed upon by any arbitrary criteria setpoint.
You state:
Now I am not saying that your views are religiously based. Perhaps they are, perhaps not. I am not saying that your views are "wrong" per se. We are all entitled to our opinions. But having an opinion and then forcing me to follow your same "moralities" is a slippery slope.
My argument is based on human rights, rather than religion.
As far as "beliefs which are right or wrong" I also absolutly agree. My ex-wife believes that her last suicide attempt was successful and that she has been dead for the last 8 years (but we already established that in reality Schrödinger's cat can not be both alive and dead in the same place at the same time) She does however have the right to believe that.
What we have currently is a system where women are denied the right to make a fully informed CHOICE, because they are not fully informed when deciding.
Invading or infringing upon the rights of any human based upon any arbitrary criteria or setpoint and using legislation to do it is a slippery slope. That's exactly why I say it is dangerous.
I'm merely asserting that all humans have inalienable rights which should not be infringed upon by any arbitrary criteria setpoint.
1) All humans have inalienable rights.
2) Discrimination "justified" by ANY arbitrary criteria, or setpoint, in depriving any human of the right to continue aging and developing, is dangerous.
Invading the rights of any human based upon any arbitrary criteria or setpoint and using legislation to do it is a slippery slope.
Especially any human's right to grow age and develop because of some arbitrary criteria. That's exactly why I say it is dangerous. Although Hitler pulled it off for a while, as did the Mayans, and many civilizations in the uninformed past. That's one reason I have great respect the polititcian, Abe Lincoln for not hanging all 300 Indians, but only hund 38 or so after he had promised to kill or remove every Indian from the state. Regarding the largest mass hanging in history, he stated that he could not hang more Indians just to get more votes.
I'm ALSO talking about the elderly being dissed in the Healthcare plan ... I'll address your concerns though too
You state : I believe we need to put aside the "moral-ethical" card for a moment. Let's just focus on the legal component. From a a purely factual perspective:
Then you immediately strayed from the facts and the legal:
"A woman's choice to have a baby or not involves THEIR body, health and their entire future. Sure you can sit there as a MAN and not EVER having to be put in that situation and spout higher moral rhetoric, but the fact remains that you can never truly understand being in that situation"
Sir, I do not sit here as a man and spout anything about morals.
Since you say "just focus on the legal component"
I agree it involves the woman's body, actually their physical health as well as their metal and emotional health. I agree that a woman's choice to have a baby or not affects the rights of at least 2, the Human fetus and the Human mother and very often 8 humans if you include the Fathers' rights and grandparent's rights, at least one of which will have its rights terminated without being consulted. Yes, it's the WOMAN'S body, which affects the rights of many othe humans, including one HUMAN who may or may not have it's right to continue aging and growing determined by her choice.
If you want to discuss "facts"
We could sit here all day posting statistics, showing many current clinics in trouble for underreporting and covering up problems, but as a person who has also worked as a psychiatric tech, and was senior staff at a crisis hotline connected with Texas Research in Mental Science in Houston and at a hospital in Dallas, I assure you that in many cases the abortion mills are not reporting all the problems following the women out the door of their clinics, nor those which continue to follow them for many more years.. Neither are they allowing women to make informed choices by revealing to them the risks to their physical, mental and emotional health. Those not having the experiences treating nor counselling any of those women, probably won't ever understand what happens to women and their health following their uninformed choice, and what they will go through mentally and emotionally at least once a year afterwards. and Abortions, more often than not have a negative effect on the woman's health than carrying a baby full term does. If women were truley fully informed of the risks and detrimental effects they might undergo in the future, it would be a much more informed "Choice" in whether to terminate another humans right to grow, age and develop further, and their conscience years later affecting their mental and emotional health, when remembering what they have done.
RAPE, SEXUAL ABUSE, INCEST would have already had a negative effect upon a woman's health mentally and emotionally, they are bad, and the woman's health is not NECESSARILY helped by causing the woman more pain. In fact, I raised one girl who was a product of a rape whose mother seriously consider an abortion, but chose to continue to carry the child. She works at a Credit Union in Houston now and does rather well supporting herself and has a good relationship with her mother. I imagine that as her mother ages and needs a caretaker, her daugter will be there to assist in taking care of her mother's health too. As her mother's caretaker of her mother's health, I hope she does not decide to terminate her mother's right to continue to age either.
You say:
Second, just because someone is pro-choice doesn't mean that they are anti baby or pro-abortion! They just believe that a woman's right to their body, and future shouldn't be mandated by some guy sitting on capital hill who has no "skin" in her or her baby's life!
Actually pro-choice, as used by those profiting from the abortion mills, does mean pro-abortion, and offers the youngest human whose rights are affected the most no choice at all now does it?
You asked me:
What if abortion was made illegal? Are you naive enough to believe that they would not exist?
Of course not, murder is illegal and has been around since Cain and Able, and I suspect always will be regardless of the law, it occurs behind some laundromats or back alleys anyway, that's one reason I am armed, but I don't believe it should be legalized.
You say:
perhaps the woman would do something crazy
Sir, having lived with a Schizophrenic with both psychotic and depressed episodes, and me coming home for lunch to blood all over the floor, other times stopping her from leaving the house with butcher knives sticking out of her purse, and stopping her from hitting cchildremn with flashlights until they break, and at other times administering CPR, .... I have no doubts that some women might "do something crazy" I suppose that is their CHOICE.
You say:
Having abortion legal ensures a woman has proper, safe, sanitary, medical treatment.
I disagree. Even the skewed mis-reported statistics covered up by the abortion mills disagree. Still I'll ask, what medical condition is being "treated?" Is there some illness involved which is improved by said "treatment"?
I absolutly agree with you about "Just don't force it down my throat" I have not brought up anything about any religion etc. Nor am i proposing any legislation. I'm merely asserting that all humans have inalienable rights which should not be infringed upon by any arbitrary criteria setpoint.
You state:
Now I am not saying that your views are religiously based. Perhaps they are, perhaps not. I am not saying that your views are "wrong" per se. We are all entitled to our opinions. But having an opinion and then forcing me to follow your same "moralities" is a slippery slope.
My argument is based on human rights, rather than religion.
As far as "beliefs which are right or wrong" I also absolutly agree. My ex-wife believes that her last suicide attempt was successful and that she has been dead for the last 8 years (but we already established that in reality Schrödinger's cat can not be both alive and dead in the same place at the same time) She does however have the right to believe that.
What we have currently is a system where women are denied the right to make a fully informed CHOICE, because they are not fully informed when deciding.
Invading or infringing upon the rights of any human based upon any arbitrary criteria or setpoint and using legislation to do it is a slippery slope. That's exactly why I say it is dangerous.
I'm merely asserting that all humans have inalienable rights which should not be infringed upon by any arbitrary criteria setpoint.
I'll address ONE other item that you asked me ... since you brought up religion, where I purposely try to avoid it, I'll address it briefly.
You asked:
"Abortions have been going on for a very long time. In fact it was legal during the Roman rule during the time of Jesus. So how come it has never been explicitly mentioned in the Bible?"
I'll simply state ... True, they've been around a long time. Child sacrifice was mentioned throughout, not just in the Bible, but also in many other cultures' writings they considered "scripture" Still, I don't personally believe that religions really belong in a discussion about human rights; I could be wrong though.
You stated correctly that:
"Abortions have been going on for a very long time. In fact it was legal during the Roman rule during the time of Jesus."
I'll remind you that hanging Christians on lamp posts and setting them on fire was legal also during that period, based upon the arbitrary criteria of them being Christians.
Slavery has been around just as long, or longer actually, and Even though human trafficking of various age groups and nationalities still exist in the USA, that doesn't make the infringement of the rights of HUMANs in slavery, justified by some arbitrary criteria such as race, color, or otherwise, acceptable to me personally either.
I guess I won't try to force Slaves' rights to freedom, and their right to continue growing, aging and developing, down anyone's throat, even if their master wants to kill that slave. Congress did it already without asking me.
ALTHOUGH, it took quite a while for them to realize that "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" also applied to women, slaves, various races, nationalities etc. I wouldn't support legislation that infringes upon those rights by some arbitrary criteria though. Hopefully we are in the process of outgrowing all that discriminatory ignorance of using arbitrary criteria to infringe on the rights of some chosen catagory or humans.
If a comatose person desires death, I'd support their right to die. If a comatose person desires to continue in a coma in hopes they'd wake up, I'd support their right to continue. Many make their desires known in legal documents prior to becoming comatose.
A third party making decisions about whether that person, or any human, is able to continue aging without consulting them, bothers me if it is decided upon some preconceived arbitrary criteria, such as poverty level, race, gender, age, or otherwise. I'll oppose any health care plan which puts elderly people out to freeze to death because "statistically, at his age according to the actuarial life expectancy table in this book, a person this age has a life expectancy of only 8 more years, and the heart surgery won't benefit them all that much in my opinion based on the statistics and projected costs of his home health care through Medicare and Medicaid and his food stamp requirements, instead of letting him die now." And not allowing the elderly person any voice in the matter.
I believe humans have rights which should not be infringed upon lightly.
I support human rights, and oppose the infringement upon those rights by ANY predetermined arbitrary criteria. Whether that is "right" or "wrong" I suppose is a moral judgment imposed upon me which I haven't really considered, it's just what I do, but I perceive any human discriminated against by some arbitrary criteria as justification whose rights to continue to grow, age and develop further whether elderly, young, racially different, handicapped or otherwise, are "underdogs" since they have no voice in the matter, and
as a young child, Mom taught me to try to "take up for the Underdog"
So, here it is ...
I'm tired, I really need to stay out of the political forums, perhaps I should find a nice Second Amendment thread and discuss rights there ...
You asked:
"Abortions have been going on for a very long time. In fact it was legal during the Roman rule during the time of Jesus. So how come it has never been explicitly mentioned in the Bible?"
I'll simply state ... True, they've been around a long time. Child sacrifice was mentioned throughout, not just in the Bible, but also in many other cultures' writings they considered "scripture" Still, I don't personally believe that religions really belong in a discussion about human rights; I could be wrong though.
You stated correctly that:
"Abortions have been going on for a very long time. In fact it was legal during the Roman rule during the time of Jesus."
I'll remind you that hanging Christians on lamp posts and setting them on fire was legal also during that period, based upon the arbitrary criteria of them being Christians.
Slavery has been around just as long, or longer actually, and Even though human trafficking of various age groups and nationalities still exist in the USA, that doesn't make the infringement of the rights of HUMANs in slavery, justified by some arbitrary criteria such as race, color, or otherwise, acceptable to me personally either.
I guess I won't try to force Slaves' rights to freedom, and their right to continue growing, aging and developing, down anyone's throat, even if their master wants to kill that slave. Congress did it already without asking me.
ALTHOUGH, it took quite a while for them to realize that "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" also applied to women, slaves, various races, nationalities etc. I wouldn't support legislation that infringes upon those rights by some arbitrary criteria though. Hopefully we are in the process of outgrowing all that discriminatory ignorance of using arbitrary criteria to infringe on the rights of some chosen catagory or humans.If a comatose person desires death, I'd support their right to die. If a comatose person desires to continue in a coma in hopes they'd wake up, I'd support their right to continue. Many make their desires known in legal documents prior to becoming comatose.
A third party making decisions about whether that person, or any human, is able to continue aging without consulting them, bothers me if it is decided upon some preconceived arbitrary criteria, such as poverty level, race, gender, age, or otherwise. I'll oppose any health care plan which puts elderly people out to freeze to death because "statistically, at his age according to the actuarial life expectancy table in this book, a person this age has a life expectancy of only 8 more years, and the heart surgery won't benefit them all that much in my opinion based on the statistics and projected costs of his home health care through Medicare and Medicaid and his food stamp requirements, instead of letting him die now." And not allowing the elderly person any voice in the matter.
I believe humans have rights which should not be infringed upon lightly.
I support human rights, and oppose the infringement upon those rights by ANY predetermined arbitrary criteria. Whether that is "right" or "wrong" I suppose is a moral judgment imposed upon me which I haven't really considered, it's just what I do, but I perceive any human discriminated against by some arbitrary criteria as justification whose rights to continue to grow, age and develop further whether elderly, young, racially different, handicapped or otherwise, are "underdogs" since they have no voice in the matter, and
as a young child, Mom taught me to try to "take up for the Underdog"
So, here it is ...
I'm tired, I really need to stay out of the political forums, perhaps I should find a nice Second Amendment thread and discuss rights there ...
First. I'll state:
1) All humans have inalienable rights.
I guess that would depend on what you would call a human.Over 100,000 women die worldwide becuase of illegal abortions. I guess those "arbitrary" lives are unimportant to you. Their rights don't mean anything becuase you state that even a zygote is a human being. Except in your argument there is no scinetfic reason to call this bunch of cell tissue a human beining. From a scientific perspective it's brain hasn't developed, it has no cpapcity for conscious thought or reasoning, and doesnt even look like a human beining. But it does have potential. If fed, nurtured and brought to its full term (all by the way at taking these from the mother) it can become a human being.By that same logic seeds can mature into plants and trees-but you can hardly make a leap that "a pile of acorns equal a forest!" Im sure even "Tree-huggers" wouldn't jump on that band wagon!
2) Discrimination "justified" by ANY arbitrary criteria, or setpoint, in depriving any human of the right to continue aging and developing, is dangerous.
What justifies the sacrifice of an actual woman's/girls life to the most basic celullar potential? How can you truly be the "champion of under dogs and have such a position?
Invading the rights of any human based upon any arbitrary criteria or setpoint and using legislation to do it is a slippery slope.
Especially any human's right to grow age and develop because of some arbitrary criteria. That's exactly why I say it is dangerous. Although Hitler pulled it off for a while, as did the Mayans, and many civilizations in the uninformed past. That's one reason I have great respect the polititcian, Abe Lincoln for not hanging all 300 Indians, but only hund 38 or so after he had promised to kill or remove every Indian from the state. Regarding the largest mass hanging in history, he stated that he could not hang more Indians just to get more votes.
You state : I believe we need to put aside the "moral-ethical" card for a moment. Let's just focus on the legal component. From a a purely factual perspective:
Then you immediately strayed from the facts and the legal:
"A woman's choice to have a baby or not involves THEIR body, health and their entire future. Sure you can sit there as a MAN and not EVER having to be put in that situation and spout higher moral rhetoric, but the fact remains that you can never truly understand being in that situation"
FACT: IT IS A WOMAN'S BODY.LEGALLY HERS.
FACT: IF YOU ARE A MAN YOU CAN NOT HAVE CHILDREN AND WILL NEVER KNOW WHAT IT IS LIKE.
Sir, I do not sit here as a man and spout anything about morals.
Since you say "just focus on the legal component"
I agree it involves the woman's body, actually their physical health as well as their metal and emotional health. I agree that a woman's choice to have a baby or not affects the rights of at least 2, the Human fetus and the Human mother and very often 8 humans if you include the Fathers' rights and grandparent's rights, at least one of which will have its rights terminated without being consulted. Yes, it's the WOMAN'S body, which affects the rights of many othe humans, including one HUMAN who may or may not have it's right to continue aging and growing determined by her choice.
SEE ABOVE-YOUR DEF OF HUMAN
Hell why stop at the grandparents? What about the cousins' rights or their great-aunt's rights? They are impacted too? Or what about the banker who potentially lost the chance to sell that "eventual human" a loan? He sure would be sad it happened. That's a silly arguement.
If you want to discuss "facts"
We could sit here all day posting statistics, showing many current clinics in trouble for underreporting and covering up problems, but as a person who has also worked as a psychiatric tech, and was senior staff at a crisis hotline connected with Texas Research in Mental Science in Houston and at a hospital in Dallas, I assure you that in many cases the abortion mills are not reporting all the problems following the women out the door of their clinics, nor those which continue to follow them for many more years.. Neither are they allowing women to make informed choices by revealing to them the risks to their physical, mental and emotional health. Those not having the experiences treating nor counselling any of those women, probably won't ever understand what happens to women and their health following their uninformed choice, and what they will go through mentally and emotionally at least once a year afterwards. and Abortions, more often than not have a negative effect on the woman's health than carrying a baby full term does. If women were truley fully informed of the risks and detrimental effects they might undergo in the future, it would be a much more informed "Choice" in whether to terminate another humans right to grow, age and develop further, and their conscience years later affecting their mental and emotional health, when remembering what they have done.
You stated many. Not ALL clinics. And I bet that if there weren't such a stigma with being an abortion clinic, most of them would have the resources to provide these women. Instead of challenged to find staffing and funding, being terrified to do a great job in all apsects of treatment for fear of their building being blown up , or shot and killed in their parking lot by some pro-life zealot. All in "the name of life"! Tell me the last time you saw a news article with some Pro-choice group doing something like that? While you may have seen a lot of bad things in YOUR experience, it doesn't make you an expert and it is not necesarrily the "truth" for all clincs and all women who have had, or will consider having an abortion.
RAPE, SEXUAL ABUSE, INCEST would have already had a negative effect upon a woman's health mentally and emotionally, they are bad, and the woman's health is not NECESSARILY helped by causing the woman more pain. In fact, I raised one girl who was a product of a rape whose mother seriously consider an abortion, but chose to continue to carry the child. She works at a Credit Union in Houston now and does rather well supporting herself and has a good relationship with her mother. I imagine that as her mother ages and needs a caretaker, her daugter will be there to assist in taking care of her mother's health too. As her mother's caretaker of her mother's health, I hope she does not decide to terminate her mother's right to continue to age either.
Kudos for raising that girl. And kudos to her mother for having gone through some difficult life decsions.But who says you have the right to say that ALL women and girls who go through that, should walk down the same path? "Yeah she's been raped by her dad so she's already fucked up so she can handle having a baby at 13 years old!"
If that arguement wasn't so revolting I would laugh at it's absurdity!"
You say:
Second, just because someone is pro-choice doesn't mean that they are anti baby or pro-abortion! They just believe that a woman's right to their body, and future shouldn't be mandated by some guy sitting on capital hill who has no "skin" in her or her baby's life!
Actually pro-choice, as used by those profiting from the abortion mills, does mean pro-abortion, and offers the youngest human whose rights are affected the most no choice at all now does it?
SEE statement 1 about zygotes rights.
Yeah there are abortion mills. By using simple root-cuase anaylisis, I think you would find its real victims are women who know little about legal rights or medical options, who have seen an ad or heard a tip and go to these "mills" driven by fear, shame,loneliness for fates beyond their control to risk butchery on a table.
You asked me:
What if abortion was made illegal? Are you naive enough to believe that they would not exist?
Of course not, murder is illegal and has been around since Cain and Able, and I suspect always will be regardless of the law, it occurs behind some laundromats or back alleys anyway, that's one reason I am armed, but I don't believe it should be legalized.
You say:
perhaps the woman would do something crazy
Sir, having lived with a Schizophrenic with both psychotic and depressed episodes, and me coming home for lunch to blood all over the floor, other times stopping her from leaving the house with butcher knives sticking out of her purse, and stopping her from hitting cchildremn with flashlights until they break, and at other times administering CPR, .... I have no doubts that some women might "do something crazy" I suppose that is their CHOICE.
These are the same women that I would assume if they got pregnant, you have them keep their baby? Or perhaps you would also have a law that says, not only do we demand that once you become pregnant you must carry the baby to full term, but we the government(AKA "The All Knowings") will also decide what will happen to the baby once its born.Would that be how it worked? LOL!
You say:
Having abortion legal ensures a woman has proper, safe, sanitary, medical treatment.
I disagree. Even the skewed mis-reported statistics covered up by the abortion mills disagree. Still I'll ask, what medical condition is being "treated?" Is there some illness involved which is improved by said "treatment"?
Treatment:Administration or application of remedies to a patient or for a disease or an injury; medicinal or surgical management; therapy.
I absolutly agree with you about "Just don't force it down my throat" I have not brought up anything about any religion etc. Nor am i proposing any legislation. I'm merely asserting that all humans have inalienable rights which should not be infringed upon by any arbitrary criteria setpoint.
Humans do. Zygotes who forming inside of another host human and "may" potentially grow to be a human, do not. And by saying abortion should be 100 percent illegal, all the time in very situation for whatver reason IS propagating legislation. "You can't just say abortion should be illegal period. Now just handle the fallout amongst yourselves." That's idealist thinking. I bet you believe we can have this utopian society with just love everywhere! What flavor is your Kool-Aid?Now thats "change" we can beleive in! LOL!
You state:
Now I am not saying that your views are religiously based. Perhaps they are, perhaps not. I am not saying that your views are "wrong" per se. We are all entitled to our opinions. But having an opinion and then forcing me to follow your same "moralities" is a slippery slope.
My argument is based on human rights, rather than religion.
As far as "beliefs which are right or wrong" I also absolutly agree. My ex-wife believes that her last suicide attempt was successful and that she has been dead for the last 8 years (but we already established that in reality Schrödinger's cat can not be both alive and dead in the same place at the same time) She does however have the right to believe that.
What we have currently is a system where women are denied the right to make a fully informed CHOICE, because they are not fully informed when deciding.
Invading the rights of any human based upon any arbitrary criteria or setpoint and using legislation to do it is a slippery slope. That's exactly why I say it is dangerous.
I'm merely asserting that all humans have inalienable rights which should not be infringed upon by any arbitrary criteria setpoint.
Like telling one human that their rights are less important than the right of a cell forming in their body that they will have to provide and nourish for a minimum of nine months and possibly the rest of their life?
HEY WE DO AGREE On SOMETHING!!
1) All humans have inalienable rights.
I guess that would depend on what you would call a human.Over 100,000 women die worldwide becuase of illegal abortions. I guess those "arbitrary" lives are unimportant to you. Their rights don't mean anything becuase you state that even a zygote is a human being. Except in your argument there is no scinetfic reason to call this bunch of cell tissue a human beining. From a scientific perspective it's brain hasn't developed, it has no cpapcity for conscious thought or reasoning, and doesnt even look like a human beining. But it does have potential. If fed, nurtured and brought to its full term (all by the way at taking these from the mother) it can become a human being.By that same logic seeds can mature into plants and trees-but you can hardly make a leap that "a pile of acorns equal a forest!" Im sure even "Tree-huggers" wouldn't jump on that band wagon!
2) Discrimination "justified" by ANY arbitrary criteria, or setpoint, in depriving any human of the right to continue aging and developing, is dangerous.
What justifies the sacrifice of an actual woman's/girls life to the most basic celullar potential? How can you truly be the "champion of under dogs and have such a position?
Invading the rights of any human based upon any arbitrary criteria or setpoint and using legislation to do it is a slippery slope.
Especially any human's right to grow age and develop because of some arbitrary criteria. That's exactly why I say it is dangerous. Although Hitler pulled it off for a while, as did the Mayans, and many civilizations in the uninformed past. That's one reason I have great respect the polititcian, Abe Lincoln for not hanging all 300 Indians, but only hund 38 or so after he had promised to kill or remove every Indian from the state. Regarding the largest mass hanging in history, he stated that he could not hang more Indians just to get more votes.
You state : I believe we need to put aside the "moral-ethical" card for a moment. Let's just focus on the legal component. From a a purely factual perspective:
Then you immediately strayed from the facts and the legal:
"A woman's choice to have a baby or not involves THEIR body, health and their entire future. Sure you can sit there as a MAN and not EVER having to be put in that situation and spout higher moral rhetoric, but the fact remains that you can never truly understand being in that situation"
FACT: IT IS A WOMAN'S BODY.LEGALLY HERS.
FACT: IF YOU ARE A MAN YOU CAN NOT HAVE CHILDREN AND WILL NEVER KNOW WHAT IT IS LIKE.
Sir, I do not sit here as a man and spout anything about morals.
Since you say "just focus on the legal component"
I agree it involves the woman's body, actually their physical health as well as their metal and emotional health. I agree that a woman's choice to have a baby or not affects the rights of at least 2, the Human fetus and the Human mother and very often 8 humans if you include the Fathers' rights and grandparent's rights, at least one of which will have its rights terminated without being consulted. Yes, it's the WOMAN'S body, which affects the rights of many othe humans, including one HUMAN who may or may not have it's right to continue aging and growing determined by her choice.
SEE ABOVE-YOUR DEF OF HUMAN
Hell why stop at the grandparents? What about the cousins' rights or their great-aunt's rights? They are impacted too? Or what about the banker who potentially lost the chance to sell that "eventual human" a loan? He sure would be sad it happened. That's a silly arguement.
If you want to discuss "facts"
We could sit here all day posting statistics, showing many current clinics in trouble for underreporting and covering up problems, but as a person who has also worked as a psychiatric tech, and was senior staff at a crisis hotline connected with Texas Research in Mental Science in Houston and at a hospital in Dallas, I assure you that in many cases the abortion mills are not reporting all the problems following the women out the door of their clinics, nor those which continue to follow them for many more years.. Neither are they allowing women to make informed choices by revealing to them the risks to their physical, mental and emotional health. Those not having the experiences treating nor counselling any of those women, probably won't ever understand what happens to women and their health following their uninformed choice, and what they will go through mentally and emotionally at least once a year afterwards. and Abortions, more often than not have a negative effect on the woman's health than carrying a baby full term does. If women were truley fully informed of the risks and detrimental effects they might undergo in the future, it would be a much more informed "Choice" in whether to terminate another humans right to grow, age and develop further, and their conscience years later affecting their mental and emotional health, when remembering what they have done.
You stated many. Not ALL clinics. And I bet that if there weren't such a stigma with being an abortion clinic, most of them would have the resources to provide these women. Instead of challenged to find staffing and funding, being terrified to do a great job in all apsects of treatment for fear of their building being blown up , or shot and killed in their parking lot by some pro-life zealot. All in "the name of life"! Tell me the last time you saw a news article with some Pro-choice group doing something like that? While you may have seen a lot of bad things in YOUR experience, it doesn't make you an expert and it is not necesarrily the "truth" for all clincs and all women who have had, or will consider having an abortion.
RAPE, SEXUAL ABUSE, INCEST would have already had a negative effect upon a woman's health mentally and emotionally, they are bad, and the woman's health is not NECESSARILY helped by causing the woman more pain. In fact, I raised one girl who was a product of a rape whose mother seriously consider an abortion, but chose to continue to carry the child. She works at a Credit Union in Houston now and does rather well supporting herself and has a good relationship with her mother. I imagine that as her mother ages and needs a caretaker, her daugter will be there to assist in taking care of her mother's health too. As her mother's caretaker of her mother's health, I hope she does not decide to terminate her mother's right to continue to age either.
Kudos for raising that girl. And kudos to her mother for having gone through some difficult life decsions.But who says you have the right to say that ALL women and girls who go through that, should walk down the same path? "Yeah she's been raped by her dad so she's already fucked up so she can handle having a baby at 13 years old!"
If that arguement wasn't so revolting I would laugh at it's absurdity!"
You say:
Second, just because someone is pro-choice doesn't mean that they are anti baby or pro-abortion! They just believe that a woman's right to their body, and future shouldn't be mandated by some guy sitting on capital hill who has no "skin" in her or her baby's life!
Actually pro-choice, as used by those profiting from the abortion mills, does mean pro-abortion, and offers the youngest human whose rights are affected the most no choice at all now does it?
SEE statement 1 about zygotes rights.
Yeah there are abortion mills. By using simple root-cuase anaylisis, I think you would find its real victims are women who know little about legal rights or medical options, who have seen an ad or heard a tip and go to these "mills" driven by fear, shame,loneliness for fates beyond their control to risk butchery on a table.
You asked me:
What if abortion was made illegal? Are you naive enough to believe that they would not exist?
Of course not, murder is illegal and has been around since Cain and Able, and I suspect always will be regardless of the law, it occurs behind some laundromats or back alleys anyway, that's one reason I am armed, but I don't believe it should be legalized.
You say:
perhaps the woman would do something crazy
Sir, having lived with a Schizophrenic with both psychotic and depressed episodes, and me coming home for lunch to blood all over the floor, other times stopping her from leaving the house with butcher knives sticking out of her purse, and stopping her from hitting cchildremn with flashlights until they break, and at other times administering CPR, .... I have no doubts that some women might "do something crazy" I suppose that is their CHOICE.
These are the same women that I would assume if they got pregnant, you have them keep their baby? Or perhaps you would also have a law that says, not only do we demand that once you become pregnant you must carry the baby to full term, but we the government(AKA "The All Knowings") will also decide what will happen to the baby once its born.Would that be how it worked? LOL!
You say:
Having abortion legal ensures a woman has proper, safe, sanitary, medical treatment.
I disagree. Even the skewed mis-reported statistics covered up by the abortion mills disagree. Still I'll ask, what medical condition is being "treated?" Is there some illness involved which is improved by said "treatment"?
Treatment:Administration or application of remedies to a patient or for a disease or an injury; medicinal or surgical management; therapy.
I absolutly agree with you about "Just don't force it down my throat" I have not brought up anything about any religion etc. Nor am i proposing any legislation. I'm merely asserting that all humans have inalienable rights which should not be infringed upon by any arbitrary criteria setpoint.
Humans do. Zygotes who forming inside of another host human and "may" potentially grow to be a human, do not. And by saying abortion should be 100 percent illegal, all the time in very situation for whatver reason IS propagating legislation. "You can't just say abortion should be illegal period. Now just handle the fallout amongst yourselves." That's idealist thinking. I bet you believe we can have this utopian society with just love everywhere! What flavor is your Kool-Aid?Now thats "change" we can beleive in! LOL!
You state:
Now I am not saying that your views are religiously based. Perhaps they are, perhaps not. I am not saying that your views are "wrong" per se. We are all entitled to our opinions. But having an opinion and then forcing me to follow your same "moralities" is a slippery slope.
My argument is based on human rights, rather than religion.
As far as "beliefs which are right or wrong" I also absolutly agree. My ex-wife believes that her last suicide attempt was successful and that she has been dead for the last 8 years (but we already established that in reality Schrödinger's cat can not be both alive and dead in the same place at the same time) She does however have the right to believe that.
What we have currently is a system where women are denied the right to make a fully informed CHOICE, because they are not fully informed when deciding.
Invading the rights of any human based upon any arbitrary criteria or setpoint and using legislation to do it is a slippery slope. That's exactly why I say it is dangerous.
I'm merely asserting that all humans have inalienable rights which should not be infringed upon by any arbitrary criteria setpoint.
Like telling one human that their rights are less important than the right of a cell forming in their body that they will have to provide and nourish for a minimum of nine months and possibly the rest of their life?
HEY WE DO AGREE On SOMETHING!!
I disagree, I don't believe that any human's rights are of less importance than the others. Especially a decision based upon any arbitrary criteria such as which is bigger, fatter, stronger, or has more cells, just for the sake of convenience for nine months or however long. It rings too closely to Indians setting the weak outside to freeze to death because it's inconvenient for the stronger braves to bring more food to support them. Such as portions of some versions of Obamacare would have done to get rid of them elderly dregs of society who are soaking up Medicare/Social Security dollars.....
I believe in a really simple to understand concept, that :
1) All humans are endowed with rights (not just men, nor men of a certain race, color, religion or age)
2) Those rights are unalienable (shouldn't be deprived of such rights by any arbitrary criteria used as a justification without their input and say in the matter)
I enjoy books such as "Taking Rights Seriously" 1977, by Ronald Dworkin, which was a rebuttal to HLA Hart's book "The Concept of Law"
Though I can't find my copies of either right now ... probably accidently left them behind when I moved. Some of you reading this might enjoy looking into the concepts in both books, since many sides are presented regarding rights in each. My distant relatives, Samuel Adams, Samuel Bass, John Bass, and the John Adams father and son team, also wrote a bit about rights, so I still find the subject interesting.
