Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

[ViperOverLord]

A fetus is not a person, it's merely the possibility of a human, one that's at the early stages not even guaranteed.

I know right? There's not hands, blood, heart or anything that could be considered a person.

Denying the woman the ability to perform abortions will only drive this practise underground and endanger more women, and traumatise them further.

Nice scare tactics.

[natty dread]

There's not hands, blood, heart or anything that could be considered a person.

Monkeys have hands, blood and a heart. Is killing monkeys murder?

[ViperOverLord]

There's not hands, blood, heart or anything that could be considered a person.

Monkeys have hands, blood and a heart. Is killing monkeys murder?

If you ask PETA, yes.

Anyhow, I think its obvious that I wasn't referring to monkey hands, monkey blood or a monkey heart so your point is completely flawed anyways.

[natty dread]

There's not hands, blood, heart or anything that could be considered a person.

Monkeys have hands, blood and a heart. Is killing monkeys murder?

If you ask PETA, yes.

Anyhow, I think its obvious that I wasn't referring to monkey hands, monkey blood or a monkey heart so your point is completely flawed anyways.

It was your point that was flawed, I was only pointing that out.

If it's enough to define something as "human" that it has "hands, blood and heart", then monkeys can be defined as human.

Do you define monkeys as human? What about orangutangs? Chimpanzees? Gorillas?

[PLAYER57832]

All right. Here is another stab at it... why murder is wrong:

1. It is murder

---yes, I just did that. Argued that murder is wrong by saying that murder is wrong. But I felt it needed to be said again.

2. It is against the law to kill someone. This doesn't seem to be a moral argument at first, but when you think about it, you are putting yourself above the law when you murder, and in essence acting out the belief that you are better than everyone else who follows the law.

Killing is not the same as murder. It just is not. Police can kill, someone can kill in self-defense, soldiers kill, all within the the law.

3. It is stealing. You can not return another's life. It belongs to someone else. And you take it w/o any right (b/c their life does not belong to you).

Who decides the "right". Also, a child's life does not belong to him/herself fully, not until they are adults.

4. If all human beings are equal, then taking someone's life says that you are better than them.

All human beings are not equal. We have the right to equal opportunity, arguably, but that is not the reality of life.

5. love your neighbor as yourself. If you would not want to be murdered, then do not murder.

And here you make judgements for other people you don't even know.

Have you any experience at all with a severely, severly disabled child? With a child who was heavily abused? Ask them, ask their families if maybe, had they the choice, they would have chosen something other than life. For all you want to say its always "life", the real truth is its not always. Soem children are born into suffering beyond belief. That, to me is horror. Not a quick death.

Also, you have varied ideas about the soul. Many people feel that if a child is not born, the soul is still "available" for another, healthy birth. This is not necessarily the Christian view, but who are you to tell someone else their beliefs are wrong?

6. Murder does not only hurt who you murdered, but causes hurt for those who cared about them. This can also be considered immoral

This is true, but irrelevant as noted above. We are not talkig murder here.

[PLAYER57832]

I didn't see this information in the articles I read -- would the law make it illegal for a Mississippi citizen to travel to another state for an abortion?

States don't have the right to make laws for other states just as the USA doesn't have the right to make laws for other countries even though GWB took that undue power when he signed a law that enforced an age of consent beyond American borders for Americans. My guess would be that the law would not apply to other states as that would be very easy to overturn.

You can bet Mississippi will try.

[john9blue]

So wait if a woman rejects your advances, she suddenly has committed a crime against nature?
If I ask you to donate sperm to a sperm bank and you refuse, denying the chance to propagate your genes, is that suddenly a crime?
Is wearing a condom, having a vasectomy, or the woman takes the morning after pill suddenly denying the the fetuses the possibility to mature and propagate its genes?

What a bunch of loaded rubbish, you don't have the duty to propagate your genes, it's very much a choice.

aborted fetuses have no choice. that is the difference between abortion and the other things you listed.

A fetus is not a person, it's merely the possibility of a human, one that's at the early stages not even guaranteed.

yes. and that is worth preserving.

Anyway thanks for clearly pointing out the roots o the anti-abortion movement: in general the movement to try and stop methods of contraception. One that may be very pertinent on religious grounds, they need their members, but doesn't have reasonable moral grounds. Denying the woman the ability to perform abortions will only drive this practise underground and endanger more women, and traumatise them further.

Methinks someone should keep to remaining "neutral" (read: snarkily criticising left wingers at every position)

so you say my reason for being anti-abortion is religious...

...then you say it's because i hate women...

...then you say it's because i hate left-wingers...

...you're grasping at straws here. it doesn't matter what my motivation is. respond to the argument itself.

[Symmetry]

To Symmetry:

Thanks for stepping back a little. I genuinely believe that there's a decent amount of middle ground for discussion of abortion without accusing one side of supporting murder, or the other side immediately pleading rape and incest cases. I hope, at least, that some of this will stick and you might consider rephrasing some of your rhetoric from the absolutes.

Of course, I disagree with the abortion only makes it worse part at the end of your response, but I suspect that you're arguing from a fairly general moral standpoint, whereas I'm thinking more in terms of what's worse for the victim, sympathetically. It's one of the extreme cases, but it's difficult not to go pro-choice on it.

Me and you are obviously not on the same page here. If by stepping back a little you mean that we agree on choosing baby dies over mother and baby dies then yes we do agree. But I don't think you see where I am coming from when you say "without accusing one side of supporting murder..." and "rephrasing some of your rhetoric."

So, trying to get us on the same page here... think about it this way. Imagine that you know/believe that embryos are human and alive, and that you believe that this is murder and on top of all of the moral reasons against murder, it goes against the foundation of your country (American Declaration). Wouldn't you use heated rhetoric? Wouldn't you believe that it was your duty to stop the mass genocide from occurring? Wouldn't you think that it was your duty to speak out and defend the defenseless? I mean, you obviously don't actually believe that pro-life people really think that babies are being murdered if you don't understand their heated rhetoric. You are arguing against someone who thinks that abortion is murder, yet apparently I can't say that? That seems a bit unfair. I could argue that not calling it murder offends me (which it does, but this is an argument so everything goes).

Also, when you said "absolutes", you are either alive and therefore deserve life or aren't. So if that is an absolute, then do you disagree with that? Are you wanting to go for a progressive argument to life? that 3 year olds have less of a right to life than 17 year olds? I will assume not, but let me know...

So the whole argument that we are having seems to rest on whether or not life begins at conception or birth. I will just focus on these two now b/c it seems that we are all in agreement that you do not become progressively more alive as you grow older (although we can come back to that if you want).

Life (as defined by Dictionary.com) is - the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

These traits are not visible in sperm. Nor are they visible in eggs. They are however visible after conception in embryos and fetuses, who both metabolize (grow) and adapt to their environment. So at conception you have a living human being. This is a fact.

So then the only question becomes, and I believe Metsfanmax put it well: Why is it actually wrong to kill a fetus? From whence he then goes on to talk about how abortion should be legal until birth... one day before. So... to answer his question of why it is wrong, it is b/c it diminishes our right to life. It is the wedge that has been inserted into the right to life, that can and will be (unless we stop it here and now) used to take away everyones right to life. Right now only the most defenseless and powerless have lost this right, but this is just a foreshadowing to when only the most powerful have the right to life.

So the question then becomes which is arbitrary/more arbitrary? Birth is an arbitrary date... the only difference between an unborn fetus and a born "baby" is that one is 99% dependent, while the other is 95% dependent. The crux of Metsfanmax's whole argument for abortion is the fact of dependency. According to this logic, why should babies have the right to life? It's involuntary servitude of the parents, right? I mean, if dad looses job and baby is too expensive, why is it wrong to kill the baby? How dare that dumb baby be dependent on its parents! How wrong!

But what makes this argument really horrifying is that we should be saying that precisely b/c the fetus and embryos are almost completely dependent, this stage in life requires the most care. But this pro-choice argument says that b/c they are dependent, "parasitic", they are disposable. I mean really? Parasitic? The embryos and fetuses did no harm and came into being through no fault of their own. Their parents created them. It seems silly that you would create something just to destroy it. But you know why this whole abortion issue is even being debated? B/c none of the aborted babies get a say. None of us were ever aborted.

Well, that's kind of a long post, and I might even say that perhaps you're backing down on some of the rhetoric even while claiming not to be. That's not intended as a kind of passive aggressive trolling, but I think you acknowledge that the rehetoric is heated, and that in some cases you wouldn't consider abortion to be the criminal act that murder implies.

Now you might think that I don't understand your viewpoint on this, and perhaps you're right. You're a pretty thoughtful poster, obviously, and you clearly don't buy in to the absolute of abortion as evil- even that small exception for ectopic pregnancies suggests that you aren't alligned with the extreme view of abortion as being murder, as advocated in Chile.

Now I fundamentally diagree with your premise that the debate is about whether life begins at conception, or birth. Most policies around the world on abortion don't follow that standard. Rather the debate seems to be about whether it begins at conception, or some point of viability during the pregnancy. It's easy to portray the other side as advocating a free for all on abortions up until the actual date, but in practice it's a strawman, and as you yourself have acknowledged that you would support late term abortions in certain cases- specifically when the life of the mother is under significant threat, rather a bizarre one for you to be making.

My point on the heated rhetoric is that it's pretty hateful. Abortion is abortion, not genocide, or murder. There is the possiblity to disagree with it as a practice without demonisation. The problem of poor comparisons emerges- when you say an abortion doctor is as bad as Hitler, then Hitler is only as bad as an abortion doctor. Poorly thought out comparisons can cut both ways.

[BigBallinStalin]

why discriminate against dead organisms?

organisms are alive by definition

"dead organism" is like "married bachelor"

=P

But moving to the point. You said that a fetus and an adult human being are the same organisms. How is a fetus at the moment of conception the exact same organism as a human adult?

it's the same being... unless you want to argue that an adult has many more features than the fetus, or is much larger, etc. in which case you have to argue the same for a child.

same being != same organism, so... :/

nevertheless, fetuses contain unique genetic material. if the meaning of living is to propagate your genes, and you deny the fetus a chance to mature and propagate its genes, then i view that as a crime against nature.

If the meaning of living is to propagate genes, then everyone should be fucking right now. Drop everything and f*ck!--BUT no contraceptives, please! And no gay sex! That's not propagating one's genes! And everyone should donate to sperm banks, in order to propagate one's genes, of course.

So, that's not a good enough reason because the meaning of one's life is subjectively determined.


If denying the fetus a chance to mature is a crime "against nature," then it is also criminal to use contraceptives. It's also criminal to engage in any activity which could deny the fetus the chance to mature, so why not keep pregnant women under house arrest, or in protective bubbles? They could do something unforeseeable which could decrease the chance of a fetus to mature. They might bump into something and decrease the chances of the fetus to mature--those silly pregnant women!

And what is a "crime against nature"? What does that mean?

[BigBallinStalin]

Everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot.

I disagree!

....

DAMNIT! I'm an idiot...

[john9blue]

*a* meaning of living

my bad

[Juan_Bottom]

To John,
I'm not sure at what point an embryo becomes a baby. . . . perhaps it's at the point that a baby can survive outside of the womb, or perhaps its when a fetus can feel pain. I honestly don't know, and there doesn't appear to be any consensus on the matter.

Quick facts:

At 20 weeks a fetus will pull away from abortive instruments. It's a move, interpreted by many to be in self-defense.

A fetus's brain can detect/feel pain between 20-25 weeks.

Baby's have their unique fingerprint by 3 months.

By 7 months baby's can open and close their eyelids and follow light.

[Army of GOD]

WHALES ARE PEOPLE

[BigBallinStalin]

*a* meaning of living

my bad

And that's still a bad reason. It doesn't show how your meaning of life trumps others or should even be followed by everyone.

Care to explain that "crime against nature" bit?

[Juan_Bottom]

WHALES ARE PEOPLE

Should Ape Fetuses be protected too since we share 98% of the same makeup?

I've really been watching Mississippi closely lately, haven't I?

Mississippi Shows How You Handle Westboro Freaks
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 98&start=0

Mississippi Republicans hate mixed marriages
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 8&t=142643

[john9blue]

To John,
I'm not sure at what point an embryo becomes a baby. . . . perhaps it's at the point that a baby can survive outside of the womb, or perhaps its when a fetus can feel pain. I honestly don't know, and there doesn't appear to be any consensus on the matter.

Quick facts:

At 20 weeks a fetus will pull away from abortive instruments. It's a move, interpreted by many to be in self-defense.

A fetus's brain can detect/feel pain between 20-25 weeks.

Baby's have their unique fingerprint by 3 months.

By 7 months baby's can open and close their eyelids and follow light.

what i don't understand is this: why would you not want to err on the side of caution? why wouldn't you want to prohibit the killing of something that may or may not be human?

*a* meaning of living

my bad

And that's still a bad reason. It doesn't show how your meaning of life trumps others or should even be followed by everyone.

Care to explain that "crime against nature" bit?

i said crime against nature to distinguish it from a legal crime recognized by a government

[Symmetry]

To John,
I'm not sure at what point an embryo becomes a baby. . . . perhaps it's at the point that a baby can survive outside of the womb, or perhaps its when a fetus can feel pain. I honestly don't know, and there doesn't appear to be any consensus on the matter.

Quick facts:

At 20 weeks a fetus will pull away from abortive instruments. It's a move, interpreted by many to be in self-defense.

A fetus's brain can detect/feel pain between 20-25 weeks.

Baby's have their unique fingerprint by 3 months.

By 7 months baby's can open and close their eyelids and follow light.

what i don't understand is this: why would you not want to err on the side of caution? why wouldn't you want to prohibit the killing of something that may or may not be human?

*a* meaning of living

my bad

And that's still a bad reason. It doesn't show how your meaning of life trumps others or should even be followed by everyone.

Care to explain that "crime against nature" bit?

i said crime against nature to distinguish it from a legal crime recognized by a government

How does nature recognise crimes against it? Just for the sake of distinguishing...

[The Fire Knight]

To Snakepain:

In this thread I see a whole lot of men debating about whether or not a woman has the right to control her own body


In this thread I see a whole lot of people who were not killed before they were born arguing about whether or not babies have the right to be born and not to be slaughtered.

Comments... Um... there are just as many women who recognize that fetuses and embryos are babies, are alive, are human, and deserve to live as there are men who do.

Also... who told you I was a man? I only got my sex-change last Friday (in order to not be subjected to the indentured servitude of being pregnant of course), and I didn't think most people knew about it yet.

There is a simple solution for those who are against abortion - Don't have any-

"There is a simple solution for those who are against murder - don't do it"
"There is a simple solution for those who are against slavery - don't buy slaves"
"There is a simple solution for those who are against rape - don't rape people"
"There is a simple solution for those who are against child abuse - don't abuse children"
"There is a simple solution for those who are against genocide - don't participate in genocide"
"There is a simple solution for those who are against people in government who ignore the constitution - read it as a bedtime fantasy story and daydream what it would be like to live in a society that protects its own people"

In the mean time, let the women of the world have the ability to dictate what happens to their own bodies --


In the mean time wait until you can ask the baby if it wants to be aborted before aborting it.
In the mean time let all people of the world realize what is happening to our rights and have the strength to stand up for life.
In the mean time go read my posts before interjecting with your stupid and ignorant comments.

Basically - Men have practically no say in whether or not a woman chooses to have an abortion - They are not the ones who have to end up squeezing an 8 pound baby through a tiny hole - -

Basically - everyone has the right and the responsibility to stop this genocide. They are not the ones dying, but it is only right to save those who are.

Basically - The world has practically no say in whether or not hutus kill tutsis or jews are gassed. They are not the ones who have to live with the "cockroaches" and "long-nosed Jewish slime".

Basically - Shut up.

[The Fire Knight]

To PLAYER57832:

Killing is not the same as murder. It just is not. Police can kill, someone can kill in self-defense, soldiers kill, all within the the law.

If killing is not the same as murder, then how is abortion killing and not murder? Abortion is not self-defense. If there is some other reason that this is "killing" and not murder, then it up to you to prove that. Is it because it is convenient?

Who decides the "right". Also, a child's life does not belong to him/herself fully, not until they are adults.

A child has the right to live. The part of a child's life that they do not control is the how the parents care for them. This is why you can send your child to swim lesson or gymnastics, or church or a mosque. But you can not kill them, or even deprive them.

All human beings are not equal. We have the right to equal opportunity, arguably, but that is not the reality of life.

You're right. Not all human beings are equal. But they are all created equal under the law. And they all "have the right to equal opportunity". And you're are also right in saying that is not the reality of life. One example of this that strikes me off the top of my head is how aborted babies have much less opportunity than you or I do.

And here you make judgements for other people you don't even know.

Have you any experience at all with a severely, severly disabled child? With a child who was heavily abused? Ask them, ask their families if maybe, had they the choice, they would have chosen something other than life. For all you want to say its always "life", the real truth is its not always. Soem children are born into suffering beyond belief. That, to me is horror. Not a quick death.

Also, you have varied ideas about the soul. Many people feel that if a child is not born, the soul is still "available" for another, healthy birth. This is not necessarily the Christian view, but who are you to tell someone else their beliefs are wrong?


love your neighbor as yourself makes judgements for other people?

And yes, I have had some experience. In fact, there is a program at my church called Friday Night Friends where volunteers take care of and have fun with disabled kids and do all sorts of fun things with them while the parents take a break from their hectic lives and have a night to themselves. Next time I see someone disabled, perhaps I will ask them if they wished they had never been born. As to their families, I have heard mothers with autistic kids speak on how their autistic children were a shock and viewed as a tragedy at first, but then how they came to view it as a blessing in disguise. I have heard a mother who I had never seen in my life before she talked about her child get in front of the congregation and sing a beautiful song written about and to her son, how life was hard, but that he was still her son.

And, regardless of all of this, both you and I know that most abortions are not performed because of disabilities.

Also, souls are completely irrelevant here. If you believe that people have souls, they obviously are there when life begins. If you do not, it does not matter, b/c our government guarantees everyone the right to life. And who am I to tell someone else their beliefs are wrong? Should Europe have remained silent about the Jews? Who were the abolitionists to tell the southern slave holders that slavery was wrong? They were radicals and hated too by many. Also... while we're on the subject of southern slavery...

Do you know one of the reasons that South was so entrenched into slavery? B/c their whole economic way of life was caught up in slavery. The South was practically built on slavery. W/o slaves, farming would be much less profitable to them, and they couldn't just switch to be the industrial north overnight. Basically, the South had a vested interest in arguing for slavery. Not being accusatory or anything here, but I would question whether or not pro-choice people have a vested interest in keeping abortion legal. It sure is would be easier for all of us who make it past birth.

[The Fire Knight]

To Symmetry:

Well, that's kind of a long post, and I might even say that perhaps you're backing down on some of the rhetoric even while claiming not to be. That's not intended as a kind of passive aggressive trolling, but I think you acknowledge that the rehetoric is heated, and that in some cases you wouldn't consider abortion to be the criminal act that murder implies.

Now you might think that I don't understand your viewpoint on this, and perhaps you're right. You're a pretty thoughtful poster, obviously, and you clearly don't buy in to the absolute of abortion as evil- even that small exception for ectopic pregnancies suggests that you aren't alligned with the extreme view of abortion as being murder, as advocated in Chile.

Here is my belief, and this may be a reason why you believe that I am backing down on some of my rhetoric. I do consider abortion to be the criminal act that murder implies. And I do believe that abortion is evil. However, good people can make terrible mistakes. And bad people can realize how wrong they have been and change. It is hard for me to sympathize with pro-choice people when I view their actions as so wrong. But when you are able to empathize with someone, and see it from their point of view, then you can not help but soften a little bit. Everything is forgivable; it is not about what you have done but who you are. The main goal is not punishment, repaying evil for evil, but overcoming evil with good.

Now I fundamentally diagree with your premise that the debate is about whether life begins at conception, or birth. Most policies around the world on abortion don't follow that standard. Rather the debate seems to be about whether it begins at conception, or some point of viability during the pregnancy. It's easy to portray the other side as advocating a free for all on abortions up until the actual date, but in practice it's a strawman, and as you yourself have acknowledged that you would support late term abortions in certain cases- specifically when the life of the mother is under significant threat, rather a bizarre one for you to be making.

"Most policies around the world" has nothing to do with what is right or what is American. And I can use all of the logos, pathos, and ethos, I want in my arguments on how life begins at conception. But the fact is, it's very hard to catch people when they are so very good at dodging. But luckily, it's not me that has to catch you, nor the pro-life movement, your country, or even the world. The truth that has already caught everyone, I just hope that society will eventually realize this and embrace the truth. It too thousands of years for slavery, and it takes a while for every genocide as well.

Logically embryos have all the genetic information in them to form every trait of the human beings. Logically when something turns from doing nothing to growing rapidly it is alive. Logically this is the point where humans must get rights, otherwise all of our rights are in danger do to arbitrary limitations.

Ethically if there was even a minute chance that embryos/fetuses were alive/human/have souls/deserving of life then we should all be storming the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade because this is a mistake that we can not afford to take chances on.

Pathologically look at the fetuses yourself. Take a good long look. Now grab one and throw it in the trash. Or just crush it with your fingers, depending on how big it is.

Also... as to the straw man, I'm pretty sure Metsfanmax was advocating "free for all on abortions up until the actual date"

My point on the heated rhetoric is that it's pretty hateful. Abortion is abortion, not genocide, or murder. There is the possiblity to disagree with it as a practice without demonisation. The problem of poor comparisons emerges- when you say an abortion doctor is as bad as Hitler, then Hitler is only as bad as an abortion doctor. Poorly thought out comparisons can cut both ways.

I do not want to come across as demonizing. I do not hate pro-choice people... Although they do make me really angry it is their ideas and the practice itself that I hate. As to comparisons... the Hitler/abortion doctor does not really work as an analogy. The Nazi guards would equal abortion doctors, pro-choice people would equal the silent german people. And those who get abortions would be those who turned in Jews. There are differences and these comparisons will definitely make some people mad, but I am fine with that. It's a small price to pay. Evil is clever, and used to trick us one way. It used to trick us with race. But now we have caught onto it, and have called it out for what it is. Evil used to trick us with religion. But now we have caught onto it, and have called it out for what it is. Now Evil is tricking us by disguising itself as insignificant. As women's rights. As convenient. As practical. As caring. As necessary. This is a lot harder to catch onto. In a sense, it is just like co-evolution, with evil and good evolving together in an eternal struggle. Just like diseases and animals. And just like those, just as many lives are at stake here.

Also... here is another site that I hope someone will look at. Although no one looked at/commented on the last one so...
http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.aspx

[Metsfanmax]

Here's a link that I'm happy about:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/0 ... lp00000009

[john9blue]

Here's a link that I'm happy about:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/0 ... lp00000009

hey just wondering, do you consider this fair and unbiased journalism?

[Metsfanmax]

Here's a link that I'm happy about:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/0 ... lp00000009

hey just wondering, do you consider this fair and unbiased journalism?

Didn't really matter to me. I was more interested in the actual news than the way this particular source spun it.

[natty dread]

Logically embryos have all the genetic information in them to form every trait of the human beings. Logically when something turns from doing nothing to growing rapidly it is alive. Logically this is the point where humans must get rights, otherwise all of our rights are in danger do to arbitrary limitations.

Just because you assert something based on your own beliefs doesn't make it "logical".

[MeDeFe]

Logically embryos have all the genetic information in them to form every trait of the human beings. Logically when something turns from doing nothing to growing rapidly it is alive. Logically this is the point where humans must get rights, otherwise all of our rights are in danger do to arbitrary limitations.

Logically all human cells have all the genetic information in them to form every trait of the human being. Logically when something turns from doing nothing to growing rapidly it is alive. Logically this is the point where cancer must get rights, otherwise all of our rights are in danger do to arbitrary limitations.