Abortion ultrasound-viewing advances in S.C.

Options
1…1819202224

Comments

  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Trau wrote:
    No, but I don't see how this question is relevant. Anti-abortion laws do not infringe on Constitutional rights.

    actually, it is quite possible they do, via the privileges and immunities clause i mentioned. i guess basic constitutional interpretation and comprehension is beyond the grasp of your intellect. but i guess i do see how much easier it is to ignore points that are inconvenient and pretend they don't exist.
    Trau wrote:
    I have said that human life begins at conception, and that that life is sacred and must be protected.

    again, we're back to this very debatable conclusion.
    Trau wrote:
    No. It got the big ones out of the way, and left the rest of the decisions to the states.

    no, it mentions a few specific and major rights reserved by the people. then it outlines the very limited role of government and its limited powers. it reserves all other activities to the states OR the people. not just the states. thus the argument here, are medical decisions personal and rights reserved by the people, or can they be regulated by the state? there are arguments on both sides. you just can't see anything beyond your own narrow and egocentric views... you'd really enjoy iran, they operate the same way.
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    Trau wrote:
    Then what was?
    "Should the legislature have the power to demand that you surrender one of your constitutionally protected rights in order to exercise another?"

    Look, you can argue about whether or not abortion rights SHOULD be constitutionally protected, but you can't dispute that, as of today, they ARE. So the question is whether or not it is appropriate for the legislature to demand that you relinquish one right in order to hold on to a different one.
    Trau wrote:
    I base that on my belief that all human beings deserve a chance at life.
    Why? What makes a human fetus more deserving than other forms of life?
    Trau wrote:
    There is a right way and a wrong way to interpret the Constitution, and not all interpretations are equally valid. It is possible for the Supreme Court to decide that something is constitutional or unconstitutional when in fact it is not.
    You may believe them to be in error. I believe that they were in error on the eminent domain decision, for example, but my belief doesn't change the fact that today in America the government has the right to take my private property away and give it to someone else. It's perfectly constitutional. I don't think it should be, but it is.
    Trau wrote:
    The Constitution's purpose is to define and limit Federal power.
    Yes ... not to define and limit the rights of citizens.
    Trau wrote:
    "The states" and "the people" are essentially the same thing. The people exercise those reserved powers through voting.
    They are not the same thing. The state has a vested interest in limiting some behaviors, but not others. I don't happen to believe that the state has a compelling interest in forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will, or in interfering with private medical decisions. Not everything in life requires government intervention. Some rights are simply OURS.
    Trau wrote:
    If it involves another human being, it isn't private.
    If it involves a human being wholly contained within my body and wholly dependent on me and me alone for survival, a being that cannot feel pain and is unaware of it's own existence, it certainly is private.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    69charger wrote:
    Neither can a two year old. Can we kill those off too?
    Oh really? So if I have a two year old and I die, the two year old automatically dies too? No one else can keep her alive?

    If I die while I'm 10 weeks pregnant, who else can keep the fetus alive?
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    hippiemom wrote:
    Oh really? So if I have a two year old and I die, the two year old automatically dies too? No one else can keep her alive?

    If I die while I'm 10 weeks pregnant, who else can keep the fetus alive?

    zing...
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Trau wrote:
    There is a lot more to parasitism than that.

    Not really, no. Parasitism is defined primarily by the symbiotic relationship between one organism and its host. Can you please describe the "lot more" you mention, rather than alluding to it?
    It's unfortunate that that is the only important difference you are able to discern between prenatal development and parasitism.

    Can you name some other "important differences", rather than just alluding to them?
    Actually, no. Sperm and eggs will not combine on their own; it takes sexual intercourse for that to happen. The process from conception to birth is automatic.

    It doesn't thake sexual intercourse for that to happen. It simply takes an environment wherein a sperm and egg can exist together whilst supporting fertilization. Thousands of children are now conceived each year absent sexual intercourse.
    People are using arbitrary milestones when they should give nature the benefit of the doubt. Using your logic, it is perfectly acceptable to conclude that a three year old child is not a human being, and can therefore be euthanized if someone decides that his or her life will be filled with suffering.

    You're entirely right -- people are using arbitrary milestones. So are you.

    And yes, using my logic one could argue that very small dependent children could be legally euthanized. Fortunately, that argument would be logically incomplete absent the truly dependent relationship between mother and child and absent the case against self-actualization that happens at a young age.

    You cannot simply make arguments from a point of convenience or attempt to fit a philosophical stance to an existing world-view. That's backwards.
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    69charger wrote:
    Neither can a two year old. Can we kill those off too?

    a two year old is a being independent of its mother. it does not rely solely on her for its survival. so in answer to your stupid question, no of course we shouldn't kill off two year olds.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    hippiemom wrote:
    Oh really? So if I have a two year old and I die, the two year old automatically dies too? No one else can keep her alive?

    If I die while I'm 10 weeks pregnant, who else can keep the fetus alive?

    Ah! Thank you!! :)

    Think I'll just let you do the talking mom!! :)
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • ForestBrain
    ForestBrain Posts: 460
    I think if a woman is pregnant and murdered, and the murderer gets two counts of murder, then abortion should be murder. However, if the murderer only gets one count of murder, then it would make more sense. Land of confusion.
    Abortion sucks, and so people who get them. I have absolutely no pity on the women that get them. I wish what happened to the baby would happen to the woman and the doctor.
    When life gives you lemons, throw them at somebody.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    ForestBrain wrote:
    I think if a woman is pregnant and murdered, and the murderer gets two counts of murder, then abortion should be murder. However, if the murderer only gets one count of murder, then it would make more sense. Land of confusion.
    Abortion sucks, and so people who get them. I have absolutely no pity on the women that get them. I wish what happened to the baby would happen to the woman and the doctor.

    funny, i was just thinking that i wish what happened to the baby would happen to people like you.
  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    soulsinging wrote:
    funny, i was just thinking that i wish what happened to the baby would happen to people like you.

    :D And I was just thinking you are right ss, that you and I do have a lot more in common than I realized! ;):D
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • B nice
    B nice Posts: 182
    i *heart* abortion
    life has nothing to do with killing time
    Bring it on cause I'm no victim

    b nice loves pearl jam like ed vedder loves america
  • B nice
    B nice Posts: 182
    ForestBrain wrote:
    I think if a woman is pregnant and murdered, and the murderer gets two counts of murder, then abortion should be murder. However, if the murderer only gets one count of murder, then it would make more sense. Land of confusion.
    Abortion sucks, and so people who get them. I have absolutely no pity on the women that get them. I wish what happened to the baby would happen to the woman and the doctor.


    if a mexican is conceived on vacation in LA is that mexican an american?
    life has nothing to do with killing time
    Bring it on cause I'm no victim

    b nice loves pearl jam like ed vedder loves america
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    people people must we fall down to the level of hate mongering, violent hypocritical anti abortionists.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    B nice wrote:
    if a mexican is conceived on vacation in LA is that mexican an american?

    a mexican was always an american. as is anyone in the americas. arbitrary borders dont change that fact.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Kann
    Kann Posts: 1,146
    ForestBrain wrote:
    I think if a woman is pregnant and murdered, and the murderer gets two counts of murder, then abortion should be murder. However, if the murderer only gets one count of murder, then it would make more sense. Land of confusion.
    Haha, but what if a woman who has been pregnant less than, say 8 weeks, is murdered and the murderer gets 1 count of murder then but would have gotten two after that period?
    Abortion sucks, and so people who get them. I have absolutely no pity on the women that get them. I wish what happened to the baby would happen to the woman and the doctor.
    I think unless you have signed the Hippocratic Oath and/or been pregnant you shouldn't be wishing anything.
  • hsewif
    hsewif Posts: 444
    hippiemom wrote:
    If I die while I'm 10 weeks pregnant, who else can keep the fetus alive?

    'alive'? you're saying a 10 week old fetus is a living thing?
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    hsewif wrote:
    'alive'? you're saying a 10 week old fetus is a living thing?
    Of course it is.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • JaneNY
    JaneNY Posts: 4,438
    hsewif wrote:
    'alive'? you're saying a 10 week old fetus is a living thing?

    Its a living thing like a plant is. Or a larva or pupa (intermediate stages of a butterfly). Its not yet a separate human being.

    edit - maybe not plant - more like a seedling. or a sprouted seed.
    R.i.p. Rigoberto Alpizar.
    R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
    R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
  • hsewif
    hsewif Posts: 444
    JaneNY wrote:
    Its a living thing like a plant is. Or a larva or pupa (intermediate stages of a butterfly). Its not yet a separate human being.

    edit - maybe not plant - more like a seedling. or a sprouted seed.

    since you mentioned seedlings...why should a farmer be eligible for assistance if his corn crop is destroyed before the ears have appeared? Does the government say "sorry but that's not really corn yet." ?

    do you get excited when you look at your tomato plants and see tons of yellow flowers? They aren't really 'tomato's' yet but you know they will be...

    and hippiemom---you're right, of course it is.

    It's a living thing, just not a baby. (which I don't believe so I'm still in abortion-rights limbo)
  • hsewif
    hsewif Posts: 444
    ForestBrain wrote:
    I think if a woman is pregnant and murdered, and the murderer gets two counts of murder, then abortion should be murder.

    that's a good point. why 2 counts of murder? Is it only 1 count if the murder takes place before 12 weeks?

Categories