Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
which "other guy" ?
I guess he means ilw.:unsure:
Oh.
I forgot about Ian.
Other guyS, then. :P
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Ok so under what circumstances would you want abortion allowed?
When survival of the mother is jeopardized.
In case of rape.
In case of incest.
These are personal views; I don't expect resultant laws will be so constrictive, but then, I've got my vote, which I would freely use.
Do you believe a fertilized egg is the same as a person and entitled to the right to live?
I do, but logic restricts me to forcing the issue only at the point such can be positively determined to have occurred.
I would be pained to hold someone's access to a preventive "pill" on a mere presumption.
You realize, of course, that no one would be the wiser until pre-natal care is sought, so the point is, practically, (though sadly) moot.
Again, I reserve the right to revise and extend.
Thanks for finally answering.
How do you justify the killing of a person in cases of rape or incest?
How do you justify the possible killing of a person just because it's not provable?
You must understand that I see contradictions in your thinking.
Your logic...
1. A fertilized egg is a person.
2. This person can be killed to save the mother.
3. This person can be killed if the mother was raped.
4. This person can be killed if the mother was incestuous.
5. It ok to use the morning after pill since, in each instance of it's use, there is no proof that a person was killed. However, it has been proven that the morning after pill does kill a person in the womb but not in all instances.
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
I guess he means ilw.:unsure:
Oh.
I forgot about Ian.
Other
guyS, then. :P
Oh ok.
Biggles and vidcc (with his one comment).
I understand.
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Oh.
I forgot about Ian.
Other guyS, then. :P
was this the "unwarrented conclusion" :unsure:
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
To be honest busy I think kev. is reasonable on the actual abortion part of the issue
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I do, but logic restricts me to forcing the issue only at the point such can be positively determined to have occurred.
I would be pained to hold someone's access to a preventive "pill" on a mere presumption.
You realize, of course, that no one would be the wiser until pre-natal care is sought, so the point is, practically, (though sadly) moot.
Again, I reserve the right to revise and extend.
Thanks for
finally answering.
How do you justify the killing of a person in cases of rape or incest?
How do you justify the possible killing of a person just because it's not provable?
You must understand that I see contradictions in your thinking.
Indeed I do, and I freely acknowledge them, but would you throw over the whole argument against abortion because of a narrowly-applicable insolubility?
Do you see any contradictions in the pro-abortion stance, at all, at all.
Your logic...
1. A fertilized egg is a person.
2. This person can be killed to save the mother.
3. This person can be killed if the mother was raped.
4. This person can be killed if the mother was incestuous.
5. It ok to use the morning after pill since, in each instance of it's use, there is no proof that a person was killed. However, it has been proven that the morning after pill does kill a person in the womb but not in all instances.
Okay, have it your way, then:
In a perfect world, the pregnant victim of a rape wants the baby, carries it to term, and gives birth.
The rapist is found, guilt is determined, and he is summarily (but humanely) euthanized.
In a perfect world, the victim of incest (presumably a minor) wants the baby, carries it to term and gives birth.
The incestuous offender will be found, tried for guilt, and summarily shot.
If it is determined the baby has been born with any congenital defect, the incestuous offender will be shot twice.
Users of RU-486 or the like get a pass, owing to the aforementioned "loophole".
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
was this the "unwarrented conclusion" :unsure:
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
To be honest busy I think kev. is reasonable on the actual abortion part of the issue
I am reasonable, but since you were enamored of dragging in shit from other threads, I figured I'd try it to see how it worked.
If you sincerely desire an exclusion of your own, I will grant it, but only after you state your case, so I can determine if it is...reasonable.
It's a goose/gander thing, you see. ;)
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Indeed I do, and I freely acknowledge them, but would you throw over the whole argument against abortion because of a narrowly-applicable insolubility?
Do you see any contradictions in the pro-abortion stance, at all, at all.
Actually I do throw out most of the argument against abortion because the crux of the argument is that a fertilized egg is a person. Yet you deem it ok to kill a person is cases of
1. Rape
2. Incest
3. Dubious unprovables
It's quite simple.
What's the pro-abortion stance?
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
but since you were enamored of dragging in shit from other threads,
don't be so harsh on yourself, I may often disagree with your posts, and sometimes wonder how someone can type so much and not actually say anything, but I never think of your posts as "shit":P
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Yet you deem it ok to kill a person is cases of
1. Rape
2. Incest
3. Dubious unprovables
The guilty person; yes.
It's quite simple.
What's the pro-abortion stance?
The pro-abortion stance promotes the provision of absolutely unfettered access by the full age-range of impregnable females to the widest possible variety of abortion procedures without concern for parental or marital notifications, no questions asked.
A shroud of non-accountabilty is granted to protect and insulate the providers of such services from inquiry by the public which funds their activities.
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Yet you deem it ok to kill a person is cases of
1. Rape
2. Incest
3. Dubious unprovables
The guilty person; yes.
Exactly my point. How is the child guilty due to those cases?
It's quite simple.
What's the pro-abortion stance?
The pro-abortion stance promotes the provision of absolutely unfettered access by the full age-range of impregnable females to the widest possible variety of abortion procedures without concern for parental or marital notifications, no questions asked.
A shroud of non-accountabilty is granted to protect and insulate the providers of such services from inquiry by the public which funds their activities.
Where's the contradiction?:ermm: I don't think there is one pro choice or pro life stance.
While I don't agree with the stance you laid out, it make more sense than your stance. The basic point of your stance is inconsistent. You aim is to protect the unborn 'cause it's a person yet would kill it either due to YOUR perceived inconvenience or ignorance of there being a killing when it has been proven that certain medicine does kill.
