Points on abortion and the crutch of supporters

gene90,If you think there's no difference between a newborn baby and one still developing inside its mother, then I guess there's truly no way we'll ever come to an understanding. On this point, we must agree to disagree.If you think a fetus has a Constitutional right to life, but the mother has no Constitutional protection from government intrusion into her reproductive choices, we must be reading different Constitutions. Please point out where the U.S. Constitution mentions concepts like 'unborn,' 'fetus,' or 'in utero.'It was not my intention to 'abuse' you. I'm sorry if I made it seem like I was opposing you instead of trying to point out the shortcomings of your viewpoint on pregnancy, a subject about which I know a lot considering I'm the father of two children.However, you have no right to say

quote:

---

Are you agreeing with Hambre that this is not a human being?

---

I never said any such thing, because I don't think that has anything to do with the issue. If this is as egregious and deceptive a tactic as it appears, then you owe me an apology. Considering that you also say

quote:

---

(Crash's words) bring back images of Nazism, racism, and eugenics all of which I find politically convenient to associate with liberalism.

---

..in that case, maybe you're intending to be as insulting and outrageous as I suspect. I don't want to waste any more time assuming that my responsible, honest opinions are being considered thoughtfully and answered in kind, if in fact they're merely being twisted to make it seem like everyone on this site is a reprehensible baby-killing Nazi.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

If you think there's no difference between a newborn baby and one still developing inside its mother, then I guess there's truly no way we'll ever come to an understanding. On this point, we must agree to disagree.

---

I agree. There is no clear solution on this issue. I cannot disprove your position as we could in a scientific argument. Every argument I can make I made two days ago, and more clearly than I can do now.

quote:

---

I never said any such thing, because I don't think that has anything to do with the issue.

---

You are welcome to comment now, if you feel it is an issue. Is it or is it not a human being?This message has been edited by gene90, 05-07-2004 11:16 AM

quote:

---

You are welcome to comment now, if you feel it is an issue.

---

I could have commented anywhere along the line, and I did not. I denied ever saying the words you put in my mouth, asserted that I don't consider how we define the humanity of the unborn the issue, and I demanded an apology. You are welcome to apologize now.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Is it or is it not a human being?You said:

quote:

---

If you think there's no difference between a newborn baby and one still developing inside its mother, then I guess there's truly no way we'll ever come to an understanding.

---

I don't see any difference, especially since it will continue developing *outside* its mother.Sounds like you mean that one of them is a human and one of them isn't.Say that it is a human being and I will apologize as having obviously mischaracterized you. Say that it is not and I will not have put any words in your mouth.Or I could just toss you an apology so you won't bother me about it. It's not worth it to me because I can't verify what you claim to have not said. I can't pull up any pages previous to this one.This message has been edited by gene90, 05-08-2004 02:35 PM

Crashfrog:Why don't you post pictures of fetuses that are in the third trimester, then the whole room will watch you retreat behind the rights issue - which isn't the exact subject in this present exchange.Why don't you describe how a god-damn money grubbing doctor aborts a fetus in the third trimester by ripping it out of the womb, legs, arms, and the beating heart then stops.You god damn hypocrite making an issue about a fictitious dead end argument concerning the rape of a female child vs. a male child then using that straw argument to launch a pseudo defense of your manhood to protect a woman in your care. You can't even admit in principle as to what a third trimester fetus looks like and protect that beating heart.Your pictoral depictions are visual inflammatory rhetoric intended to misrepresent the actual look of a mature fetus that has the indignity of being created in a climate that disregards the obvious.P.S./edit: Why don't you tell me the picture in post #225 is not what I see. The whole issue in this present exchange is about honesty. You are whitewashing that which cannot be and every honest and intelligent person knows it.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 05-07-2004 01:27 PM

I always thought third trimester fetuses looked kind of like a cross between Roswell aliens and an aging Marlon Brando.

---

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

Just like you have no right to say that it is. I'm comfortable with that - as long as neither of us have any authority to make a view, neither of us are going to be enforcing it on women.

Maybe because I already agreed that those babies probably shouldn't be aborted?WT, you'll do a lot better here if you stick to trying to refute the arguments I'm actually making, ok?

At least we can all agree that that should be avoided as much as possible.That's why we would all be interested in making sex education widely available, birth control easy to obtain and access to early abortions unobstructed (in exactly that order).

ok !

I propose a different method. We should encourage homosexuality

---

The Laminator

​

Lam...quit trying to make your dating pool larger. It only makes mine smaller.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

Your dating pool is too big! All the good guys are straight. You should share some of them with me!

---

The Laminator

​

quote:

---

Just like you have no right to say that it is.

---

When asked if a group of people is "human" or not you must always err on the side of the group in question, due to the historical precedent. Throughout history, certain groups of people have tried to deny that other groups of people are "human like us". In the Crusades we denied that non-Christian and non-Europeans were people. In the Inquisition we denied that Jews were people. In the conquests and colonization of the New World we treated Indians like non-people. In slavery we treated Africans like non-people, and the Supreme Court went along with it by making certain rulings that are terrible to our modern society but made perfect legal sense to certain peoples of the days. This is how I think Roe vs Wade is likely to look to historians of future generations.This was the short list. I could go on. We've talked about certain events in the 20th century already. Before that we had Governor Boggs of Missouri and his Extermination Order for people of a religious affiliation that was not his own. But I think you get the picture.Having denied people the right to life on the basis of gender, ethnicity, cultural affiliation and religion, the final form of legalized discrimination to the right to live in the US is based upon their place in the lifecycle. Abortion and the "right to life" are the final frontier in the human struggle for the right to exist.This message has been edited by gene90, 05-08-2004 03:16 PM

Final? Nope. The discrimination against animals is already a hot topic.