Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

If a girl is raped and pregnant, should she keep the baby?

Page 63 of 94 [ 1500 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 ... 94  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

22 Sep 2011, 1:03 am

Inuyasha wrote:
LKL wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
And people wonder why I think most liberals on this site have no credibility whatsoever...

Actually, what people wonder is why you think that you have any credibility whatsoever, especially in anything that touches on science or medicine.


I'm only against science when ethics are not followed which in the case of abortion, ethics have been thrown out the proverbial airlock.

LKL wrote:
For the record: Doctors and other medical personnel are leftist progressives, according to Inuyasha.


You do realize pro-life doctors whom refuse to perform abortions would actually disagree with the definition you gave and would instead go with the one that I supplied. Furthermore, I don't consider abortionists to be doctors because they have violated the 1st rule of being a doctor.

Which first rule?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
The one where you swear to teach anyone who asks, without demanding a fee?
Or the one where you swear to respect scientific progress?



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

22 Sep 2011, 1:06 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Oodain wrote:
and it blew over him that we were talking of his understanding and not his opinion of science


:roll:

No, I noticed your attempt to claim that I somehow don't understand things, I was just going to let it slide, but since you followed up, you have demonstrated why many on the right think people on the left are a bunch of arrogant idiots that have their heads up their behinds.

most of us are well aware that crackers think that science is a matter of opinion rather than data fit.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

22 Sep 2011, 1:50 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Oodain wrote:
and it blew over him that we were talking of his understanding and not his opinion of science


:roll:

No, I noticed your attempt to claim that I somehow don't understand things, I was just going to let it slide, but since you followed up, you have demonstrated why many on the right think people on the left are a bunch of arrogant idiots that have their heads up their behinds.

You want to start insulting my intelligence, I would suggest you not dish it out if you can't take it being thrown back in your face.

Image


now i never said anything about your intelligence, i dont believe in that concept, what matters is perception and thought patterns and yours simply dont seem to take science seriously or you really dont understand.

if you go back and read i dont care much for mud slinging i have been consistently pointing out flawed arguments through this thread,
i do admit i am fed up with it so the tone has changed but i am still only calling what i see.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

22 Sep 2011, 7:37 am

Inuyasha wrote:
The fact we are having a huge population shrinkage from abortion is also affecting the economy in a negative fashion, so your argument doesn't work.


We are not having a population shrinkage. Our population is still growing.

Furthermore, countries with the highest birth rates are the world's poorest countries.

Increasing our birth rate will only reduce living standards. Especially in light of the fact that Inuyasha wants raped women to die in the street. Countries that stone raped women to death are more humane than that.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

22 Sep 2011, 9:04 am

Inuyasha wrote:
The fact we are having a huge population shrinkage from abortion is also affecting the economy in a negative fashion, so your argument doesn't work.
Yeah, it is impossible to insult your intelligence...


_________________
.


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

22 Sep 2011, 3:37 pm

pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
The fact we are having a huge population shrinkage from abortion is also affecting the economy in a negative fashion, so your argument doesn't work.


We are not having a population shrinkage. Our population is still growing.

Furthermore, countries with the highest birth rates are the world's poorest countries.

Increasing our birth rate will only reduce living standards. Especially in light of the fact that Inuyasha wants raped women to die in the street. Countries that stone raped women to death are more humane than that.


I'm not counting illegal immigration...

Anyways, the issue is now going on the Mississippi ballot as a Constitutional Amendment to declare that someone is a person from conception to natural death. Contrary to what the Planned Parenthood crowd will claim.

First heard about this on radio.
1. Does not affect some contraceptives (only affects one with a particular chemical that is effective after conception), so morning after pill would be legal.

2. Doctor can perform abortion in the case there is no way to save child, but mother can be saved.

Source to confirm existence of amendment:
JACKSON, MS, September 12, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Mississippi Supreme Court on Thursday rejected an appeal by Planned Parenthood to keep a “Personhood Amendment” off the November 2011 general election ballot.

Mississippi’s Personhood Amendment 26 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to define the word “person” or “persons” to “include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/planne ... od-amendm/



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

22 Sep 2011, 6:58 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
The fact we are having a huge population shrinkage from abortion is also affecting the economy in a negative fashion, so your argument doesn't work.


We are not having a population shrinkage. Our population is still growing.

Furthermore, countries with the highest birth rates are the world's poorest countries.

Increasing our birth rate will only reduce living standards. Especially in light of the fact that Inuyasha wants raped women to die in the street. Countries that stone raped women to death are more humane than that.


I'm not counting illegal immigration...

Anyways, the issue is now going on the Mississippi ballot as a Constitutional Amendment to declare that someone is a person from conception to natural death. Contrary to what the Planned Parenthood crowd will claim.

First heard about this on radio.
1. Does not affect some contraceptives (only affects one with a particular chemical that is effective after conception), so morning after pill would be legal.

2. Doctor can perform abortion in the case there is no way to save child, but mother can be saved.

Source to confirm existence of amendment:
JACKSON, MS, September 12, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Mississippi Supreme Court on Thursday rejected an appeal by Planned Parenthood to keep a “Personhood Amendment” off the November 2011 general election ballot.

Mississippi’s Personhood Amendment 26 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to define the word “person” or “persons” to “include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.”


Oh yeah, since most people are stupid and misonystic, let's prove ourselves right with a vote. Sounds great.

Do you really buy this s**t? Say what you will about 45 days old fetuses. But calling it a person After conception is just BS. Have as many votes as you wish. No vote will ever make this:
Image A person.

While Missipipi attacks human rights through this if they succeed, the only solution for its citizens will be to go clandestine. If the law is stupid and unjustified then breaking it is the only option. Clandestine abortions for everyone.


Quote:
I'm not counting illegal immigration...

How convenient, isn't it? You claim that lack of population harms the economy , yet when someone points you that immigration would be a great fix for it, you decide to just ignore it.


_________________
.


Beauty_pact
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Age: 145
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,314
Location: Svíþjoð

22 Sep 2011, 8:17 pm

Those of you who over and over keep arguing against these anti-abortionists should try to get a career in politics, or similar, instead. You will accomplish very little, here.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

22 Sep 2011, 11:11 pm

US birth rates:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5449a5.htm

Yeah, we're going to vanish from the earth soon.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

23 Sep 2011, 11:42 am

Inuyasha wrote:
1. Does not affect some contraceptives (only affects one with a particular chemical that is effective after conception), so morning after pill would be legal.


I wouldn't be so sure about that. Implantation does not occur until well after conception. A drug therapy that interferes with the implantation of an already conceived foetus is probably going to fall on the wrong side of such an amendment.

Quote:
2. Doctor can perform abortion in the case there is no way to save child, but mother can be saved.


Note to pregnant women: the way to get a legal abortion is to inflict a life threatening injury on yourself without directly harming the foetus. You may think I am being facetious--but look at the "knitting needle" stories before you get too smug.


_________________
--James


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

23 Sep 2011, 1:45 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
1. Does not affect some contraceptives (only affects one with a particular chemical that is effective after conception), so morning after pill would be legal.


I wouldn't be so sure about that. Implantation does not occur until well after conception. A drug therapy that interferes with the implantation of an already conceived foetus is probably going to fall on the wrong side of such an amendment.

Quote:
2. Doctor can perform abortion in the case there is no way to save child, but mother can be saved.


Note to pregnant women: the way to get a legal abortion is to inflict a life threatening injury on yourself without directly harming the foetus. You may think I am being facetious--but look at the "knitting needle" stories before you get too smug.


You do realize there is such thing as adoption, and newborns are in extremely high demand for adoptions because they don't come with the emotional issues that older children often come with.

Abortion isn't a matter of personal choice, it is a matter of life and death. The pro-abortion people try to change the subject to personal choice, because they know the instant the real issue gets discussed, they lose.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Sep 2011, 1:52 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Abortion isn't a matter of personal choice, it is a matter of life and death. The pro-abortion people try to change the subject to personal choice, because they know the instant the real issue gets discussed, they lose.


Whether I commit suicide or not is a matter of life and death. It is also a matter of personal choice. The two issues are not mutually exclusive. A woman had the right to defend herself against any threat to her life or health. Being pregnant is inherently life threatening. If a woman will not willing bear the risk of going to term, she should be free to take the less risky alternative -- to wit early abortion.

Obviously, it is better not to be pregnant except when one wants the child. But in the case of rape, the women did not become pregnant of her own free will. Here decision to carry to term or not should not be interfered with. Women are not the brood mares of humanity. They are people who own their own bodies and all the contents therein.

ruveyn



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

23 Sep 2011, 2:03 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:

Abortion isn't a matter of personal choice, it is a matter of life and death. The pro-abortion people try to change the subject to personal choice, because they know the instant the real issue gets discussed, they lose.


Whether I commit suicide or not is a matter of life and death. It is also a matter of personal choice. The two issues are not mutually exclusive. A woman had the right to defend herself against any threat to her life or health. Being pregnant is inherently life threatening. If a woman will not willing bear the risk of going to term, she should be free to take the less risky alternative -- to wit early abortion.

Obviously, it is better not to be pregnant except when one wants the child. But in the case of rape, the women did not become pregnant of her own free will. Here decision to carry to term or not should not be interfered with. Women are not the brood mares of humanity. They are people who own their own bodies and all the contents therein.

ruveyn

because the Fetus is a rodef (a pursuer - someone who is going to harm you).
A rodef can be killed, It is simple self-defense.
but for a Xtian (some one who should turn the other cheek)
should you let the pursuer hurt you?


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Sep 2011, 2:39 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
because the Fetus is a rodef (a pursuer - someone who is going to harm you).
A rodef can be killed, It is simple self-defense.
but for a Xtian (some one who should turn the other cheek)
should you let the pursuer hurt you?


Christians hardly ever took that nonsense seriously. Which is why there are still Christians around.

Self defense is permitted to all the b'nay Noach.

ruveyn



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

23 Sep 2011, 2:53 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:

Abortion isn't a matter of personal choice, it is a matter of life and death. The pro-abortion people try to change the subject to personal choice, because they know the instant the real issue gets discussed, they lose.


Whether I commit suicide or not is a matter of life and death. It is also a matter of personal choice. The two issues are not mutually exclusive. A woman had the right to defend herself against any threat to her life or health. Being pregnant is inherently life threatening. If a woman will not willing bear the risk of going to term, she should be free to take the less risky alternative -- to wit early abortion.


You do realize many of these "life-threatening issues" can be handled these days simply with good hygene, regular checkups, etc. We aren't living in the middle ages you know.

ruveyn wrote:
Obviously, it is better not to be pregnant except when one wants the child. But in the case of rape, the women did not become pregnant of her own free will. Here decision to carry to term or not should not be interfered with. Women are not the brood mares of humanity. They are people who own their own bodies and all the contents therein.


Sorry, the woman's rights do not include taking an innocent child's life. If the woman wants to give the child up for adoption, that's one thing, but taking the child's life is entirely different.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Sep 2011, 2:57 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Sorry, the woman's rights do not include taking an innocent child's life. If the woman wants to give the child up for adoption, that's one thing, but taking the child's life is entirely different.


The child (actually fetus) within is a threat to a woman's life. Self defense takes precedence over all other claims to life. ALL OTHER CLAIMS. Whatever a woman does to protect her life if morally and should be legally permissible.

You should nominate your mother for sainthood. She risked her life to give birth to you. Was it worth it?

ruveyn