Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 40 to 52 of 137
  1. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    24,828
    Post Likes
    Yes; it was in reference to slavery. What is slavery? It is being forced to work without compensation and against your will.

    Which is exactly what the anti-abortions demand of every woman who would prefer an abortion to eventually bearing a child.

    Don't get me wrong here - I am not in favor of abortion. But I am in favor of defending the rights of the woman involved.

    I can tell you that if the circumstances were reversed and I was being forced to do something as intimately personal as having a child, against my will, my anger and my rage would be a terrible thing. And I am pretty sure that is exactly how women feel.

    And that was (I think<g>) my original point: Women may express any thing in public - but they are not going to vote for a strict anti-abortion candidate for public office.

    BTW: Is that true? There are democrats who claim that anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional? And for the same logics that I am using? Involuntary servitude? I can't recall ever hearing anyone but me ever mentioning it. <g>

    PHM
    ------------



    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Guy View Post
    That is in reference to slavery... The Democrats hijacked it and have repeated it to the point we are suppose to believe the intent was in regard to abortion
    PHM
    --------
    The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.

  2. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12,842
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Poodle Head Mikey View Post
    Well, and I am speaking very gently, although the Law and Supreme Court have not decided - I have decided. And I think this right to make this decision is granted to me externally by The Ninth.

    My feeling used to be not so much based on the instant 'life' begin (and this could be construed as being prior to conception as the components with combine are obviously alive before they meet <g>) but rather; when the life is viable - when it can continue to live without being a part of it's mother.

    But upon extended reflection and consideration I have changed that view. Now I would like to use: a beating heart as the threshold which should not be violated. Once a heartbeat can be heard - too late; no legal abortion should be performed. To me now; that should be the legal threshold. That is somewhere in the six-ten week range.

    That being said; in the interests of arriving at a compromise which would make the greatest number of people come into agreement and perhaps put this conflict behind us - I am willing to hold my nose and say: anywhere in the first three months. But that would be a compromise for me. My real feeling is about six weeks.

    So no; I don't find the conflict you asked about in regard to using the involuntary servitude amendments.

    As I have said before I am somewhat interested in why abortion was not considered to be anyone's business but the mother's before recently. Abortions have been performed for hundreds of years and maybe before that. I would have to re-research but I think I remember that they were only performed before what was called 'quickening' - which is when the mother first feels movement. Which I think is about 3-4 months.

    So; many years ago the abortion issue / question had been reasonably well resolved and accepted under common guidelines. And all without the requirement of Legality and Court Decisions and apparently endless political combat. Why/how did this apparently non-issue become the divisive mania of the present day?

    PHM
    ----------
    A heartbeat compromise is still a compromise.. Instilling the development argument is just that a compromise of to kill or not to kill.
    The issue should and always should be do we protect the baby or disregard the life of a human being
    ...

  3. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12,842
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Poodle Head Mikey View Post
    Yes; it was in reference to slavery. What is slavery? It is being forced to work without compensation and against your will.

    Which is exactly what the anti-abortions demand of every woman who would prefer an abortion to eventually bearing a child.

    Don't get me wrong here - I am not in favor of abortion. But I am in favor of defending the rights of the woman involved.

    I can tell you that if the circumstances were reversed and I was being forced to do something as intimately personal as having a child, against my will, my anger and my rage would be a terrible thing. And I am pretty sure that is exactly how women feel.

    And that was (I think<g>) my original point: Women may express any thing in public - but they are not going to vote for a strict anti-abortion candidate for public office.

    BTW: Is that true? There are democrats who claim that anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional? And for the same logics that I am using? Involuntary servitude? I can't recall ever hearing anyone but me ever mentioning it. <g>

    PHM
    ------------
    Not at all... If we were to apply such as it applied to slavery then there is no limit.
    Forced servitude... Law requiring you to care for your children and keep them safe... To work everyday to care for them.. make you feed them... And as a thorn make. you responsible for their actions as well
    Taxes... Servitude to the govt.. Forced into the game without an option..
    You have to clean the sidewalk in front of your house as directed by the govt..
    You are forced to buy insurance... Again being forced into a financial game
    The list is endless if we want to go beyond the original intent of servitude
    ...

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Beatrice, NE
    Posts
    8,584
    Post Likes
    PHM, I think the part of the constitution that best spells out this issue is "Life, Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness", The liberty to pursue happiness is what brought about the conditions that create life. Most people by the time they are able to venture into those types of pursuit know the possible consequences of said pursuit. One of the consequences of this pursuit is new life. One of the definitions of life is the ability to grow. once the fertilized egg divides into to cells there is growth as at the division it has doubled in size and continues to grow from there, so there is Life. As to servitude, well there is such a thing as having to be responsible for your actions. She would generally be a willing participant. If you put yourself into a situation to create life then you should be responsible for that life until it reaches a point where other "willing" people can take care of it for you. So the woman is not in servitude she is fulfilling her responsibility from being a willing participant, which is different than being forced into slavery.

  5. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    24,828
    Post Likes
    Of course it is a compromise. That is exactly what I am asking for. The issue as you state it is not the sole issue in question. That is the point. We have no dictator in America. I get your point - and I am not in favor of abortion myself. But you and I are not the only people with a say in the matter.

    What I am talking about resolving the issue - which for some mysterious reason a defining statute is now demanded - when the issue itself was not even an issue at all until relatively recently.

    But under our system one individual or like minded group doesn't get to demand that their beliefs get dictated to others who hold alternate viewpoints. The 'all abortion is illegal murder' people are fully willing to ignore and step on the rights of the mother. Are they not?

    A law is demanded. Our entire system of law making and governing is based on a compromising of interests to reach agreements. But a no-compromise insistence is also demanded? If that is the case, and no compromise can ever be reached, then the Supreme Court can only decide which laws are allowed based on The Ninth. Which, by the way, was only made a part of The Constitution as a compromise. <g>

    PHM
    -------------



    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Guy View Post
    A heartbeat compromise is still a compromise.. Instilling the development argument is just that a compromise of to kill or not to kill.
    The issue should and always should be do we protect the baby or disregard the life of a human being
    PHM
    --------
    The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12,842
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Poodle Head Mikey View Post
    Of course it is a compromise. That is exactly what I am asking for. The issue as you state it is not the sole issue in question. That is the point. We have no dictator in America. I get your point - and I am not in favor of abortion myself. But you and I are not the only people with a say in the matter.

    What I am talking about resolving the issue - which for some mysterious reason a defining statute is now demanded - when the issue itself was not even an issue at all until relatively recently.

    But under our system one individual or like minded group doesn't get to demand that their beliefs get dictated to others who hold alternate viewpoints. The 'all abortion is illegal murder' people are fully willing to ignore and step on the rights of the mother. Are they not?

    A law is demanded. Our entire system of law making and governing is based on a compromising of interests to reach agreements. But a no-compromise insistence is also demanded? If that is the case, and no compromise can ever be reached, then the Supreme Court can only decide which laws are allowed based on The Ninth. Which, by the way, was only made a part of The Constitution as a compromise. <g>

    PHM
    -------------
    Your compromise is a compromise based on the development level of the baby... Akin to say genocide for midgets.. people missing a thumb or lack skin pigmentation... The development position is merely a timed based decision which equates to "a time period in which to decide as to whether or not to keep the baby"
    People have debated heart beat...consciousness.. as well as first breath. With those arguements we would be ripping the limbs off of people when they have a heart attack rather that shock em with paddles
    Same for a chocking victim.
    As we can see with the development arguements it does nothing to address whether or not abortion should be allowed... The developmental arguments are no different than say killing a baby a few months old because he doesn't have teeth yet.
    The heartbeat argument is no different as it's time based and has nothing to do with the issue at hand ../as to whether we allow abortions for convenience or not.
    ...

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,687
    Post Likes
    You are a human person. At what point in time did you begin to exist as a human person? That is the one question that must be seriously answered before all other questions regarding this issue.

    I maintain that it is immoral to kill an innocent human person at any age. So, I challenge you to answer the question; When did you, yeah lets make it personal, when did you begin to exist for the very first time?
    "No matter how thirsty your imagination, mirages contain no water"

  8. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Beatrice, NE
    Posts
    8,584
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh B View Post
    You are a human person. At what point in time did you begin to exist as a human person? That is the one question that must be seriously answered before all other questions regarding this issue.

    I maintain that it is immoral to kill an innocent human person at any age. So, I challenge you to answer the question; When did you, yeah lets make it personal, when did you begin to exist for the very first time?
    When did I begin to exist?

    The instant that fertilized egg divided for the first time!

  9. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,687
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by BNME8EZ View Post
    When did I begin to exist?

    The instant that fertilized egg divided for the first time!
    That's right! You were you for the very first time, a living human person. We know biologically that life comes from life not from non life. When the life of the mother and father unite and the egg is fertilized with sperm you at that instant began to exist. It was not some thing but, was a unique individual human person.

    Therefore, where prior to that two people existed, mom and dad, now there are three for the first time. And, clearly the new person or individual lives within mom. She is now responsible for more than just herself. She is responsible for a second person. So the "she can do what she wants with her body" is now a bit more complex since she is making decisions for two people.

    It is immoral to take the life of an innocent human person. Biologically a clear case. Actually, pretty simple and straightforward unless people want to ignore the actual fact of when life begins so they can continue "rid" themselves of an inconvenience.
    "No matter how thirsty your imagination, mirages contain no water"

  10. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Beatrice, NE
    Posts
    8,584
    Post Likes
    I think we are in agreement Hugh

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh B View Post
    That's right! You were you for the very first time, a living human person. We know biologically that life comes from life not from non life. When the life of the mother and father unite and the egg is fertilized with sperm you at that instant began to exist. It was not some thing but, was a unique individual human person.

    Therefore, where prior to that two people existed, mom and dad, now there are three for the first time. And, clearly the new person or individual lives within mom. She is now responsible for more than just herself. She is responsible for a second person. So the "she can do what she wants with her body" is now a bit more complex since she is making decisions for two people.

    It is immoral to take the life of an innocent human person. Biologically a clear case. Actually, pretty simple and straightforward unless people want to ignore the actual fact of when life begins so they can continue "rid" themselves of an inconvenience.

  11. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12,842
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by BNME8EZ View Post
    When did I begin to exist?

    The instant that fertilized egg divided for the first time!
    Nope..
    Not until they go into the base of your skull and auger your brain then rip your limbs off!!!.. and sell your body parts!!
    ...

  12. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Beatrice, NE
    Posts
    8,584
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Guy View Post
    Nope..
    Not until they go into the base of your skull and auger your brain then rip your limbs off!!!.. and sell your body parts!!
    That would mean for the last 60+ years I have not existed!

  13. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12,842
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by BNME8EZ View Post
    That would mean for the last 60+ years I have not existed!
    Then demand all you paid in on taxes!
    ...

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •