My terminology is perfectly accurate. You are advocating the murder of a baby when you advocate unfettered abortion past 22 weeks.Wow, now we don't care how inaccurate our terminology is as long as it will be inflammatory eh ?
Yes, I like staying grounded in reality.You are talking about what you consider a baby.
Yes. You say, you say, you say. Your whole argument is based on nothing more than what you say. I am not interested in your opining about how to disregard the rights of babies because it might be inconvenient for the woman. You can say until you are blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that the law does not agree with you because the majority of the country aren't base, depraved baby killing barbarians.I not only don't have to agree with you, I don't even need to consider your rigamarole of comparison. I am at liberty to make my own decision in the matter, and I say it's a baby once its born.
I wouldn't imagine science would gain any traction with someone deluded enough to convince his own conscience that killing a baby is acceptable...None of your science arguments gain any traction here,
I seem to recall hearing the same argument spouted off about other human beings prior to January 1, 1863...as my personal decision on the point at which to start valuing that Human is mine alone, and I do not have to base it off of your parallels or your opinions.
It has been proven. The structural components are all there. But you have already stated that it is irrelevant as your whole argument hinges on your personal opinion to devalue a human life, most abhorrently using your own hypothetical baby as an example of your lack of empathy for your own offspring. Your argument lacks any form of logic or foundation in Constitutional support. You hinge it on one word, with emphasis on that word speciously placed by you and your proud chest thumping about how you don't have to value a baby if it is on the wrong side of the tracks.I am not doing any somersaults, I just disagree with you about something unprovable.
You feel awfully powerful being able to thrust your will onto that little baby, huh?
That has not been fully decided. What has, however, been decided, is that "womb contents" past a certain stage of development are granted a right to live provided the baby's existence is not threatening the life or health of the mother. Murdering the baby...err...womb contents is punishable under the law.Citizens are born. Womb contents are not citizens.
Sorry pal, that emphasis is yours and not the constitution's. It is simply stating that those naturalized here have the same rights as those born here. It in no way speaks to the topic of abortion.Sorry pal, the Constitution states that persons born are citizens.
Except where your family decisions and squabbles result in a stronger family member stripping other family members of their basic human rights. That is society' business and will ever remain that way as long as we consider ourselves an civilized society of equality. You're just gonna have to learn to deal with that, chuckles.Society's business is much better handled by staying the hell out of family decisions and squabbles.
Is it more "I say, I say, I say" because if it is, you can keep it back.Heres the big point that I have not even gotten out yet.
For the same reason we did not ignore the holocaust. For the same reason we did not ignore slavery. For the same reason we do not ignore exploitation of children or the AIDS crisis in Africa or the genocides in Darfur. Citizenship is not what grants human rights. Being a human is what grants human rights. Hell, if a guy wants to kill his neighbor and that's it, will the Town Hall fall down if we ignore it? Since it won't, why don't we just ignore him rather than try to bring him to justice (which does not imply doing violence against him despite your attempt to throw that red herring in)?Consider this jallman:
Society is having its town hall meeting. You decry abortion. I stand up and ask if the Town Hall will fall down if we ignore abortions. Since it won't, why don't we just ignore tham, rather than try to get violence on a large portion of our already existant citizens ?
Your reproductive rights are yours until they begin inflicting harm on another sentient, sapient human being without provocation. And again, citizenship is not the issue at stake here. Human rights is the issue. And no one is advocating attacking anyone (except those advocating the free practice of dismembering babies in utero). I am proposing placing legal implications for doing so. Oh wait...nevermind, that's already been done for the most part.I simply reject your interference in the reproductive cycle of other citizens as rude and unwarranted. Attack already existant citizens over a potential citizen ?
I think that is a much more appropriate and poignant question when directed at the one who has no issue with the dismemberment of babies just because they are on the wrong side of the tracks...Are you Nuts ?
No. Not at all.It is not obfuscation. It is me, destroying your fallacious appeal to universality.
Oh, oh, oh...I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about human rights here and not some hippy notion of all life being the same. When you wanna rejoin us in the discussion about your advocacy of dismembering babies in utero, let us know. Until then, we're gonna move right along talking about the issue of human abortion. kthanxbi.You want the "cache" of the word life, without paying attention to the totality of that word's meaning. I eat life everyday.
It is an accepted fact that he performed late term abortions. Obtuse is not an attractive color on you.Got any proof ? Did he do this after his shift as an abortion provider ?
Very very true. It is what it is. And what it is is the advocacy of killing babies in utero...a very barbaric and inhumane practice deserving of the stiffest criminal penalties for its performance.Very, very false. You think it is what you think it is.
Well then you have an entirely different set of criminal issues to deal with including resisting arrest, contempt of court, obstruction of justice, etc. And yes, force would then be used as it would be in any criminal offense. I have no problem with that.Do you think I would allow this ? you are being duplicitous if you think that gets you out of anything. I will defend my wife's liberty, and we are right back to you using force on me, and my wife.
If you are so certain that all are done with cause, then you should have no issue providing me with statistics that prove such a thing.If you are rational enough to now to use the term "late term abortion" perhaps you are rational enough to realize that all are performed with cause.
If human rights matter, respect those of my wife and I.
This is disappointing jallman.