View Poll Results: Gay baby

Voters
111. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    51 45.95%
  • No

    60 54.05%
Page 28 of 65 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 647

Thread: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

  1. #271
    Educator
    CoffeeSaint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
    Last Seen
    07-01-07 @ 09:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,088

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    You can try, but I have an "easy" button on you, so you had better have a logical point.



    False premise #1:
    That would be why the U.S. Constitution exists, as surly "society" has not held the interests of individual freedom for the individual....take radical Islam, for example. That "society" does not exist for the purpose you claim, so your claim is false.
    No, society has most definitely held the individual interests of its members at heart. Radical Islamic societies act the way they do because they have a specific purpose: to ensure that the greatest number possible of their members reach Paradise. But we are speaking of American society, which exists to promote and protect the individual freedoms of its members. So the claim is not false, since we are not speaking of radical Islamic societies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    False premise #2:
    Even if "society" existed for the purpose you assume: eliminating late term abortion, affording men a legal tool in protecting their children from their mother's violence, affording parents a legal tool in protecting their grandchildren from their minor-child's violence, providing a legal compulsion against the violation of what is arguably "a compelling state interest" in the protection of late-term unborn can not be accurately cast in the negative light of "for purposes of selfish gain".
    It is for selfish gain. As I pointed out, you have every right to have another child with another woman; your demand that it be THIS child, born to term by THIS woman, is your self-centered wish, based solely on your desires. You are not protecting the rights of the child in this argument, you are protecting your rights to your property. The state has a compelling interest in preventing you from making another member of society into your property -- namely your wife.

    We are speaking of your hypothetical right to protect the life of your child, as an individual. We are not speaking of the right of pro-life people to vote their conscience and try to eliminate abortion. They have that right, provided their goal is to serve the best interests of society -- which is to protect the individual's freedoms. If their goal is selfish, and infringes unjustly on the rights of individual members of this society, then the laws they enact should be stricken down. They do, however, have the right to try to find a way to achieve their goals within that framework, or, should there be enough pro-life people in the country, to change the Constitution and to change the goals of our society. You, as an individual, do not have the right to force your wife to surrender her freedom for your selfish desires.

    Come to think of it, the child does not have the right to force the mother to surrender her freedom for its selfish desires, either. In essence, it is a question of who has first claim to sovereignty over the body in question, and the answer must always be the woman whose body it is. Not the parents of the minor children (who are enslaving their daughter in order to protect their grandchild -- hardly a moral stance) nor the husband who impregnated her, nor the child who parasitizes her. It is her body, it is her freedom; all the rest of you are infringing on it, and society has the right to stop you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Word for word that is the Pro-Life argument.
    Then you agree with me?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    All mainstream PL does is the exact same methodology as mainstream PC: each vote, write Representatives, hold rallies, pass petitions, etc. In the end PL is casting votes and speaking out, no different than PC, yet it is PC who claims that PL is somehow a villain for exorcizing their perfectly legal constitutional right to vote in the manner they please.
    In this thread, I am not painting pro-life as a villain, I am painting you as the villain, since you offered yourself for that role. Pro-life has the right to try to eliminate abortion as long as they are not doing it for selfish reasons, and as long as their efforts are intended to protect the freedoms of the individual members of society. I doubt that is the goal of the pro-life movement, but if you can make an argument that it is, then so be it: I'll see you at the polls.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    You are just like PL in this way, so if they have no legitimate ground to attempt to have their will in the law, neither do you.
    There is a difference: which side is attempting to live up to the purpose of society, which is to enact laws to protect the freedoms and rights of its individual members? It is not pro-life, which seeks to reduce the freedoms of individual members of society. If the ends are not moral, then the means do not excuse the ends.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    False premise #3:
    Abortion is not a right.

    This very easily leads into an involved conversation on Roe and what laws have come into being since 1973 which logically change the outcome of Roe based on the reasoning in Roe, however I will not divert to that here.

    Abortion is not a "right" specifically granted nor denied by the Constitution, there for abortion is a state issue, and if a given state establishes abortion as a right, then we will have to pick this up when we have actual legislation before us and can see the terms of it.
    The right to force a woman to bear a child to term because you happened to impregnate her is not spelled out in the Constitution, either. So if I am arguing for a non-existent right, then so are you.

    As to whether the right should be determined by states or not, take that up with the Supreme Court. My premise is that government, state or federal, has the right to limit your ability to limit the rights of others for selfish reasons.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Also, remember, rights have rank.

    My right to the "care, control and custody" of my child -vs- her legal ability (not right) to violate my said right is a vicious fight on both fronts.
    But bodily sovereignty will carry the day. It is far more basic and fundamental than is the right to protect a parent's interests in his child. Your body, your self, must always come first.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    My argument supported by Troxel is an argument seeking to protect my individual rights from being violated. By arguing against it in the manner that you have, saying that a woman should have the right to abort my child simply if she decides that it's bad luck because she sneezed, you argue against my individual right, and those are guilty of what you say no one should do to another.
    The individual right you are arguing for does not exist, because it removes the rights from another member of society for your benefit as an individual; not for her benefit, as with parental control of minor children, nor for society's benefit, as society has no stake in your particular child, nor for the child's benefit, as the child is not yet a member of society and has no rights to be protected: your benefit alone. That is why I termed it "selfish." You don't have the right to do that, and so society is not infringing on your rights at all.




    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    You double speak.
    I change my argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Also, please keep in mind that if SCOTUS were to establish "personhood" prenataly, they need not do it at conception. "Personhood" could be established prenataly at such a time where the ZEF has a formed and functional neural cortex, and I doubt that PC nor PL would have much, if any, solid legal ground to argue if that happened.
    Probably not. Fortunately for the purpose of continuing this argument, I was incorrect when I said that it comes back to fetal personhood; it doesn't. It comes back to who has first claim to the body in question, and who thus has the individual freedom that is being infringed by other interested parties: it is the woman, not the fetus, and so it matters not at all if the fetus is in fact a person. The woman's body, the woman's choice.

  2. #272
    Educator
    CoffeeSaint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
    Last Seen
    07-01-07 @ 09:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,088

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Quite right.

    Rights are issued by God's law (the "Laws of Nature") and it is government (the laws of Man) which seeks to take them away.

    You may also note that the structure of the Constitution is such that, rather than establish various rights, it assumes that such rights already exist and seeks to restrain government.

    There is not one right that we enjoy today which is established in the Constitution. Protected and illuminated , yes, but not established.
    Rights are imagined by people and agreed upon by societies; government may seek to limit them, but not if the government reflects the society it serves. Whether our government does that or not is a different argument. The Constitution represents our agreement about which rights we do have; our laws represent our agreement about which we do not. Since the ideal of our government is of the people, by the people and for the people, our government comes closer than most to reflecting what we truly believe are not inherent rights.

    That is why abortion is legal. It makes sense with the nation's beliefs about what should be allowed and what should not.

  3. #273
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-08 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,619

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    “Yippee-skippy for you. I could say the same; I never had sex either until I met someone I wanted to have a child with.
    In fact, I wanted to have two children with him.
    But neither of us wanted to have three.
    MY life, MY body, MY CHOICE.”

    And you chose to kill your unborn child, dismember it alive. Yipeee for you. Your so proud of that fact arent you? Just like a true pro-choicer. Killing is FUNNNNNNN Yipeeee.

    “Saying that nobody cares about my anecotal so-called evidence is a statement based on an assumption not proven to be true. Your replies haven't even come close to dent my belief that abortion is murder.’

    I agree that abortion is murder too. But most of these pro-choicer/abortion thinks it’s a wonderful ritual a woman goes through, almost like a sacrifice. Stick around you’ll see what I mean.


    Coffee said, “Unfortunately, this does take us back to fetal personhood. But at least it shows that I am not a hypocrite.”
    Of course not, how could one who is pro-abortion be a hypocrite……I rather think of them in other terms. :smile:


    “ A woman does have the right to abort a fetus that is within her, as she is seeking to protect her individual rights and freedoms, and is not reducing the rights and freedoms of another member of society.”
    Of course you are against any laws that punish someone who hurts a pregnant woman so that she loses the baby, right? Its not living, not valuable, not a member of society…..so why punish anyone for hurting nothing. Right?


    “If that were true, then why is it illegal to have an abortion after a certian period of time after conception? Biologically the difference between a Fetus changing into a Morula for after one day is somewhat equally the same.

    Do you believe its morally correct to kill the baby (by stabbing it) a few hours before it might get born, a few minutes before it might get born? When do you believe it gains life status?”

    Because to many of these confused pro-choicers think the “nothing” instantaneously becomes “something” ....but they dont know when. ???????

    And they don’t bring morals into the discussion. Morals don’t matter it’s the right of every woman to be able to kill her unborn at any gestational age. As I said they cant tell you an exact time when this “nothing” becomes “something”.

    They even think abortion is ok for any reason, deformity of child, wrong sex, etc. Doesn’t matter it’s the freedom of every woman to kill her child that is what is important.

    “Since it is now clear that Prolifers are not interested in compromise and are in fact interested in nothing less than outright illegalization of all abortion in all cases, including rape and health, with an eye to ultimately banning all contraception as well... we now deal with them accordingly.”
    You got that right. No compromise unless the mother is dying. But I think I am the only pro-lifer on here who takes this stance, life for the child even if the mother was raped.

    Deal with us accordingly? Oh pleazz

    “These things are the way they are because we permitted them to be that way, because prolifers claimed that's all they wanted, and that if we agreed then they'd start acting reasonable.”
    You permitted who to be what? Who the heck do you think you are?

    So tell us how reasonable is it to dismember alive a human unborn child in the womb. You guys don’t even have the balls to watch a video of what you think is such a glorious surgical procedure. What is so reasonable about your views on dismemberment of a living human child? How you find this acceptable is beyond me and it should be beyond anyone who has any amount of compassion for another human being. Your lacking something that is for sure.


    “But they lied; they took it as license to attempt ever more radical tactics.
    So now, there won't be any more compromises of that sort.”

    We lied?……..what a crock. It’s the pro-choice crowd that lies. Abortion was made legal with the intention it was only supposed to be done in cases of rape and incest or the life of the mother. Now you guys have pushed the bar…….and abortion today is a form of birth control, condoned by a crowd that thinks abortion on demand is noble.

    Parent notification…….of course you wouldn’t be for this.

    “So don't look for the mainstream American public (which is pro-choice!) to be supporting any future "Laci's laws" or parental notifications, regardless of what sort of pretty packaging you wrap them in.”
    You are wrong about mainstream American public. I have sited polls that state the opposite. And if abortion were put to a nationwide vote, you would lose your abortion on demand. It would only be made legal for rape, incest and mothers health like it was originally intended to be for. More people are learnig about fetal development and more woman are keeping their babies.


    “We basically don't give a crap anymore.”
    Oh that is quite obvious by your lack of compassion for the unborn child.

    “Not even as a feel-good measure to help assuage the sorrow of the relatives of murdered pregnant women will we budge one more inch on women's reproductive rights.”
    Murdered pregnant woman? What murdered women?

    “We know what you're really after. And there is not a chance in hell you will ever accomplish it.”
    Another comment by the oh so compassionate and loving RADICAL LEFT.

  4. #274
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    10-26-10 @ 06:34 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,978

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    You guys don’t even have the balls to watch a video of what you think is such a glorious surgical procedure.
    Cupcake, I've watched the real thing.
    And so have you.
    And we both know the videos are bullsh!t... even if only one of us will admit it.
    I don't mind watching videos of deformed full-term stillbirths and dismembered latex baby-dolls smeared with ketchup.
    I watched "Saw II" with my son awhile back; trust me, if I can sit through that, there's nothing in your pitiful little antichoice propaganda flicks that's going to faze me.

  5. #275
    Advisor nes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Seen
    10-05-07 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    382

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    The most influential scholar of ancient times, Aristotle (ca. 350 BC) developed a gestational time line that proved remarkably durable. Aristotle believed embryos pass through three distinct stages: 1) the nutritive/vegetative stage, characteristic of plants; 2) the sensitive stage, characteristic of animals, and, finally; 3) the intellectual/rational stage, where it becomes fully human. He maintained that the male fetus reached the recognizably human stage at about 40 days while the female arrived at that stage in 80-90 days.
    Nearly all your statements you have made in the post appear to be blatant lies.

    You said that and I quote!

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    Abortion has been in existence since ancient times; it has been practiced in every culture and civilization ever studied.
    In the early Roman Catholic church, abortion was permitted for male fetuses in the first 40 days of pregnancy and for female fetuses in the first 80-90 days.
    The burden of proof is on you to prove that the above statement is true.

    Keep on lying you very liberal feminist. Do you lie because you can't use truths to debate with? You have replied with statements that are false, untrue, and unproven. You remind me when some people though the world was flat and refused to provide proof to back their claim.

    Please reply with more of your lies.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    Throwing a tantrum and calling me "retarded" and "a liar" is not convincing anyone, nor adding an iota of credibility to your case.
    You do lie. Far left liberal feminist shouldn't be trusted.

    Your making the assumption that it is not adding credibility to my case. Who else here believes 1069 lies purposely?
    Last edited by nes; 12-27-06 at 05:20 AM.

  6. #276
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,725

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by nes View Post
    Nearly all your statements you have made in the post appear to be blatant lies.

    You said that and I quote!



    The burden of proof is on you to prove that the above statement is true.

    Keep on lying you very liberal feminist. Do you lie because you can't use truths to debate with? You have replied with statements that are false, untrue, and unproven. You remind me when some people though the world was flat and refused to provide proof to back their claim.

    Please reply with more of your lies.



    You do lie. Far left liberal feminist shouldn't be trusted.

    Your making the assumption that it is not adding credibility to my case. Who else here believes 1069 lies purposely?
    Having done some research, 1069's information seems to be valid and documented, both about Aristotle and the early Catholic Church. As of now, however, I have a migrane, and cannot look at the monitor any longer. I'll post it, tomorrow.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  7. #277
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-06-09 @ 03:03 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,946

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    Abortion has been in existence since ancient times; it has been practiced in every culture and civilization ever studied.
    In the early Roman Catholic church, abortion was permitted for male fetuses in the first 40 days of pregnancy and for female fetuses in the first 80-90 days.
    My first question is--have you converted? Is that why you care what the Church has said concerning abortion? Welcome home! In case that is not the case....here's some facts concerning Church Doctrine.

    Not until 1588 did Pope Sixtus V declare all abortion murder, with excommunication as the punishment.
    Have you read anything concerning this particular pope OTHER than his pronouncement on abortion?

    Sixtus V was a major "reformer" type. He did much good in his short papacy (5 years), but he was quite the mercurial personality. He is also the pope who attempted to issue a translation of the Vulgate that was riddled with errors. He was a vain and impatient man. He dropped dead before the error filled Bible could be officially promulgated. I personally view that as God protecting his Church, but others may see it as a coincidence that his death was what stopped him from contradicting Jesus' promise to keep the Church free from error.


    Only 3 years later a new pope found the absolute sanction unworkable and again allowed early abortions.
    Not exactly--It was the bureaucratic mess of having the Vatican deal with every suspicion of attempted abortion. Furthermore--the Church, in Sixtus' bull (I think it was a papal bull, but I may be mistaken)--was dabbling too liberally in the rule of sovereign states. The bull was rescinded as a result of the bureaucratic mess--not the error in viewing abortion at every stage as killing and a grave evil.

    This remained the official position of the Church until 1869, when Pope Pius IX again declared all abortion murder.
    Pius merely asserted what the earliest Catholic tradition concerning abortions had been. Look to the Church Fathers to determine the Catholic stance:

    The early Church Fathers agreed. Fortunately, abortion, like all sins, is forgivable; and forgiveness is as close as the nearest confessional.


    The Didache
    "The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).


    The Letter of Barnabas
    "The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).


    The Apocalypse of Peter
    "And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion" (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]).


    Athenagoras
    "What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers?
    . . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it" (A Plea for the Christians 35 [A.D. 177]).


    Tertullian
    "In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).

    "Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery.

    "There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] "the slayer of the infant," which of course was alive. . . .

    "[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive" (The Soul 25 [A.D. 210]).

    "Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does" (ibid., 27).

    "The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22–24]" (ibid., 37).


    Minucius Felix
    "There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide" (Octavius 30 [A.D. 226]).


    Hippolytus
    "Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!" (Refutation of All Heresies [A.D. 228]).


    Council of Ancyra
    "Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]).

    Basil the Great
    "Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not" (First Canonical Letter, canon 2 [A.D. 374]).

    "He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of willful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and unintentionally kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defense, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it dies upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees" (ibid., canon 8).


    John Chrysostom
    "Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit?—where there are many efforts at abortion?—where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with his laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).


    Jerome
    "I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder" (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).


    The Apostolic Constitutions
    "Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . [I]f it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed" (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]).


    Abortion

    ...and another interesting article...

    The Human Embryo in Christian Tradition - Historical Note
    Last edited by Felicity; 12-27-06 at 09:14 AM.

  8. #278
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-06-09 @ 03:03 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,946

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Only then did Europe, the UK, and the United States begin to pass laws against abortion.
    Previous to that, abortion was legal in the United States from the time the earliest settlers arrived. At the time the Constitution was adopted, abortions before "quickening" were openly advertised and commonly performed. Up until the late 1800s, abortifacient "patent medicines" were openly sold in drug and department stores, and even out of the Sears Roebuck catalogue.
    No laws against is not the same as "legal right." You apply a lack of scientific knowledge and philosophical debate as a purposeful consent to killing in the womb. That is dishonest concerning the level of medical knowledge/philisophical discussion of the time.


    After Pius IX's edict, states one by one passed legislation against abortion; it was not banned in all states until 1889.
    Exactly how does the Catholic Church influence the laws of the United States? Not sure how you are connecting these two things.

    Since it was legalized again in 1973, abortion was banned for a grand total of less than 100 years, in the entire history of human civilization (and that's counting the three years it was banned in the sixteenth century: 1588 to 1591).
    Simply false--It was NEVER
    legalized, it was simply not legislated. Look at the Hypocratic Oath which has been CHANGED to reflect modern notions concerning abortion. FROM THE 4TH CENTURY BC:
    ....will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.



    Quit the PATHETIC attempts to re-write history to suit your heathen agenda.
    Last edited by Felicity; 12-27-06 at 09:13 AM.

  9. #279
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-06-09 @ 03:03 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,946

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Having done some research, 1069's information seems to be valid and documented, both about Aristotle and the early Catholic Church. As of now, however, I have a migrane, and cannot look at the monitor any longer. I'll post it, tomorrow.
    Hope you're feeling better soon...and before you post, check over the agenda laced slant of the information so you do not appear as biased and misinformed as the misguded revisionist 1069.

  10. #280
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    <Comintery>
    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeSaint View Post
    *No, society has most definitely held the individual interests of its members at heart.

    *It is for selfish gain.

    *We are not speaking of the right of pro-life people to vote their conscience and try to eliminate abortion. They have that right, provided their goal is to serve the best interests of society -- which is to protect the individual's freedoms. If their goal is selfish.

    *It is her body, it is her freedom; all the rest of you are infringing on it, and society has the right to stop you.

    *Then you agree with me?
    <I agree with the logic, though since I hold a different premise I do not agree with your conclusion>

    *Pro-life has the right to try to eliminate abortion as long as they are not doing it for selfish reasons, and as long as their efforts are intended to protect the freedoms of individual members of society.
    <That's exactly what they are doing>

    *There is a difference: which side is attempting to live up to the purpose of society, which is to enact laws to protect the freedoms and rights of its individual members?

    *The right to force a woman to bear a child to term because you happened to impregnate her is not spelled out in the Constitution, either. So if I am arguing for a non-existent right, then so are you.
    <...Troxil...>

    *But bodily sovereignty will carry the day. It is far more basic and fundamental than is the right to protect a parent's interests in his child. Your body, your self, must always come first.
    <"bodily sovereignty" does not exist--your body is under the jurisdiction of the U.S., and thus is not sovereign>

    *The individual right you are arguing for does not exist....
    <...Troxil...>

    *I change my argument.
    <then you strawman--your argument has been defeated, let it lay.>

    *It comes back to who has first claim to the body in question, and who thus has the individual freedom that is being infringed by other interested parties: it is the woman, not the fetus, and so it matters not at all if the fetus is in fact a person. The woman's body, the woman's choice.
    <This is why I often quote Roe Sect. 9a, because rights have rank and priority, so if a ZEF is given "personhood" it has priority claim over it's mothers body, again, per Roe Sect. 9a.>
    Much of what you say here is a repeat of what I have already contested, and I will not repeat my arguments here..

    All roads lead to "personhood".

    I have avoided it for as long as I could, but it seems that the inevitable has finally caught up with me.

    Almost all abortion threads are Complex Questions, which is why so little actual communication occurs in them. They are inherently illogical from the OP on.

    Whatever Complex Question is posed, the conversation always comes back to Roe and "personhood".

    Someone quotes the legal definition of "Person": "A human being", at which point the conversation leaves the realm of law and into philosophy, as "being" is not legally defined.

    In the end it always comes down to Atheism/Humanism -v- Theism/Deism; that is, it always comes down to whether one accepts the premise that reality travel from the consciousness down to the flesh, or from the flesh up to consciousness.

    It is the struggle of Flesh -v- Spirit.

    If we do not first agree on the Natural Law premise, we will not agree on any conclusions.

    ***
    Pursuant to:
    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeSaint View Post
    Men are irrelevant to the question of a pregnant woman, and should remain so.
    Your entire argument is irrelevant.

Page 28 of 65 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... 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
  •