Political Crossfire Forums

[jlrobe]

First lets get rid of semantics. THe only Murder I care about is the one punishable by our laws. There is a seperaation of church and state here, and that might make a lot of people angry. If you dont like the seperation of church and state, then I can recommend a few countries that you may like better than ours.

Murder is a legal definition in our society, and well defined. Abortion is not murder! Why? Because the courts say it isnt. Now, abortion can be bibilical murder, killing, whatver you want to call it, but here in America, we agreed to listen to the supreme court, and they ruled that it isnt murder that is punishable by our courts, for the time being. The supreme has been wrong on numerous occassions though.

Now, SHOULD abortion be considered murder?

That is a good question.

Most people who are pro-life, say "prove to me that abortion is not murder, otherwise it is". Well, read the supreme court case if you want a reason why. If you dont like it, THEN THE BURDERN OF PROOF IS ON YOU! Sad, but true under our laws.

If abortion is so clearly murder, then how come war isnt? War kills innocent women and children all the time, and yet 90% of Americans justify war if the cause is great enough.

What about Capitol punishment?

Okay, now the religous people will quote Jesus with swords, eye for an eye, and everything else in between.

Now, the pro-choicers feel that the right to life is designated to physically autonomous beings. We could be wrong of course. Blacks, gays, and women used to have no rights, but now they do. There may come a time when non-autonomous beings do get their right to life, but right now they dont.

So, why should we or shouldnt we allow the physically non-autnomous being's right to supercede the autonomous being's rights? Should physical autonomy be required to be protected? This is the real question in my book. Because of Roe v Wade, the burden of proof lie on pro-lifers shoulders. Sad, but true.

Throughout history,more rights have been given to those who have more autonomy (physical or otherwise). At this point, I dont know if it fair to not grant rights to fetuses. I really dont know.

[EugenicHegemony]

If you think that a zygote supersedes the personal rights of the mother then you have your answer. Some woman like to ride a roller coaster a few times so they can purposely miscarry, is that murder?

You see jlrobe, abortion is a subjective moral issue. :wink:

See ya

[jlrobe]

We should allow people who are not physically autonomous to have the right to life becasue the right to life is a right of every human being, regardless of the state of autonomy.

We shouldnt allow people who are not physically autonomous to have the right to life because although they are human beings, we must set a precedence that the physically autonomous have MORE of right than the fetus becaue we value her rights more.

I think the fetus is getting a raw deal, but since they are unborn, my empathy lies with the mother. This is my bias. We all empathize with things differently. I admit to oppressing the unborn.

I dont see it as killing or murder , just like Americans didnt feel that killing slaves was killing, or killing a civilian accidentally in war was killing. Back then people justified it by saying that the skin pigmentation is higher and thus we can kill. I am justifying it now by saying it hasnt left the mothers body yet, and thus she still "owns" it so to speak. I think of it more as an organ, than a person because a person is singular and autonomous, but a fetus is not. Anyhow, we arent talking about partial-birth abortions or sucking brains out. I strongly discourage abortions in the second trimester.

[Sailor Moon]

jlrobe wrote: First lets get rid of semantics. THe only Murder I care about is the one punishable by our laws. There is a seperaation of church and state here, and that might make a lot of people angry. If you dont like the seperation of church and state, then I can recommend a few countries that you may like better than ours.

Abortion was illegal before, and not because the church was involved. Besides, there is more to it than 'thou shalt not kill".. like the survival of the species. Ethical obligations to do that which is the least destructive, has nothing to do with religion.

Quote: Murder is a legal definition in our society, and well defined. Abortion is not murder! Why? Because the courts say it isnt. Now, abortion can be bibilical murder, killing, whatver you want to call it, but here in America, we agreed to listen to the supreme court, and they ruled that it isnt murder that is punishable by our courts, for the time being. The supreme has been wrong on numerous occassions though.

It most certainly has been wrong. Call slavery unpaid labor, call child labor "volunteer work"- the principle of the matter still applies. killing is the same practice as murder... human beings are people.. fetuses are developing people.. killing fetuses is killing people, and therefore abortion is murder... it doesnt take long to connect those dots.

Quote: Now, SHOULD abortion be considered murder?

That is a good question.

Most people who are pro-life, say "prove to me that abortion is not murder, otherwise it is". Well, read the supreme court case if you want a reason why. If you dont like it, THEN THE BURDERN OF PROOF IS ON YOU! Sad, but true under our laws.

Unfortunately, there was hardly any effort on the supreme court to even allow us to present our proof. Besides, 30 years ago, we didnt even have ultrasonic technology, to present this proof as vividly as we do today. When you make someone die on purpose, you kill it, therefore abortion is murder.

Quote: If abortion is so clearly murder, then how come war isnt? War kills innocent women and children all the time, and yet 90% of Americans justify war if the cause is great enough.

What about Capitol punishment?

War is presented in an effort to kill not innocent people, but people guilty of harming others severely. Starvation is often a big issue in this world, but the cause of starvation, in 78% of children, id oppressive governments that export more than they import, and disallow adequate amounts of food for their people. War SAVES LIVES, and it breaks the governmental cycle of violence towards many many people. It is sad and disheartening to know that children die because of war, but those very children will likely die anyways as a result of starvation, oppression and tyranny. Its not like the children are the targets.. but if 10 children die, in the effort that saved millions, then the rest of the citizens of the country can rest peacefully, knowing that these children did not die as a result of lack of freedom.

As for capital punishment, would you rather have killers like Ted Bundy out and about, killing hundreds more women? That man escaped from prison, and continued on his sociopathic rampage to destroy women. I dont support capital punishment in any exclusive manner, though.. I find that someone who witnessed a crime or even killed only one person should not be subjected to capital punishment. No they may not be innocent, but 2 wrongs never make a right. (I dont think that capital punishment makes anything right, either, but in some cases it protects the rest of the country from being killed) I would prefer to see tighter security measures for people convicted of murder, rather than the death penalty, in most cases.. but as for mass murderers or serial killers, they pretty much asked for it, and being that there is no chance at recovery for these, it might be best to kill them.

Quote: Okay, now the religous people will quote Jesus with swords, eye for an eye, and everything else in between.

Nice blanket statement.

Quote: Now, the pro-choicers feel that the right to life is designated to physically autonomous beings. We could be wrong of course. Blacks, gays, and women used to have no rights, but now they do. There may come a time when non-autonomous beings do get their right to life, but right now they dont.

I think you mean sentient. Autonomy is self governing. Fetuses are still self governing, even if they are not independant yet.


Quote: So, why should we or shouldnt we allow the physically non-autnomous being's right to supercede the autonomous being's rights? Should physical autonomy be required to be protected? This is the real question in my book. Because of Roe v Wade, the burden of proof lie on pro-lifers shoulders. Sad, but true.

Again, you need to go look up "autonomy" in the dictionary. Youre talking about sentience, not autonomy. Anyways, sentience has taken a long time to measure, even up to this point. I have said in anoter thread, sentience is not something gifted by the magiv Sentience Fairy. It is something that we develop, gradually. Ones sentience goes hand in hand with their development. So, to say that a fetus or embryo is non sentient, is to say that some magic fairy comes along and poofs her little wand, and gifts this to developing humans. Otherwise, I am sure you can explain to me how sentience just "POPS" into a human body, through scientific fact.

In the end, we cannot measure all things, least of all sentience.

Physical autonomy should always be protected, but not at the risk of another human being's life being ripped from the womb.

Quote: Throughout history,more rights have been given to those who have more autonomy (physical or otherwise). At this point, I dont know if it fair to not grant rights to fetuses. I really dont know.

I guess youre still talking about sentience. (the ability to have a thought or conscious, generally) Regardless of any of this, fetuses should not get rights. Fetal rights only will oppress women who miscarry or have stillbirths, birth defects, etc.. if the fetuses who live wish to, they can sue mom and dad for whatever abuses they had to endure, resulting in harm to them, during pregnancy. Thats where the line is drawn, though.

[EugenicHegemony]

Sailor Moon wrote:

War is presented in an effort to kill not innocent people, but people guilty of harming others severely.


War is about greed, power, dominance, and almost never, liberation. Abortion is not murder, it's a subjective moral issue, and it's why it's discussed so much. That division, control, and manipulation. Everyone has their own little idea of what it is as it's in their heads eg: subjective.

[Mycroft147]

You cant compare legalized abortion with riding a rollercoaster. Allowing a mother to go into a clinic and have her baby killed is wrong and is something we can regulate by at least outlawing it. What a woman does privately might or might not be wrong but cannot be regulated by law as it would be impossible to tell if it was a misscarriage or what.

[EugenicHegemony]

Mycroft147 wrote: You cant compare legalized abortion with riding a rollercoaster.

Sure you can and I will continue to do so...

[Mycroft147]

You cant compare the two. Miscarriages are considered natural, they happen and no-one can prove why they happened. Sure they can prove you went on a rollercoaster but they dont know if that actually killed your baby. Thats a bit different from going into a clinic to purposely have your baby killed. We at least shouldnt have purposeful legal killing of your child.

[jlrobe]

Sailor, I am shocked. You do have some debating skills not showcased before. That is good. Very good.

I dont mean sentient I mean autonomous. I am an expert and am well aware of many legal/technical/philosophical and other definitions of Autonomy. Lets not argue hear, I dont want to waste my time. PHYSICAL autonomy is just that.

As for my blanket statemtn, I use it in response to other peoples blankets statments. I am proud of your assessment on war. You didnt use the eye fot an eye and left religion out of it.

Actually, you neatly side stepped EVERYTING by getting rid of religion in your arguments. I commend you. This is vital I believe in your argument. From now on you shouldnt use your religion or blanket statements yourself because every time you use religion or a blanket statement, I can use the exact same tactic.

So now we are on the same grounds. We are both using logic. THat is exactly what i wanted to do from the get now.

Now then, you justify war, as do I, because it is killing to save.

I have said that slavery used to be legal but now isnt, and i said the supreme court can be wrong so i agree.

Now that pro-lifers have all this evidence it is time for you to unite and bring up a retrial with the new found evidence. Get a team of lawyers, unite without all the religous and blanket statements you usually use, and march on capital hill with the same logic you just used on me. The supreme court may then over turn the ruling.

Although Abortion is not legally murder, I never it said it shouldnt be, hence the post.

The reason you justify war and not abortion is that war is ultimately savings people while abortion is ultimately killing people to make the mother more comfortable.

When you talk about war and capitol punishment you use nothing but solid logic, which is good.

You were unable to reply to the rest of my post because you were stuck on sentience. I am not talking about that, I am talking about general forms of autonomy.

For instance, slavers were not autonomous because they were owned by slave masters. A slave might not have full autonomy but he is a sentient being. Children do not have full autonomy because they are under their parents care, yet they are still sentient. Tawain does not have full autonomy becasue China wants to govern it. A fetus does not have PHYSICAL autonomy because it is PHYSICALLY ATTACHED TO ITS MOTHER. Sentience is no where in this discussion.

I have some technical journals if you like, but they are intended for people with a masters in a physical science, so you probably wont get much out of reading it.

[Mycroft147]

jlrobe wrote: Sailor, I am shocked. You do have some debating skills not showcased before. That is good. Very good.

I dont mean sentient I mean autonomous. I am an expert and am well aware of many legal/technical/philosophical and other definitions of Autonomy. Lets not argue hear, I dont want to waste my time. PHYSICAL autonomy is just that.

As for my blanket statemtn, I use it in response to other peoples blankets statments. I am proud of your assessment on war. You didnt use the eye fot an eye and left religion out of it.

Actually, you neatly side stepped EVERYTING by getting rid of religion in your arguments. I commend you. This is vital I believe in your argument. From now on you shouldnt use your religion or blanket statements yourself because every time you use religion or a blanket statement, I can use the exact same tactic.

So now we are on the same grounds. We are both using logic. THat is exactly what i wanted to do from the get now.

Now then, you justify war, as do I, because it is killing to save.

I have said that slavery used to be legal but now isnt, and i said the supreme court can be wrong so i agree.

Now that pro-lifers have all this evidence it is time for you to unite and bring up a retrial with the new found evidence. Get a team of lawyers, unite without all the religous and blanket statements you usually use, and march on capital hill with the same logic you just used on me. The supreme court may then over turn the ruling.

Although Abortion is not legally murder, I never it said it shouldnt be, hence the post.

The reason you justify war and not abortion is that war is ultimately savings people while abortion is ultimately killing people to make the mother more comfortable.

When you talk about war and capitol punishment you use nothing but solid logic, which is good.

You were unable to reply to the rest of my post because you were stuck on sentience. I am not talking about that, I am talking about general forms of autonomy.

For instance, slavers were not autonomous because they were owned by slave masters. A slave might not have full autonomy but he is a sentient being. Children do not have full autonomy because they are under their parents care, yet they are still sentient. Tawain does not have full autonomy becasue China wants to govern it. A fetus does not have PHYSICAL autonomy because it is PHYSICALLY ATTACHED TO ITS MOTHER. Sentience is no where in this discussion.

I have some technical journals if you like, but they are intended for people with a masters in a physical science, so you probably wont get much out of reading it.

The people with the stronger argument for illegal abortion would be the ones who would say that war should be avoided unless the country itself is attacked first. When war is justified like that, there is no way to justify abortion since the fetus is innocent and has attacked no-one.

[EugenicHegemony]

Mycroft147 wrote: You cant compare the two. Miscarriages are considered natural, they happen and no-one can prove why they happened. Sure they can prove you went on a rollercoaster but they dont know if that actually killed your baby. Thats a bit different from going into a clinic to purposely have your baby killed. We at least shouldnt have purposeful legal killing of your child.

I can, I do and hence forth, I will.

If you choose to ignore what has been written.

Sailor Moon wrote:

I dont think its okay to abort at all, but I dont see how riding a rollercoaster could be made illegal, or criminalized, if the woman miscarried from it. After all, if she uses a roller coaster as a form of birth control, after having unprotected sex, then she is excercising autonomy, and I see nothing wrong with the idea that "left to outside chance", in regards to life and death in utero, should even BE an issue. Nothing is forced, even if it might be hoped for.



Miss Moon is in court:

Prosecution: Why on the day of December 25 2005 did you use the Roller Coaster in Disney World. If it will please the court, I have a video here of Miss Moon getting on the ride at Disney World. Can we please show that to the jury? Here you are seen on the Disney surveillance there getting on the fire and ice roller coaster. There is a warning *can we get a close up of that warning please, thank you, and freeze it*. That warning is specifically telling you not to ride if pregnant. *I have the actual warning here and will you please show it to the jury* Now I know you said you did not know you were pregnant. May I remind you you're under oath. Your boyfriend, and several of your close friends who I will be calling next have gone on record stating you knew full well you were pregnant and even said "I dont see how riding a rollercoaster could be made illegal, or criminalized, if the woman miscarried from it.". Now you're in court today because you have in fact miscarried, and lets not beat around the bush here, you murdered your baby, and did it deliberately. Did you or did you not say: "I dont see how riding a rollercoaster could be made illegal, or criminalized, if the woman miscarried from it." Such a careless and cold hearted statement ladies and gentlemen. I'm here to tell you Miss Moon, you premeditatedly murdered your child. That is outright fetal murder, and you're on trial now because of it. Not once did she ride this roller coaster ladies and gentlemen of the jury, she road it 25 times in one day. Well, I guess you really wanted to make sure you killed it....I'm sorry, you call that a miscarriage, don't you Miss Moon? No further questions your honor.....

Quote: I can see all the woman being hauled off, and arrested for "outright fetal murder".

Miss Moon--Only if the physician's en tow.

Quote: What do you mean?

Miss Moon--Opening a person up and killing the life inside= murder. Riding a roller coaster =/=(doesnt equal) murder. Get it?

Quote: Can it exist (incubate) if the mother is dead? eg: not sustaining it.

The fetus is not yet an individual with an independent existence; therefore it's up to it's host (the woman) to choose whether to abort or not, and no one else. The parents or courts who think they can coercively force the (woman) to carry term, have zero say in this as well.


Quote: Maybe their lover will spill the beans on her and turn her in, because if the lover knew and didn't report her to the proper Authoriti then he would be an accomplice to "outright fetal murder".

Miss Moon--That doesnt matter. Miscarriage cant be a crime.

Quote: What does a "miscarriage" have to do with anything I've said? :-|

Quote: The proper Authorti will bring the woman to a special clinic where they can test her in a forceful manner to see if she's done anything to her uterus.

Miss Moon--No they wont. Miscarriage is not a crime.

Quote: Again, same question. What does a "miscarriage" have to do with anything I've said?

Quote: If evidence is found to show that she was pregnant, and that she has, in fact, committed "outright fetal murder" then she'll be tried, and put in prison for it.

Miss Moon--Only if there is supporting evidence that she had someone open her up or prescribe/ give her something to force this murderish event to happen. Not if she just miscarries.

Quote: The evidence is found when your authoritarian forced birthing crew has her forcefully tested to see if she's done anything to her uterus or if anyone else has. Again, what does "miscarriage have to do with anything i've said?

Quote: The husband or boyfriend would be imprisoned also as he's an accomplice to "outright fetal murder".

Miss Moon--Only if he knew about her going to see a doctor or person performing or assisting in the abortion. Not if she miscarried. UNENFORCEABLE.

Quote: Exactly, if he knew then he's an accomplice to "outright fetal murder". How is it "unenforceable", and what is it with you and the miscarriages? Also, if it's "unenforceable" then why are you trying to enforce it? You're asking for something that has no end, and what gives you and your crew the right to initiate force on another?

Quote: The U.S. has imprisoned more of it's own people than any country in history so be proud. It's a very organized and effective system.

Miss Moon--Its terrible, I admit, but so is millions dead.

Quote: Not your problem and it's none of your business. I already stated many times that I'm not pro abortion. I just know I have zero right to play with a womans autonomy and her private body. Work on the reasons woman get abortions and do what you can to limit those reasons. Ever think about that? Forcing your will on another is dominion and I thought you were against that.

Abortion is a Subjective Moral Issue.

[Sailor Moon]

jlrobe wrote: Sailor, I am shocked. You do have some debating skills not showcased before. That is good. Very good.

Notice the past 100 or so threads on here.. who ends the conversations? Me. Just because you constantly bring up generalizations regarding religion, and I argue those in a way that you dont understand, doesnt mean this is the first time I have accurately debated anyone.

Quote: I dont mean sentient I mean autonomous. I am an expert and am well aware of many legal/technical/philosophical and other definitions of Autonomy. Lets not argue hear, I dont want to waste my time. PHYSICAL autonomy is just that.

Ok.. a fertilized egg travels on its own (it moves), grows (thats #2) it attaches to the uterus, and within weeks, it even s*cks its thumb. How is all of this not in keeping with self governing?

Quote: As for my blanket statemtn, I use it in response to other peoples blankets statments. I am proud of your assessment on war. You didnt use the eye fot an eye and left religion out of it.

You were responding to nobody, therefore it was a blanket statement, and uncalled for. Dont do it again.

Quote: Actually, you neatly side stepped EVERYTING by getting rid of religion in your arguments. I commend you. This is vital I believe in your argument. From now on you shouldnt use your religion or blanket statements yourself because every time you use religion or a blanket statement, I can use the exact same tactic.

Pardon me? What did I sidestep? You said I sidestepped everything? I think you meant just religion. Furthermore, what blanket statements have I made?

Quote: So now we are on the same grounds. We are both using logic. THat is exactly what i wanted to do from the get now.

I apologise.. if I havent made sense to you in the past, but there is no need to belittle me. Thats an ad hominem. Furthermore, this statement is completely illogical. "what I wanted to do from the get now." HUH????

Quote: Now then, you justify war, as do I, because it is killing to save.

I have said that slavery used to be legal but now isnt, and i said the supreme court can be wrong so i agree.

You agree with yourself, according to the second sentence's structure. PS just because I dont agree with you on certain things doesnt give you the right to attack my debating as illogical. Dont do that again, either..(from something you said before)

Quote: Now that pro-lifers have all this evidence it is time for you to unite and bring up a retrial with the new found evidence. Get a team of lawyers, unite without all the religous and blanket statements you usually use, and march on capital hill with the same logic you just used on me. The supreme court may then over turn the ruling.

Again, what blanket statements? I find this very offensive, not to mention untrue.

Quote: Although Abortion is not legally murder, I never it said it shouldnt be, hence the post.

The reason you justify war and not abortion is that war is ultimately savings people while abortion is ultimately killing people to make the mother more comfortable.

When you talk about war and capitol punishment you use nothing but solid logic, which is good.

Great.. I really appreciate having to sit here and read your rundown of events... I dont need to have everything repeated to me, I am not a moron, thank you.

Quote: You were unable to reply to the rest of my post because you were stuck on sentience. I am not talking about that, I am talking about general forms of autonomy.

And since embryos have autonomy, then there really isnt an issue.

Quote: For instance, slavers were not autonomous because they were owned by slaves. A slave might not have full autonomy but he is a sentient being. Children do not have full autonomy because they are under their parents care, yet they are still sentient. Tawain does not have full autonomy becasue China wants to govern it. A fetus does not have PHYSICAL autonomy because it is PHYSICALLY ATTACHED TO ITS MOTHER.

As for the bold, youre grammar is horrendous and difficult to understand.. you really need to read your post after typing, please..

Shux. A woman doesnt have full autonomy, because she lives under the Government, then, based on your fallicious logic. Better yet, she doesnt have full autonomy to pay someone to kill another individual, just because it lives in her. SELF governing does not include the help of another, in your logic.

Quote: I have some technical journals if you like, but they are intended for people with a masters in a physical science, so you probably wont get much out of reading it.

Reported. Youre also ignored. I refuse to be treated like a dumb b****.

[Mycroft147]

EugenicHegemony wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: You cant compare the two. Miscarriages are considered natural, they happen and no-one can prove why they happened. Sure they can prove you went on a rollercoaster but they dont know if that actually killed your baby. Thats a bit different from going into a clinic to purposely have your baby killed. We at least shouldnt have purposeful legal killing of your child.

I can, I do and hence forth, I will.

If you choose to ignore what has been written.

Sailor Moon wrote:

I dont think its okay to abort at all, but I dont see how riding a rollercoaster could be made illegal, or criminalized, if the woman miscarried from it. After all, if she uses a roller coaster as a form of birth control, after having unprotected sex, then she is excercising autonomy, and I see nothing wrong with the idea that "left to outside chance", in regards to life and death in utero, should even BE an issue. Nothing is forced, even if it might be hoped for.



Miss Moon is in court:

Prosecution: Why on the day of December 25 2005 did you use the Roller Coaster in Disney World. If it will please the court, I have a video here of Miss Moon getting on the ride at Disney World. Can we please show that to the jury? Here you are seen on the Disney surveillance there getting on the fire and ice roller coaster. There is a warning *can we get a close up of that warning please, thank you, and freeze it*. That warning is specifically telling you not to ride if pregnant. *I have the actual warning here and will you please show it to the jury* Now I know you said you did not know you were pregnant. May I remind you you're under oath. Your boyfriend, and several of your close friends who I will be calling next have gone on record stating you knew full well you were pregnant and even said "I dont see how riding a rollercoaster could be made illegal, or criminalized, if the woman miscarried from it.". Now you're in court today because you have in fact miscarried, and lets not beat around the bush here, you murdered your baby, and did it deliberately. Did you or did you not say: "I dont see how riding a rollercoaster could be made illegal, or criminalized, if the woman miscarried from it." Such a careless and cold hearted statement ladies and gentlemen. I'm here to tell you Miss Moon, you premeditatedly murdered your child. That is outright fetal murder, and you're on trial now because of it. Not once did she ride this roller coaster ladies and gentlemen of the jury, she road it 25 times in one day. Well, I guess you really wanted to make sure you killed it....I'm sorry, you call that a miscarriage, don't you Miss Moon? No further questions your honor.....

Quote: I can see all the woman being hauled off, and arrested for "outright fetal murder".

Miss Moon--Only if the physician's en tow.

Quote: What do you mean?

Miss Moon--Opening a person up and killing the life inside= murder. Riding a roller coaster =/=(doesnt equal) murder. Get it?

Quote: Can it exist (incubate) if the mother is dead? eg: not sustaining it.

The fetus is not yet an individual with an independent existence; therefore it's up to it's host (the woman) to choose whether to abort or not, and no one else. The parents or courts who think they can coercively force the (woman) to carry term, have zero say in this as well.


Quote: Maybe their lover will spill the beans on her and turn her in, because if the lover knew and didn't report her to the proper Authoriti then he would be an accomplice to "outright fetal murder".

Miss Moon--That doesnt matter. Miscarriage cant be a crime.

Quote: What does a "miscarriage" have to do with anything I've said? :-|

Quote: The proper Authorti will bring the woman to a special clinic where they can test her in a forceful manner to see if she's done anything to her uterus.

Miss Moon--No they wont. Miscarriage is not a crime.

Quote: Again, same question. What does a "miscarriage" have to do with anything I've said?

Quote: If evidence is found to show that she was pregnant, and that she has, in fact, committed "outright fetal murder" then she'll be tried, and put in prison for it.

Miss Moon--Only if there is supporting evidence that she had someone open her up or prescribe/ give her something to force this murderish event to happen. Not if she just miscarries.

Quote: The evidence is found when your authoritarian forced birthing crew has her forcefully tested to see if she's done anything to her uterus or if anyone else has. Again, what does "miscarriage have to do with anything i've said?

Quote: The husband or boyfriend would be imprisoned also as he's an accomplice to "outright fetal murder".

Miss Moon--Only if he knew about her going to see a doctor or person performing or assisting in the abortion. Not if she miscarried. UNENFORCEABLE.

Quote: Exactly, if he knew then he's an accomplice to "outright fetal murder". How is it "unenforceable", and what is it with you and the miscarriages? Also, if it's "unenforceable" then why are you trying to enforce it? You're asking for something that has no end, and what gives you and your crew the right to initiate force on another?

Quote: The U.S. has imprisoned more of it's own people than any country in history so be proud. It's a very organized and effective system.

Miss Moon--Its terrible, I admit, but so is millions dead.

Quote: Not your problem and it's none of your business. I already stated many times that I'm not pro abortion. I just know I have zero right to play with a womans autonomy and her private body. Work on the reasons woman get abortions and do what you can to limit those reasons. Ever think about that? Forcing your will on another is dominion and I thought you were against that.

Abortion is a Subjective Moral Issue.

You ignore the fact that you still cant prove the roller coaster actually killed the baby. Sure its endagering it, but parents endanger their children every time they smoke cigarettes around them or give them foods that will eventually give them cancer. Its a totally different scenario to take the baby to a clinic designed to kill it.

[jlrobe]

EugenicHegemony, you make a pretty decent legal argument, and a case like this might go to a grand jury and make it to trial.

I doubt the case would be won. EVen if Miss Moon was found guilty, she would must likely appeal until it reached a high federal court. At the higher federal court I am sure it will be discovered that you cannot prove beyone a reasonable doubt how a miscarraige happened in regards to a rollercoaster. The court would then have to go on three seperate routes.
1) Intent. They would have to establish that she intended to miscarry her baby by riding on the rollercoaster.
2) Depraved indifference. She reasonably knew and was warned that riding on the roller coaster would jeopardize the health of the fetus and violated its right to life.
3) Gross negligence. She neglected her fetus and that ultimately led her death.

Now gross negligence would never fly becasue that would mean that women who go to dangerous countries, eat questionable food, took kickboxing, or dont maintain a balanced diet would be at risk. A federal court would never risk this. THus you only have the two left.

Depraved indifference is a tough one. In this case, the mother KNEW that her actions would most likely result in the death of her fetus while causing no direct harm to herself. This would be a stretch and hard to win as well at the higher courts, but I will list this as a "stretch".

The last one, which is intent, would be sufficient if a court could prove such a thing. There would have to be sworn testimony that the woman told someone she intended to kill her fetus by her actions.

Interesing post however.

[jlrobe]

Sailor. You are not getting physical autonomy right. If a fetus is so autonoums, then why cant they choose to detach themselves from their mother at 5 months. BECAUSE they will die. being able to wiggle is not autonomy.

[jlrobe]

Sailor, I am not belittling you.

Althoug your quote about killing doctors being good was a little hard to take.

I have obviously offended you sense your last post was more emotion than logic.

I apologize. Now lets both get over it, and start to debate rationally again.

I do commend you for being logical though. If that is belittling then Im sorry, but your post about killing being good rubbed me way to wrong. YOur justification of certain crimes becuase of Jesus and swords also rubbed me the wrong way.

But hey, I am willing to overlook that.

[Mycroft147]

hey a little off subject, why exactly arent animals considered on t he same level as humans? Besides species difference obviously...

[EugenicHegemony]

Mycroft147 wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: You cant compare the two. Miscarriages are considered natural, they happen and no-one can prove why they happened. Sure they can prove you went on a rollercoaster but they dont know if that actually killed your baby. Thats a bit different from going into a clinic to purposely have your baby killed. We at least shouldnt have purposeful legal killing of your child.

I can, I do and hence forth, I will.

If you choose to ignore what has been written.

Sailor Moon wrote:

I dont think its okay to abort at all, but I dont see how riding a rollercoaster could be made illegal, or criminalized, if the woman miscarried from it. After all, if she uses a roller coaster as a form of birth control, after having unprotected sex, then she is excercising autonomy, and I see nothing wrong with the idea that "left to outside chance", in regards to life and death in utero, should even BE an issue. Nothing is forced, even if it might be hoped for.



Miss Moon is in court:

Prosecution: Why on the day of December 25 2005 did you use the Roller Coaster in Disney World. If it will please the court, I have a video here of Miss Moon getting on the ride at Disney World. Can we please show that to the jury? Here you are seen on the Disney surveillance there getting on the fire and ice roller coaster. There is a warning *can we get a close up of that warning please, thank you, and freeze it*. That warning is specifically telling you not to ride if pregnant. *I have the actual warning here and will you please show it to the jury* Now I know you said you did not know you were pregnant. May I remind you you're under oath. Your boyfriend, and several of your close friends who I will be calling next have gone on record stating you knew full well you were pregnant and even said "I dont see how riding a rollercoaster could be made illegal, or criminalized, if the woman miscarried from it.". Now you're in court today because you have in fact miscarried, and lets not beat around the bush here, you murdered your baby, and did it deliberately. Did you or did you not say: "I dont see how riding a rollercoaster could be made illegal, or criminalized, if the woman miscarried from it." Such a careless and cold hearted statement ladies and gentlemen. I'm here to tell you Miss Moon, you premeditatedly murdered your child. That is outright fetal murder, and you're on trial now because of it. Not once did she ride this roller coaster ladies and gentlemen of the jury, she road it 25 times in one day. Well, I guess you really wanted to make sure you killed it....I'm sorry, you call that a miscarriage, don't you Miss Moon? No further questions your honor.....

Quote: I can see all the woman being hauled off, and arrested for "outright fetal murder".

Miss Moon--Only if the physician's en tow.

Quote: What do you mean?

Miss Moon--Opening a person up and killing the life inside= murder. Riding a roller coaster =/=(doesnt equal) murder. Get it?

Quote: Can it exist (incubate) if the mother is dead? eg: not sustaining it.

The fetus is not yet an individual with an independent existence; therefore it's up to it's host (the woman) to choose whether to abort or not, and no one else. The parents or courts who think they can coercively force the (woman) to carry term, have zero say in this as well.


Quote: Maybe their lover will spill the beans on her and turn her in, because if the lover knew and didn't report her to the proper Authoriti then he would be an accomplice to "outright fetal murder".

Miss Moon--That doesnt matter. Miscarriage cant be a crime.

Quote: What does a "miscarriage" have to do with anything I've said? :-|

Quote: The proper Authorti will bring the woman to a special clinic where they can test her in a forceful manner to see if she's done anything to her uterus.

Miss Moon--No they wont. Miscarriage is not a crime.

Quote: Again, same question. What does a "miscarriage" have to do with anything I've said?

Quote: If evidence is found to show that she was pregnant, and that she has, in fact, committed "outright fetal murder" then she'll be tried, and put in prison for it.

Miss Moon--Only if there is supporting evidence that she had someone open her up or prescribe/ give her something to force this murderish event to happen. Not if she just miscarries.

Quote: The evidence is found when your authoritarian forced birthing crew has her forcefully tested to see if she's done anything to her uterus or if anyone else has. Again, what does "miscarriage have to do with anything i've said?

Quote: The husband or boyfriend would be imprisoned also as he's an accomplice to "outright fetal murder".

Miss Moon--Only if he knew about her going to see a doctor or person performing or assisting in the abortion. Not if she miscarried. UNENFORCEABLE.

Quote: Exactly, if he knew then he's an accomplice to "outright fetal murder". How is it "unenforceable", and what is it with you and the miscarriages? Also, if it's "unenforceable" then why are you trying to enforce it? You're asking for something that has no end, and what gives you and your crew the right to initiate force on another?

Quote: The U.S. has imprisoned more of it's own people than any country in history so be proud. It's a very organized and effective system.

Miss Moon--Its terrible, I admit, but so is millions dead.

Quote: Not your problem and it's none of your business. I already stated many times that I'm not pro abortion. I just know I have zero right to play with a womans autonomy and her private body. Work on the reasons woman get abortions and do what you can to limit those reasons. Ever think about that? Forcing your will on another is dominion and I thought you were against that.

Abortion is a Subjective Moral Issue.

You ignore the fact that you still cant prove the roller coaster actually killed the baby. Sure its endagering it, but parents endanger their children every time they smoke cigarettes around them or give them foods that will eventually give them cancer. Its a totally different scenario to take the baby to a clinic designed to kill it.

To do something that's deliberately hazardous (threatening it's existence) to the baby is not ignoring anything. It's not different at all when the end result has the same outcome.

[jlrobe]

As far as my grammar being horrendous, it is not. It is called a typo and I fixed it. Go back and read the original.

My logic is not flawed. You keep making a conclusion for me.

SLAVES were not AUTONOMOUS. Was it fair, hell no! Do kids have as much rights as adults? No. Are they AS AUTONOMOUS as adults, no. Can they govern themselves? yes. But not as much because their parents have alot of say. If the get Emancipated as a child from your parents, or if a slave gets emanciapted, then they will be more autonomous. If a fetus gets physically "emancipated" so to speak, it will have the umbilical cord cut. it is what it is. My logic is sound. Tawain is self governing, but not completely autonomous. Japan is autonomous to the US in government but not completely militarily. A fetus can CHOOSE to move its limbs like any other sentient being but it is physically connected to its mother and is thus not physically autonomous.

I am not saying or never did say physical autonomy should be a requirement. I say I favor the mother more and it is my BIAS. I will go and see if I can find other journals that can prove my point.

My journals are technical ones that spell out technical definitions. I am sorry, that I dont have any other common knowledge reference,.

[Mycroft147]

EugenicHegemony wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: You cant compare the two. Miscarriages are considered natural, they happen and no-one can prove why they happened. Sure they can prove you went on a rollercoaster but they dont know if that actually killed your baby. Thats a bit different from going into a clinic to purposely have your baby killed. We at least shouldnt have purposeful legal killing of your child.

I can, I do and hence forth, I will.

If you choose to ignore what has been written.

Sailor Moon wrote:

I dont think its okay to abort at all, but I dont see how riding a rollercoaster could be made illegal, or criminalized, if the woman miscarried from it. After all, if she uses a roller coaster as a form of birth control, after having unprotected sex, then she is excercising autonomy, and I see nothing wrong with the idea that "left to outside chance", in regards to life and death in utero, should even BE an issue. Nothing is forced, even if it might be hoped for.



Miss Moon is in court:

Prosecution: Why on the day of December 25 2005 did you use the Roller Coaster in Disney World. If it will please the court, I have a video here of Miss Moon getting on the ride at Disney World. Can we please show that to the jury? Here you are seen on the Disney surveillance there getting on the fire and ice roller coaster. There is a warning *can we get a close up of that warning please, thank you, and freeze it*. That warning is specifically telling you not to ride if pregnant. *I have the actual warning here and will you please show it to the jury* Now I know you said you did not know you were pregnant. May I remind you you're under oath. Your boyfriend, and several of your close friends who I will be calling next have gone on record stating you knew full well you were pregnant and even said "I dont see how riding a rollercoaster could be made illegal, or criminalized, if the woman miscarried from it.". Now you're in court today because you have in fact miscarried, and lets not beat around the bush here, you murdered your baby, and did it deliberately. Did you or did you not say: "I dont see how riding a rollercoaster could be made illegal, or criminalized, if the woman miscarried from it." Such a careless and cold hearted statement ladies and gentlemen. I'm here to tell you Miss Moon, you premeditatedly murdered your child. That is outright fetal murder, and you're on trial now because of it. Not once did she ride this roller coaster ladies and gentlemen of the jury, she road it 25 times in one day. Well, I guess you really wanted to make sure you killed it....I'm sorry, you call that a miscarriage, don't you Miss Moon? No further questions your honor.....

Quote: I can see all the woman being hauled off, and arrested for "outright fetal murder".

Miss Moon--Only if the physician's en tow.

Quote: What do you mean?

Miss Moon--Opening a person up and killing the life inside= murder. Riding a roller coaster =/=(doesnt equal) murder. Get it?

Quote: Can it exist (incubate) if the mother is dead? eg: not sustaining it.

The fetus is not yet an individual with an independent existence; therefore it's up to it's host (the woman) to choose whether to abort or not, and no one else. The parents or courts who think they can coercively force the (woman) to carry term, have zero say in this as well.


Quote: Maybe their lover will spill the beans on her and turn her in, because if the lover knew and didn't report her to the proper Authoriti then he would be an accomplice to "outright fetal murder".

Miss Moon--That doesnt matter. Miscarriage cant be a crime.

Quote: What does a "miscarriage" have to do with anything I've said? :-|

Quote: The proper Authorti will bring the woman to a special clinic where they can test her in a forceful manner to see if she's done anything to her uterus.

Miss Moon--No they wont. Miscarriage is not a crime.

Quote: Again, same question. What does a "miscarriage" have to do with anything I've said?

Quote: If evidence is found to show that she was pregnant, and that she has, in fact, committed "outright fetal murder" then she'll be tried, and put in prison for it.

Miss Moon--Only if there is supporting evidence that she had someone open her up or prescribe/ give her something to force this murderish event to happen. Not if she just miscarries.

Quote: The evidence is found when your authoritarian forced birthing crew has her forcefully tested to see if she's done anything to her uterus or if anyone else has. Again, what does "miscarriage have to do with anything i've said?

Quote: The husband or boyfriend would be imprisoned also as he's an accomplice to "outright fetal murder".

Miss Moon--Only if he knew about her going to see a doctor or person performing or assisting in the abortion. Not if she miscarried. UNENFORCEABLE.

Quote: Exactly, if he knew then he's an accomplice to "outright fetal murder". How is it "unenforceable", and what is it with you and the miscarriages? Also, if it's "unenforceable" then why are you trying to enforce it? You're asking for something that has no end, and what gives you and your crew the right to initiate force on another?

Quote: The U.S. has imprisoned more of it's own people than any country in history so be proud. It's a very organized and effective system.

Miss Moon--Its terrible, I admit, but so is millions dead.

Quote: Not your problem and it's none of your business. I already stated many times that I'm not pro abortion. I just know I have zero right to play with a womans autonomy and her private body. Work on the reasons woman get abortions and do what you can to limit those reasons. Ever think about that? Forcing your will on another is dominion and I thought you were against that.

Abortion is a Subjective Moral Issue.

You ignore the fact that you still cant prove the roller coaster actually killed the baby. Sure its endagering it, but parents endanger their children every time they smoke cigarettes around them or give them foods that will eventually give them cancer. Its a totally different scenario to take the baby to a clinic designed to kill it.

To do something that's deliberately hazardous (threatening it's existence) to the baby is not ignoring anything. It's not different at all when the end result has the same outcome.

So smoking around your child should be illegal?

Your argument is off subject anyways, you should be debating whether or not the baby is a human before viability. If it is then they have a right not to be murdered.