So are you for murdering infants? A mother's rights only extend until it gets to the other person's right to live. The proper solution is for women to be armed to stop any rapist and take the proper drugs that will keep a pregnancy from happening in the first place, or perhaps day after drugs that simply cause the uterus to flush everything.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Need help picking to vote for
- Thread starter Firedawg314
- Start date
So are you for murdering infants? A mother's rights only extend until it gets to the other person's right to live. The proper solution is for women to be armed to stop any rapist and take the proper drugs that will keep a pregnancy from happening in the first place, or perhaps day after drugs that simply cause the uterus to flush everything.
09jisaac
Regular Member
EXACTLY!!! That is what I said, wait, no. The baby is the victim (dead baby in an abortion). Even if you want to call it by other, technical names it is still a living human being. I don't care what the government wants to make illegal, I just don't think they have the right to enforce it without a victim.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Abortion is the 'law of the land', leave it alone. It is only a issue for the narrow minded and the myopic of vision. There are far more important issues that affect every person male/female, young/old....like our 2A right to self-defense.
As far as the union thing goes, work in a union shop or not, your choice.
As far as the union thing goes, work in a union shop or not, your choice.
09jisaac
Regular Member
I agree with what you're saying, just not how you're saying it. The proper solution is to enforce the laws against rape. But since that would leave a victim then women do need to carry (as with everyone else) to stop these acts from taking place.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Life must be drawn at some point. Where do we stop? Do we charge that a man who spills his seed in a condom, or in the shower is committing murder? Is it the moment of conception (whenever that may be established)? So many questions, so few answers from Christians trying to force their own Tyranny on the body of a female.
So, a mother only has Liberty, and Freedom until there is an others Liberty, and Freedom at stake? How contingent!
So much for Fundamental Liberty, and Freedom.There is no fast solution. Morning after pills are a viable option, that is, if the mother is able to access them. Apparently there are many Christians who are opposed to the morning after pill option as well as abortion.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Maybe you didn't follow me. I am going to take it easy on you right now: So the female is not the victim, when she is raped but the baby is the victim when they are aborted?
Back to the OP. You should vote for whatever candidate you most agree with. If you are Republican, you are going to have a tough choice this time around as they are all crap--with the exception of Paul, but he is not going to get on the ticket, period!
Last edited:
Life must be drawn at some point. Where do we stop? Do we charge that a man who spills his seed in a condom, or in the shower is committing murder? Is it the moment of conception (whenever that may be established)? So many questions, so few answers from Christians trying to force their own Tyranny on the body of a female.
So, a mother only has Liberty, and Freedom until there is an others Liberty, and Freedom at stake? How contingent!
There is no fast solution. Morning after pills are a viable option, that is, if the mother is able to access them. Apparently there are many Christians who are opposed to the morning after pill option as well as abortion.
Semen is part of a man as eggs are part of a woman, it is not an independent life form. It is a tricky subject of how to draw the line. I think the proper solution is not allowing the fetus to be directly killed. If the fetus/infant is ejected by artificial or natural means then I can hardly think murder has taken place. Of course if this was late enough for the baby to survive outside the womb then someone must take care of it or face charges of neglect.
Edit: Yes, your rights end where another's begins, that is the basis of society and why I can't just come and kill you and take your things. My rights to behave as I choose end where it interferes with your rights to life and property.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
I think your approach is essentially mine, and represents the only way to reconcile the non-overlapping nature of rights, vis-à-vis mother's right of self-ownership, and an unborn child's right to not be murdered.
A mother has no right to murder a viable human, but nor has a fetus the right to force its mother to keep it in her body (which it does not own). If the fetus is yet incapable of surviving outside its mother, it follows that the fetus has yet no "right to life" in a sense which prevents the mother from receiving an abortion. "Your rights begin where mine end". Once the fetus's ability to survive is no longer dependent upon its mother's exercise of her right to self-ownership, then it can be said to have an inviolable "right to life" of its own, in a sense which prohibits its being murdered.
Incidentally, as the fetus's right to life can be established as dependent upon (and only upon) its mother's exercise of her right of self-ownership, it follows that it is still murder for an assailant to kill a fetus whose mother has not exercised this right by choosing to have an abortion.
Last edited:
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
Life must be drawn at some point. Where do we stop? Do we charge that a man who spills his seed in a condom, or in the shower is committing murder? Is it the moment of conception (whenever that may be established)? So many questions, so few answers from Christians trying to force their own Tyranny on the body of a female.
So, a mother only has Liberty, and Freedom until there is an others Liberty, and Freedom at stake? How contingent!
There is no fast solution. Morning after pills are a viable option, that is, if the mother is able to access them. Apparently there are many Christians who are opposed to the morning after pill option as well as abortion.
LOL, you know better than this! Everyone's liberty stops at another's liberty which is part of the very idea of fundamental liberty. I think you are just trying to start something now.
There are actually very few legitimate questions in the debate. The biggest of all is when a fetus is entitled to the rights of personhood. I don't think sperm would be a legitimate question though. LOL I' don't know if I should get any deeper into this as it's a touchy subject and as I said; even libertarians have three different views on the matter.
And one of the three accepted libertarian positions.
Last edited:
09jisaac
Regular Member
Lets equate this to something that you can understand: If you hit my car (a mistake but still you're at fault) should I be able to steal someone else's car?
The female is a victim of a crime (rape)
But, in my opinion, that does not excuse here of committing another crime. If she don't want the baby, it is fine put it up for adoption. If someone breaks into my house I have to deal with the consequences, I didn't do anything wrong but I still can't go stealing other peoples stuff to make my home whole again.
Oh my, that's news to me.
georg jetson
Regular Member
I see people have taken a thread meant to garner help for the hopelessly indecisive and turned it into a very relaxing discussion about abortion... Ya gotta love the social lounge.
If I may offer some soothing opinion on the matter...
It is most ridiculous to try and decide what "line" is the correct one when determining when a "person" becomes such. That is because even at a time we'd all agree on, say birth, even then that child has no separable rights from the parents...
In other words they gave it life in the first place. It is a relatively modern idea... this foolishness of children's rights. There are ONLY parental rights. Children belong to parents because it is solely the act of the parents that has brought about the child. It is the misconception that the government has the right to intervene at all in the family AND that is the seed of destruction of any free society.
If I may offer some soothing opinion on the matter...
It is most ridiculous to try and decide what "line" is the correct one when determining when a "person" becomes such. That is because even at a time we'd all agree on, say birth, even then that child has no separable rights from the parents...
In other words they gave it life in the first place. It is a relatively modern idea... this foolishness of children's rights. There are ONLY parental rights. Children belong to parents because it is solely the act of the parents that has brought about the child. It is the misconception that the government has the right to intervene at all in the family AND that is the seed of destruction of any free society.
09jisaac
Regular Member
Are you going to start this again? You didn't get any support for that view in the last thread you posted that, and I doubt you will get any here. EVERYONE has rights, that they get when they are conceived (in my opinion).
georg jetson
Regular Member
I'm not starting anything... the discussion has already moved completely off topic.
I don't expect to get support for this view... However, I do know that my opinion in this case is the correct one. Let me give a simple demonstration.
Say I have a 2 year old. It goes to touch something dangerous and in order to protect the child, I slap its hand in such a way to cause it SAFE pain. I do this in order for it to learn to be safe and not touch the dangerous something.
Have I assaulted the child?
Regardless of his personal views on unions, it WILL NOT be something he uses at the Federal level. He is committed to returning this power to the states. As is it, there are States that are very pro-union, and those that are not. There is no reason for the Federal Government to be involved, and you can bet Ron Paul will ensure it stays that way.
Your choice is clear.
09jisaac
Regular Member
I don't think you fully understand what the word "opinion" means.
But no, you didn't assault the child.... but just because I slap your hand doesn't mean I have assaulted you either. So example you used was invalid.
georg jetson
Regular Member
You're correct. I intended to use the term "battery". In my state battery is defined...
Battery is the intentional use of force or violence upon the person of another; or the intentional administration of a poison or other noxious liquid or substance to another.
If I may ask again, have I committed battery upon my child?
Last edited:
09jisaac
Regular Member
I am pretty sure you would have to hit a person harder than a slap on the hand to be considered battery.
If I punch a kid in the face it would be assault/battery/abuse
If I punch anyone else in the face it would be assault/battery
So your point isn't holding too much water with me.
If I punch a kid in the face it would be assault/battery/abuse
If I punch anyone else in the face it would be assault/battery
So your point isn't holding too much water with me.
georg jetson
Regular Member
`
That's because you're changing the situation.
I stated that "I slap its hand in such a way to cause it SAFE pain." That fits the definition of battery in my state. I commit "the intentional use of force or violence upon the person of another."
It would not be battery if I saw you attempt to touch my car and then I slap your hand with enough force to make you reconsider your actions?