Late-term abortionist killed

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Greg,I don't have a strong opinion on Arnold one way or the other.It was Pete Wilson who sold this state down the river with the minority mess.He was a crook and used his connections to rezone his way into being able to letthe minority basically filibuster the state senate. He was a scandle waiting to happen. With Willie Brown as the leader of the majoity nothing got done.What's going on now is not Arnolds fault.He's a guy who tries to get it done over the dead bodies of a locked up state govenment.

Having delivered two kids,I'm keenly aware of the miriacle of the first gurggle and the natural abilityto feed seconds out of the womb.It's a tough call.However,murder is a very strong word when it involves a womans right to have the final decision.I see both sides.It's to heady a call to let the wing nuts run the show,on either side so it becomes an issue settled in the courts for the time being.

Leo,I'm done for the time being slugging out with you.I'm not going to bring you over,I'm not going to back off on my opinions and issues and it will be what it will be.I believe your wrong on most things,but what else in new.I've got things to say and if they invoke your wrath it only feeds my determination to make my point in a different way.I still maintain you have a great deal more anger in your posts then previously noted.It's a measure of the climate that this election has evoked in some groups. I honestly did not see it comong.I stayed off this site for 7 months. and noted an extreme change in the heat in the kitchen when I returned.It sparked a reaction,perhaps an over reaction to the daily debate on my part.

Hey TallCal, I REALLY liked this post. NO ranting or hate mongering. IF you could write like this all the time then I could stop ranting and yelling and we could have some VERY interesting talks. Shoot, there MAYBE some common ground somewhere. Not likely, but you never know.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
It all sounds so nice and pretty to talk about a woman choosing what to do with her own body. The problem is the baby inside isn't her body. It's just a temporary space occupier. If a woman decides to remove her little finger for whatever crazy reason or to remove her breasts for fear of breast cancer or to have her big toenail removed or whatever else that's varying degrees of strange but that's her body and her choice. If a woman decides to have an abortion that's the baby's body not hers. She is killing life that isn't her own. When abortion is chosen as a convenience, as an after the fact birth control, it is wrong.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
I think we can all agree on Leo's last statement: abortion should not be used as birth control. [Nor would it need be, if the government didn't prohibit family planning in favor of the unrealistic abstinence only education that has proven so disastrously ineffective. And if humans and birth control were infallible, but they're neither of them going to be that any time soon, if ever] Human nature being what it is, folks are going to have sex outside of marriage, ok? Some will be educated, intelligent, and responsible about it, but some won't, that's just a fact.
Even opponents agree that abortion should be available to victims of rape, incest, and mental health issues, so the question becomes one of defining acceptable parameters, no?
My belief is that those parameters can be decided only by the folks involved: the woman, the man, and the doctor - no one else has any right to intrude their beliefs into the decision.
We do have a responsibility to reduce the need for abortion as much as possible, by education - it is far easier to prevent a baby than to raise one, uh huh. Perhaps a campaign of unwed teen mothers, presenting their stories to high school assemblies would be much better than pretending that promises to abstain until marriage are going to solve the problem. Anyone who's ever made a New Year's resolution knows how much that's worth, in the real world!
Aside to Leo: regarding the women who call it a 'baby', does that mean that a woman who calls her husband 'Daddy' is engaged in incest?
Aside to Greg: the left is more emotional? Really? Which side is responsible for the clinic bombings? How about the freakin billboards with sweet adorable REAL babies pictured under the "Choose life!" caption? Give me a break, huh?
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Cheri,
The left is more emotional because of the way they shut down debate, yelling and screaming until the person either gives up or stops out of frustration.

The government never prevented family planning to take place, they forbid the use of federal funds and rightfully so. The states should be the ones who make the decision of all of this, because it is not a right.

You have to make a choice, you either stand on the side of privacy which this is all based on or you invite the government to be involved - there is no in between. The court was clear, the government has no right on what happens between a doctor and the patient but everyone assumes that this is a right and and miss the point that if this is a right but privacy isn't, then there is a double standard and the government is allowed to do what ever they feel is right to do as the masses want them to do.

We started down the path of what is funded and what isn't, and it has led us to a mess of government funded birth control methods, like Medicaid paid abortion. The abstinence programs may be a joke but you know they are the safest for us when we look at all of this as a private matter between a doctor and a patient.
 

Steady Eddie

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Last night I shot and killed my pregnant truck stop mistress. That embryo thingy in her womb didn't survive. The cops arrested me and I am waiting to be charged with murder. What's it gonna be; 1 count of homicide or 2?

In this account you will be charged with 2 counts of murder....strange ain't it?
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter

Even opponents agree that abortion should be available to victims of rape, incest, and mental health issues, so the question becomes one of defining acceptable parameters, no?

My belief is that those parameters can be decided only by the folks involved: the woman, the man, and the doctor - no one else has any right to intrude their beliefs into the decision.

I'm betting my dollar the significant majority of abortions are not an aftermath to rape, incest or mental health issues. I'd be surprised if the sum total exceeded one percent but it might be a little more than that.

Based on your criteria it's ok to eliminate anyone as long as "the woman, the man, and the doctor agree". That presumably would be the bio mom, sperm donor and doctor. Please don't throw out that tired and lame viability excuse that the feminists created to attempt to justify what shouldn't be justified. If the sperm/egg donors can't agree along with a doctor to get rid of a 3 week old or 3 year old or 23 year old for that matter then they shouldn't be able to for a 23 week fetus either. Both outcomes unjustly shorten an otherwise potentially good life.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
I think the FBI stats on rape for 2007 were 90,427 reported rapes in the US out of a population of 301,621,157.

Incest is not a stat that can be found easily but I think something like .4 in 100,000 may be accurate.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The baby isn't inside her body? It's merely a temporary space occupier? That's pretty funny. Tell that to my pregnant dog.

Like I said, you can try and justify it anyway you want, but it's nothing more than you trying to dictate your own beliefs to someone else, forcing them to do as you wish. Reminds me of the gun control wackos, actually. But at least the gun control nuts have a stake in things, as they are directly affected by the issue. But they're still trying to dictate their wishes onto everybody else. In the case of someone wanting to have a baby, or not wanting to have one, getting an abortion or not getting one, that's none of your business. It's their business.


"I understand and can accept it in cases of rape or incest."

Why? It's life created by God, isn't it? Accepting it is nothing more than justifying murder. If you can justify it in one way, your way, then you must allow for someone else to justify it in their way. Or is it simply a case that everyone should yield to your wishes?

Moot: Slam dunk, 2 counts of murder. You took two lives that you were not entitled to take. The mother has sole possession and sole responsibility for both lives, and she can do with them whatever she wants, including aborting the baby, or paddling it's butt when it acts up and throws a temper tantrum in the grocery store 3 years later.

People need to mainly just do a whole lot more of minding their own business and quit telling others what to do. Keep in mind that every time you think someone believes the wrong thing, that they are not thinking correctly, or you want to tell them what to do and what not to do, someone else out there is thinking the same exact thing about you. And they just might be right. Uh, oh.

Leo, "Based on your criteria it's ok to eliminate anyone as long as "the woman, the man, and the doctor agree". That presumably would be the bio mom, sperm donor and doctor."

Absolutely correct. Anyone outside of that trio should have no say in the outcome. Except, even within that trio, the ultimate decision is up to the woman, whether the other two agree or not.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Hey TallCal, I REALLY liked this post. NO ranting or hate mongering. IF you could write like this all the time then I could stop ranting and yelling and we could have some VERY interesting talks. Shoot, there MAYBE some common ground somewhere. Not likely, but you never know.

Oooo - so your ranting and yelling isn't because it's what you chose, it's because someone made you do it. Okaaaay then.
Did you have as much trouble reading that with a straight face as I had typing it?
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Leo, "Based on your criteria it's ok to eliminate anyone as long as "the woman, the man, and the doctor agree". That presumably would be the bio mom, sperm donor and doctor."

Absolutely correct. Anyone outside of that trio should have no say in the outcome. Except, even within that trio, the ultimate decision is up to the woman, whether the other two agree or not.

Turtle, the baby is it's own life that temporarily resides inside the woman's body. It is not part of her body like her toenails, breasts and tonsils. I am not justifying anything. You apparently, and definitely anyone claiming abortion on demand is ok, are justifying the decision to take a life by one person imposing their will on one who isn't allowed a say in the matter.

As to what you are agreeing to above, that says that any man/woman who are the sperm/egg donors can decide in conjunction with a doctor to eliminate anyone, not just the unborn. Had you included all I said you'd have included where I said that was the same whether fetus or 3 year old or 23 year old, in other words anyone of any age. The trivial act of passing through a birth canal makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. It's either ok for anyone who hasn't yet reached death or it's not ok for anyone except in the case of rape or incest.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Turtle, the baby is it's own life that temporarily resides inside the woman's body.
No, it's not a fully separate life until it is born, at most it is a symbiotic relationship, except that the mother can survive just fine without the baby inside her, but the baby cannot survive outside the womb. The baby is 100% dependent on the mother. While I agree that life begins at conception, it is not an autonomous life at conception.

You apparently, and definitely anyone claiming abortion on demand is ok, are justifying the decision to take a life by one person imposing their will on one who isn't allowed a say in the matter.
Well, in the context of abortion, yes, that's correct.

As to what you are agreeing to above, that says that any man/woman who are the sperm/egg donors can decide in conjunction with a doctor to eliminate anyone, not just the unborn.
Be VERY careful which words you choose to put into my mouth. When you start taking my words and extrapolating them to mean something that I did not say, any and all credibility and respect you have is gone. You're exhibiting the same emotional trappings as the ultra liberal when you do that. I won't put up with it from them, anymore than I'll put up with it from you.

What I said was, unless you got her pregnant, it's none of your business.

Just because you want to make it your business doesn't make it your business. What if I feel that conceal and carry is wrong, and that you should not do it? Never mind what the law says, I don't care what the law says, all that I care about is that it's wrong and you shouldn't do it. Now take your reaction to that and apply it directly to that of a pregnant woman who is contemplating abortion. Who are you to tell her what she can and cannot do? (Other than someone who is sticking their nose into someone else's business, I mean.)

Had you included all I said you'd have included where I said that was the same whether fetus or 3 year old or 23 year old, in other words anyone of any age.
I didn't include it because the life of a fetus (I actually prefer the term unborn child) is not the same as that of a separate, autonomous life, and to suggest that it is the same is just absurd. It's a foolish emotional argument.

Hey, there's your favorite "F" word! :)

The trivial act of passing through a birth canal makes no difference in the grand scheme of things.
Of course it does. Passing through a birth canal is no trivial matter. That's why they issue Birth Certificates instead of Conception Certificates. Life is one thing, but viable life is another. Born is different from unborn. My niece had a miscarriage after about 7 weeks of pregnancy. Who gets charged with that murder?


It's either ok for anyone who hasn't yet reached death or it's not ok for anyone except in the case of rape or incest.
Why is cold-blooded murder OK in the case of rape and incest?


I'm against abortion. I think it's disgusting. It should be discouraged. But I'm not going to tell someone that they must not have an abortion and that they must have the baby. That's not my call. And it's not yours, no matter how badly you want it to be.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
You can't use viability as an argument unless willing to say that astronauts and scuba divers are not life because without the umbilical connection they are not viable in their temporary surroundings either. As soon as we figure out how to successfully create an umbilical and womb like environment your (faulty) reasoning as to why the unborn baby doesn't count will cease to exist since the mother's body won't be mandatory.

Also, I am not putting words in your mouth, just pointing out that your response was to only part of what I said and therefore wasn't accurate since it was based on an incomplete statement quotation.
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
You can't use viability as an argument unless willing to say that astronauts and scuba divers are not life because without the umbilical connection they are not viable in their temporary surroundings either.
That' a particularly bad analogy one many levels, with the most important one being that I never said that the unborn was not life. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said the exact opposite. Strike that, I KNOW I did.

Second, autonomous life using tools to protect themselves in harsh or hostile environments is not the same thing as a fetus in the womb. In fact, the womb is the most hospitable environment imaginable for a fetus, regardless of how temporary it may be.

In any case, I use viability as the case for why it's called a Birth Certificate and not a Conception Certificate. There is a difference between being born and not-born.

As soon as we figure out how to successfully create an umbilical and womb like environment your (faulty) reasoning as to why the unborn baby doesn't count will cease to exist since the mother's body won't be mandatory.
Using your own logic here, until such time as the mother's body is no longer mandatory, then the argument is not faulty. You can't fault the argument based on something that might happen one day in the future, meaning, you can't base the validity of current conditions on the validity of future conditions. If conditions change, the argument, or indeed the need for such an argument, will likely change.

It wasn't all that long ago that a baby born just a few weeks premature had little or no chance of survival. Medical advances now make it possible for extremely premature babies to survive, making the age of viability much sooner. When the day happens that the mother's body no longer mandatory, that's the day that abortion ceases to exist. Until then, if the fetus isn't viable outside the womb, it's not the same as a born baby. You can tell a Stop sign that it's blue until you're blue in the face, but it'll still be red.

[quote[Also, I am not putting words in your mouth, just pointing out that your response was to only part of what I said and therefore wasn't accurate since it was based on an incomplete statement quotation.[/QUOTE]
You took my words, and extrapolated them mean something of your own. I have never equated the unborn with that of the born, you did that for me.

In any case, why do you feel that you have the right to tell someone what they can and can't do? If it's your moral superiority, well, you've got to be very careful about that, too.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
What gives us that right is morals. Those who would kill for no real MEDICAL reason are lacking in them. So are the killer doctors. I would REQUIRE that any woman, and her man if he agrees, who kill thier baby for other than medical reason should NEVER be allowed to have any more. They are NOT going to be good parents. Cutting off thier "tools" would help. They are NOT smart enough to keep it in thier pants. Pretty darn stupid in my book.
 

DougTravels

Not a Member
I would REQUIRE that any woman, and her man if he agrees, who kill thier baby for other than medical reason should NEVER be allowed to have any more. They are NOT going to be good parents. Cutting off thier "tools" would help. They are NOT smart enough to keep it in thier pants. Pretty darn stupid in my book.

Again you are wrong Layout, I know a lady that had a legal abortion when she became pregant at a young age. A few years later she married and the couple then raised a wonderful child. Before you go bashing her a stiff warning, this is a no bs story this person is close to me and i will take what you say personally.

BTW wouldn't that be gov't interferring in our lives, a thing which you are strongly opposed to?
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
First, I was musing about that, Second, she should have put the child up for adoption. Play adult games you need to accept what happens. Killing a healthy normal human because the parent/parents are stupid irresponsible immoral garden slugs is just plain wrong. You don't think that EVERYONE should accept the responsibliltiy of thier actions? That does not surprise me one bit. :(
 

DougTravels

Not a Member
First, I was musing about that, Second, she should have put the child up for adoption. Play adult games you need to accept what happens. Killing a healthy normal human because the parent/parents are stupid irresponsible immoral garden slugs is just plain wrong. You don't think that EVERYONE should accept the responsibliltiy of thier actions? That does not surprise me one bit. :(

Maybe so about adoption, just saying people can make good parents after that. I wasn't in her shoes so I do not judge her decision.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Moral people have the right to judge. We make judgements on right and wrong. Who to hang around with, who not too. What to do, what not to do. I have to judge others morals to insure that I only hang with good, solid, moral people.

I know that people can change. In my experience they seldom do. I will NOT comprimise my values to fit into today's "lack of values" "lack of morals" feel good avoid responsibility sociaty. I refuse to lower my standards.

Good post on your part. Well thought out. I don't agree but it allows for further talk. Keep it up!! There may be hope for you yet!!! :D
 

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
My morals are far superior to your morals.

Now what?
Um, ah, my psilocybin is superior to your morels, um I think? Therefor I am.... Wait man, ah, um, my whole life is superior to like less superior lives. Wow! That was like really heavy man!
 
Top