The Abortion Question

[*PhilHos*]

(09-29-2015, 10:49 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Is a uterus a part of a woman's body?  What happens when you remove the fetus from the woman's uterus?

Yes, the uterus is a part of a woman's body.  The fetus is not. He or she is a separate entity that is reliant upon the mother in order to live until such time as he or she has developed the capacity to fend for itself. Usually around the late teenage years for the average person.

I love how the fact that a fetus is dependent on his or her mother is somehow a reason FOR abortion.

[Naranja Tigre]

(09-29-2015, 11:39 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I re-read it all again.  I guess I don't understand both questions being together.  One supposes that it's not in the hand of the government and the second supposes that it is and asks what if it was taken away form the government.  All in all it was incredibly confusing as to what you were on about.  So I decided to take the first one and show that it wasn't a valid question.

As for the second question, no.  I think balance is being provided when the jury decides guilt and the judge administers sentencing.

Actually both of them take government out of the equation but I agree with you, I like the system the way it is. Let the guilt of sentencing a man or woman to death be on the shoulders of a judge and not a jury.

[GMDino]

(09-29-2015, 11:35 AM)PhilHos Wrote: No it's not. It's about a woman's control over her body and that of her child's.

The point still remains that it's not A PART OF THE WOMAN'S BODY THAT SHE'S "REMOVING" BUT RATHER A SEPARATE ENTITY.

Nonetheless it is her decision.  Not yours.

Unless you think she should not be able to make decisions about what happens within her own body.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-29-2015, 11:42 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Yes, the uterus is a part of a woman's body.  The fetus is not. He or she is a separate entity that is reliant upon the mother in order to live until such time as he or she has developed the capacity to fend for itself. Usually around the late teenage years for the average person.

I love how the fact that a fetus is dependent on his or her mother is somehow a reason FOR abortion.

You wrote the two were sereperate, not one.  I wrote it isn't one or the other, but both; for some of the reasons you listed above and more.

I never wrote dependancy was a reason for abortion.  I don't recall ever giving a reason for abortion other than medical reasons.  My position is it isn't the government's place or my place to tell a woman or couple they can't get an abortion based upon my morals, values, and beliefs.  Obviously, you aren't in favor of an abortion.  Great.  That is what is right for you and your family based upon your morals, values, and (religious) beliefs.  Let other people be governed by their conscience, not your's.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-29-2015, 11:49 AM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Actually both of them take government out of the equation but I agree with you, I like the system the way it is. Let the guilt of sentencing a man or woman to death be on the shoulders of a judge and not a jury.

You've got to be shitting me?  I can't believe my eyes.

Have you ever heard of the judicial branch of the government, engineer?  Judges, juries, and courts are a part of the __________ branch of the U.S. government.  Must have been on your phone during that class, too.

WTF

[Rotobeast]

(09-29-2015, 12:07 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:  If you were ever an engineering major you fluked out in short order.

Please tell me you wrote "fluked" instead of "flunked" on purpose.
If not, just lie and say you did.
Also.... "short" order.
Electrical jokes !

[*PhilHos*]

(09-29-2015, 12:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: Nonetheless it is her decision.  Not yours.

Unless you think she should not be able to make decisions about what happens within her own body.

When the decision is to take the life of another human being, you better believe it is not her decision. Nor should it be any single individual's decision to end a life.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-29-2015, 12:26 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Please tell me you wrote "fluked" instead of "flunked" on purpose.
If not, just lie and say you did.
Also.... "short" order.
Electrical jokes !

I was a biology major.  Fluked is a marine mammal joke.

PS Forgot to add it was my autocorrect. And/or I'm on my phone or tablet and my mother-in-law is from the Phillippines and English is her second language so it may have autocorrected to Tagalog.

[*bfine32*]

(09-29-2015, 11:39 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I re-read it all again.  I guess I don't understand both questions being together.  One supposes that it's not in the hand of the government and the second supposes that it is and asks what if it was taken away form the government.  All in all it was incredibly confusing as to what you were on about.  So I decided to take the first one and show that it wasn't a valid question.

As for the second question, no.  I think balance is being provided when the jury decides guilt and the judge administers sentencing.

Damn, I didn't find it confusing at all.

[Naranja Tigre]

(09-29-2015, 12:07 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: This is what you wrote . . .


You claim you believe in a Christian god and evolution, yet state evolution strictly replaces the Christian god you claim your belief in evolution strictly replaces.  Even though your believe evolution strictly replaces your god you still believe in your god even though your belief in evolution replaced the god you believe in (but you don't because He was replaced by evolution. But, you still believe.)

You claim we either evolved from a common ancestor with apes or we were created in the garden of Eden in god's image, but you claim to believe in both evolution and the Genesis creation story.  Even though you claim it is one or the other you believe in both.  But, you can't believe in both because you claimed it is one or the other.

You claim combining a belief in evolution and the Genesis story just gives us an episode of ancient aliens, but you claim to believe in evolution and Genesis which would result, as you claim, in an episode of ancient aliens.

Basically, everything you claim to believe you have claimed others can't believe.  Everything you claim other's can't believe you claim to believe.

The inherent stupidity and irony is mind boggling.  I see no reason why we should beat around the bush any longer.  If you don't possess the necessary intelligence to identify the stupidity and irony of your contradictory statements then you don't possess the necessary intelligence to be an electrical engineering major.  If you were ever an engineering major you fluked out in short order.  Hell, you're not even a college student.  Which is why you're at whatever flunky job you're doing right now that an untrained chimp could perform which allows you to make ridiculous characters like your "Naranja Tigre" to post your stupid bullshit along with your other ridiculous characters posting your stupid bullshit.  

You must be bored since you lost your job pretending to be fake women at Ashley Madison.

Dude, you gotta relax.

Ok, this might take some abstract thought, but I don't think its too taxing.

I can't deny evolution is real. In fact I think it's awesome. I also love Jesus and Christianity. I cannot see how man could have both evolved from apes and also created in the garden of Eden, but I can't help myself from believing in the latter while the evidence points to the former. Is it hypocritical to believe both? Sure. Won't deny that at all. Everybody has a little hypocrit in them, it's part of the human condition.

Hate on me all you want but Jesus loves you buddy!

[*PhilHos*]

(09-29-2015, 12:16 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You wrote the two were sereperate, not one.  I wrote it isn't one or the other, but both; for some of the reasons you listed above and more.

No, I said the fetus was a separate entity. Yes, the fetus is dependent on the mother for its survival, but that doesn't make it any less a separate entity than if it was a tapeworm or some other parasite.

oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:I never wrote dependancy was a reason for abortion.  

My apologies for making it seem like that point was addressed to you specifically or addressing something you said. Your questions reminded me of the point I was addressing in how some pro choicers argue that since a fetus is reliant on its mother for survival that makes it okay to be aborted.

oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:My position is it isn't the government's place or my place to tell a woman or couple they can't get an abortion based upon my morals, values, and beliefs.

It's the government's place to reasonably protect the lives of its citizenry. Without digressing onto the topic of fetuses being citizens, our government is supposed to be made up OF the people. In other words, it most certainly is the government's place to say a couple can't get an abortion, if that's the will of the people.

oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:Obviously, you aren't in favor of an abortion.  Great.  That is what is right for you and your family based upon your morals, values, and (religious) beliefs.  Let other people be governed by their conscience, not your's.

Suppose my child has severe mental retardation and will always be reliant on someone to take care of him or her. My conscience says that I'm doing him or her a favor by ending his or her life right now. You're position is that you nor the government has any right to tell me to not to?

C'mon now. You're argument is a cop out. We're not talking about smoking in public or child vaccinations or, hell, even gay marriage. We're talking about the ending of human lives. You better believe that the government has a role in it and if it doesn't, it should.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-29-2015, 12:41 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Dude, you gotta relax.

Ok, this might take some abstract thought, but I don't think its too taxing.

I can't deny evolution is real. In fact I think it's awesome. I also love Jesus and Christianity. I cannot see how man could have both evolved from apes and also created in the garden of Eden, but I can't help myself from believing in the latter while the evidence points to the former. Is it hypocritical to believe both? Sure. Won't deny that at all. Everybody has a little hypocrit in them, it's part of the human condition.

Hate on me all you want but Jesus loves you buddy!

Abstract thought is exactly what you are missing if you cannot unify evolution and Genesis, poser.

[Naranja Tigre]

(09-29-2015, 12:22 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You've got to be shitting me?  I can't believe my eyes.

Have you ever heard of the judicial branch of the government, engineer?  Judges, juries, and courts are a part of the __________ branch of the U.S. government.  Must have been on your phone during that class, too.

WTF

I said is a death sentence really decided by the government when it's a jury who finds the person guilty?

Sure, the judge decides, but when we're talking about truly horrible murderers/rapists, is it really a decision? It was already decided when the jury said guilty.

[Naranja Tigre]

(09-29-2015, 12:50 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Abstract thought is exactly what you are missing if you cannot unify evolution and Genesis, poser.

Well I gave one good idea, Rick Sanchez science God. What's your sci fi story?

[Rotobeast]

(09-29-2015, 12:29 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I was a biology major.  Fluked is a marine mammal joke.

PS  Forgot to add it was my autocorrect.  And/or I'm on my phone or tablet and my mother-in-law is from the Phillippines and English is her second language so it may have autocorrected to Tagalog.

Fluke is a brand of Multi-meter used in electrical troubleshooting and measurement.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-29-2015, 12:41 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No, I said the fetus was a separate entity. Yes, the fetus is dependent on the mother for its survival, but that doesn't make it any less a separate entity than if it was a tapeworm or some other parasite.

I wrote it was both because it is more complicated than either or.

Quote:My apologies for making it seem like that point was addressed to you specifically or addressing something you said. Your questions reminded me of the point I was addressing in how some pro choicers argue that since a fetus is reliant on its mother for survival that makes it okay to be aborted.

Sorry for misunderstanding.  Viability is the stance of the Supreme Court.  I agree with the law for the reasons the stated in their decision.

Quote:It's the government's place to reasonably protect the lives of its citizenry. Without digressing onto the topic of fetuses being citizens, our government is supposed to be made up OF the people. In other words, it most certainly is the government's place to say a couple can't get an abortion, if that's the will of the people.

What is the law of the land regarding abortion determined by the government of the people?

Quote:Suppose my child has severe mental retardation and will always be reliant on someone to take care of him or her. My conscience says that I'm doing him or her a favor by ending his or her life right now. You're position is that you nor the government has any right to tell me to not to?

No, that's not my position.  Even if your child has severe mental retardation, your child has the ability to live without 24 hour life support and has some level of self-awareness.  I believe the Supreme Court has it right the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the mother when the fetus is able to survive on its own (which is different than normal care a newborn requires) and has self-awareness.

Quote:C'mon now. You're argument is a cop out. We're not talking about smoking in public or child vaccinations or, hell, even gay marriage. We're talking about the ending of human lives. You better believe that the government has a role in it and if it doesn't, it should.

I wouldn't label myself a libertarian, but I do believe the less government intrusion the better and our rights end where other's begin.  I also believe I shouldn't be able to impose my religious beliefs on others and they shouldn't be able to impose their religious beliefs on me.  I also believe the government is necessary because I have seen first hand what happens when there is no government.  Once again, I believe the Supreme Court has made the right decision regarding abortion.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-29-2015, 12:54 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Fluke is a brand of Multi-meter used in electrical troubleshooting and measurement.

My brand is whatever my father-in-law has.  When it comes to electrical work, he has forgotten more than I know.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-29-2015, 11:49 AM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Actually both of them take government out of the equation but I agree with you, I like the system the way it is. Let the guilt of sentencing a man or woman to death be on the shoulders of a judge and not a jury.

You wrote it takes the government out of the equation.

(09-29-2015, 12:51 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: I said is a death sentence really decided by the government when it's a jury who finds the person guilty? 

Sure, the judge decides, but when we're talking about truly horrible murderers/rapists, is it really a decision? It was already decided when the jury said guilty.

A jury is part of a court.  A court is part of the judicial branch.  The judicial branch is part of the government.

A death sentence is based upon a law. The offenses which carry a death sentence vary from state to state based upon the law.  Laws are passed by the legislative branch of the government.

In America, people are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  They are entitled to due process.  They are entitled to legal representation.  Etc, etc, etc.  

The government is definitely involved and it doesn't even require abstract thought.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-29-2015, 12:52 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Well I gave one good idea, Rick Sanchez science God. What's your sci fi story?

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

[Naranja Tigre]

(09-29-2015, 01:24 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You wrote it takes the government out of the equation.


A jury is part of a court.  A court is part of the judicial branch.  The judicial branch is part of the government.

A death sentence is based upon a law. The offenses which carry a death sentence vary from state to state based upon the law.  Laws are passed by the legislative branch of the government.

In America, people are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  They are entitled to due process.  They are entitled to legal representation.  Etc, etc, etc.  

The government is definitely involved and it doesn't even require abstract thought.

My point was that the people, IE the jury, decide guilt or innocence. I thought I made that clear.

Imagine if the government decided guilt or innocence.