Florida Conservatives try to force 13 year old girl to not have an abortion.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
Ok guys before we go on to kick each other in the nuts, the main argument is wheter the state has the right to allow this child to an abortion. Please lets not regurgitate the anti and prolife crap that makes me sick. Therefore more defining what is an alive person and what is not. Nobody here knows. and to continue to argue is a waste of ur breath.

Why not?

[Vesayen]

So anyone that kills any of my blood cells can be charged with murder?

Your bloodcells do not reproduce, they are not alive in the classical sense as they don't fit all the qualifications for a life form.

I'm curious why you chose that definition. Can we kill intelligent non-humans with impunity?

You can have an animal you own put to sleep at any time for any reason, providing it is not an endangered species and is not done inhumanley, so yes, yes you can. Any animal you own, you have the right within the law to kill.

Many humans which are protected by the U.S. constitution are not capable of abstract thought, due to health problems. I guess they arent human.

Humanity isn't the same thing as personhood.

So Mein Fuhrer, when exactly do we decide who is a person and who is not? Perhaps we can kill all the mentally deficient to save tax dollars... OH and gay people, they don't reproduce and are a drain on our society... then me next of course, since I am a Jew.

Do you see the slippery slope here :?


"Personhood" what the hell does that mean?

Any definition of who has a right to life needs to be inclusive, including an uneeded range of saftey instead of exclusive, which can take away the right to life to those who should proboably have it.

Which defenition seems better, one would could accidentally murder people, or one which can not?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
On what basis do you say that newborns are incapable of abstract thought?

I never got a satisfactory reason why the abstract thought or sentience requirement couldn't be used to kill newborns. On what basis do you assume they meet your requirement?

[Ramo]

Your bloodcells do not reproduce, they are not alive in the classical sense as they don't fit all the qualifications for a life form.

Skin cells do reproduce. Should they be protected as persons?

So Mein Fuhrer, when exactly do we decide who is a person and who is not?

Godwin's law, anybody?

You have. You excluded sperm and roaches from personhood. Hitler.

Perhaps we can kill all the mentally deficient to save tax dollars... OH and gay people, they don't reproduce and are a drain on our society... then me next of course, since I am a Jew.

Do you see the slippery slope here :?

No, but I do see your poor reasoning abilities.

"Personhood" what the hell does that mean?

Whether you have rights to life and liberty in society. You're a person if you have these rights. It's a definition.

Any definition of who has a right to life needs to be inclusive, including an uneeded range of saftey instead of exclusive, which can take away the right to life to those who should proboably have it.

Which defenition seems better, one would could accidentally murder people, or one which can not?

Well, Mein Fuhrer, why don't we protect the life of other animals, or sperm and ovum?

By your slippery slope "argument" surely we should protect these?

You can have an animal you own put to sleep at any time for any reason, providing it is not an endangered species and is not done inhumanley, so yes, yes you can. Any animal you own, you have the right within the law to kill.

Mass murdering NAZI!!!!

BTW, I'm not talking about the law. But what you believe. Understand the difference? If we meet a non-human form of intelligent life, does it have the right to live? Why not?

On what basis do you assume they meet your requirement?

Advanced development of the cerebral cortex.

[Dinner]

Obviously both of her parents are ****bags because she is in the foster care system. Equilly obvoius is that she was ubhappy in the foster care syste or she wouldn't of ran away multiple times. I suspect she whored her self to try to support herself and not go back to foster care. Either that or she met some ****bag who let her stay at his place in exchange for sexual favors from a 13 year old.

Either way forcing women to be incubators against there will is assinine. Let her have the abortion she wants and which she is legally entitled to and stop forcing religious beliefs upon other people.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
never got a satisfactory reason why the abstract thought or sentience requirement couldn't be used to kill newborns.

Because a fetus is not biologicallt viable until after a certain period. Instead it is a collection of cells with as much "life" as the dead skin cells which are washed from my hand each day. You know this, I know this, science knows this. You just enjoy lying about it.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

I dont think this is a relegious belief anymore. The girl is 13 and if she had real parents and not the state id agree with ya let her have it she isnt harming anyone. Other then the fact that she might be using abortion as a form of birth control which i dont agree with at all. The state cant set this precedent with a foster kid and they shouldnt allow it. If the girl was adopted then i might be thinking differently

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Because a fetus is not biologically viable until after a certain period.

This is a different standard than the one you were accusing me of lieing about. However it is arbitrary and the line you refer to has been pushed back since the Roe decision was made.

[Agathon]

I never got a satisfactory reason why the abstract thought or sentience requirement couldn't be used to kill newborns. On what basis do you assume they meet your requirement?

It can't. But there is a viable alternative in that case – adoption. I've often wondered if the law would change if it were possible to surgically remove fetuses without harming them or the mother.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
This is a different standard than the one you were accusing me of lieing about. However it is arbitrary and the line you refer to has been pushed back since the Roe decision was made.

No it hasn't and no it is not. The standard is to have a reasonable abilty to survive outside of the womb (i.e breath and maintain life functions on its own). Everyone agrees that that a zygot is nothing more then cells and a born child is a person so there must be some gradation between the two. The religious zealots stupidly claim that conception equals life while intelligent people agree that medical science should decide instead of dogma.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
No it is not.

I get it now. You're just rushing to hit the reply button in a fit of rightous rage before having finished reading the post your responding to. It's cool. Done that once or twice myself. On the off chence that isn't happening, perhaps you could explain to me how a "abstract thought or sentience requirement" (Not brought up by me) which was what I was discussing before you flew into a manic rage has to do with the biological viability standard you were acussing me of lieing about?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
My thoughts are this, what kinda precedent the state would be setting if they allow this girl to have an abortion. You now set up for many young girls in this pregnancy predictmint that are afraid to tell their parents to enter the foster system get their abortions to soon be put back into the family life leaving the state to pay for all these abortions. Call me a loony but things like this can happen, and thus leaving the state with more bills.

You know, you always try and find some way the system can be abused to try and say why people should be denied their rights. And by always, I mean twice. Any right can be abused. I could tell state secrets to the Chinese, therefor, no one should have free speech. I could lie to the police, therefore no one should have the right against self-incrimination. You see how quickly this gets bad.

Now for the meat of your argument. It is very hard to get into foster care. It takes a lot of time for parents to be determined unworthy unless there is something obviously horrible going on. Unless the kids are being sexually abused by both parents or they're locked in cages or they have burn marks on them, the state isn't going to take them away just so they can try and get an abortion.

Right now, children who live with their parents have the right to go before a judge to ask for an abortion if they can demonstrate a good reason why their parents should not be involved. The difference in this case is, this 13 year old, as a ward of the state, does not have the right to go before a judge. If she lived with her ****bag parents, she could go to a judge. Because the state took her away from them, she can't.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I never got a satisfactory reason why the abstract thought or sentience requirement couldn't be used to kill newborns. On what basis do you assume they meet your requirement?

No one can be forced to care for a baby once it's born. If you don't want it, you can put it up for adoption. You cannot transfer a fetus to another womb. That's the difference.

[DaShi]

Pro-life supporters should take care of the baby. They want it more afterall.

[Kuciwalker]

While putting it up for adoption, you are still forced to take care of it. You can't just leave it on the street.