Indiana GOP Rep Thinks Women Will Fake Rape Or Incest To Get An Abortion

Bfgrn said:
You can't connect the dots can you? HOW would you 'require that people be responsible for their actions'?
Click to expand...

So this means you are not going to show me where I did what you accused me of doing???? Hmmmm, what a surprise.
 
WinterBorn said:
I am not the one having trouble connecting the dots.

How do I require that people be responsible for their actions? You are not that daft. Anyone old enough to have sex knows that pregnancy is a possible result. If they take that risk then they should not use abortion to avoid the consequences. I am not trying to control anyone's sex life. But there ARE ways to avoid pregnancy.

You are ignoring the facts of the living being inside the woman, even in the first trimester.
Click to expand...

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DO IT?????????????????????????????????
 
Bfgrn said:
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DO IT?????????????????????????????????
Click to expand...

Not allow abortions as birth control. After about 5 or 6 weeks, abortions should only be allowed for legitimate reason.
 
Bfgrn said:
If a woman has an abortion in the eighth week, THEN what?
Click to expand...

If the law is changed to say the limit is 5 weeks or 6 weeks, then she would be in violation of that law. And so would the medical staff who performed the procedure.

They would be charged and tried, depending on the letter of the law.
 
Ice Dancer said:
We were talking about the DNA of the fetus...a known subject-not a blind philosophical solipsism. Science knows for a fact that the DNA sample of the fetus is unique in its individuality as a human being with its own heart; brain; circulatory system and finger prints.

Like all of the stages of human development there is a beginning point and a transition point: The fetus will become a toddler; the toddler a child; the child an adolescent; the adolescent an adult. That is the completed life cycle of the human being...it's potential is not in becoming a human, it is a human---its potential lies in what it will do as a human.
Click to expand...



Ice Dancer said:
We were talking about the DNA of the fetus...a known subject-not a blind philosophical solipsism. Science knows for a fact that the DNA sample of the fetus is unique in its individuality as a human being with its own heart; brain; circulatory system and finger prints.

Like all of the stages of human development there is a beginning point and a transition point: The fetus will become a toddler; the toddler a child; the child an adolescent; the adolescent an adult. That is the completed life cycle of the human being...it's potential is not in becoming a human, it is a human---its potential lies in what it will do as a human.
Click to expand...

The moment of conception, which many claim is when a human being exists, is when that DNA is present. That DNA does not and can not determine if it is a human being with its own heart, brain, circulatory system and finger prints because, at that time, it has no heart, brain, circulatory system or fingers. The fertilized cell/egg does not contain a mircoscopic heart or brain or fingers.

In the 60's when women took Thalidomide the result was babies were born without arms. Even at our stage of DNA knowledge I doubt a DNA sample of a fetilized cell/egg could determine if a baby would be born without arms. My point is DNA shows human material. It does not prove there is or ever will be a human being. It does not show if a heart or brain or lungs or a human being, for that matter, is or will ever be present. It simply shows human material. That's why the idea that DNA proves the existence of a human being is nonsense. Stated another way, if a being is present then DNA can establish if that being is human. It can not establish the presence of a human being.

An analogy may be taking a paint chip to a hardware store. The man behind the counter can determine the type of paint, oil-based or latex, (and reproduce a similar color) but he can not determine if you have any of that paint at home in a gallon container or if that paint is on your wall.

The primary “qualification” we apply to human beings is we are all individual beings completely detached from another. That “qualification” is at the base of our most cherished and basic laws regarding responsibility and freedom. We don’t owe our bodies to another human being. We are the sole owners of our respective bodies.

That basic premise is scrubbed when discussing abortion and that’s a very dangerous precedent to set. Who can say with any certainty what other laws might spring from the acceptance of fetuses as human beings?
 
apple0154 said:
The primary “qualification” we apply to human beings is we are all individual beings completely detached from another. That “qualification” is at the base of our most cherished and basic laws regarding responsibility and freedom. We don’t owe our bodies to another human being. We are the sole owners of our respective bodies.

That basic premise is scrubbed when discussing abortion and that’s a very dangerous precedent to set. Who can say with any certainty what other laws might spring from the acceptance of fetuses as human beings?
Click to expand...

And a prostitute goes to jail for taking money to allow a person temporary access to parts of their body.

I cannot sell my kidney. I can get in serious trouble for selling alcohol to minors. I cannot smoke pot in my own home.


Laws governing what people can do with their own body are plentiful.
 
WinterBorn said:
If the law is changed to say the limit is 5 weeks or 6 weeks, then she would be in violation of that law. And so would the medical staff who performed the procedure.

They would be charged and tried, depending on the letter of the law.
Click to expand...

So...THEN the government starts going into schools and medical facilities to arrest, handcuff and incarcerate young women and doctors...but, THAT is not being 'willing to tell the majority of people that they are incapable of managing their own lives without interference from the gov't', now IS IT???

The United States population is equal to 1/5 of the all the human beings on this planet...1/4 of all human beings imprisoned are being incarcerated by the United States...

facism.jpg
 
Bfgrn said:
To do otherwise constitutes a Class 3 felony, which carries a sentence of two to five years in prison. That's been the law in Illinois since 1975. What Obama voted against was legislation that would have extended the law's protection to any aborted fetus that shows any sign of life, even if doctors are certain that it cannot survive.
Click to expand...
????...that isn't true....in any event....does killing a birthed human child that shows signs of life, even if you think it cannot survive, constitute something other than murder?.....
 
Bfgrn said:
So...THEN the government starts going into schools and medical facilities to arrest, handcuff and incarcerate young women and doctors...but, THAT is not being 'willing to tell the majority of people that they are incapable of managing their own lives without interference from the gov't', now IS IT???
Click to expand...

No, that is a complete mischaracterization of what would happen. What would happen is that a law would be passed to protect unborn children. People who violate that law could be prosecuted. We are not telling people that they cannot manage their own lives. We are telling them that they are not allowed to take a life.

Your mischaracterization is bogus. It would be the equivilent of saying we created criminals by making robbery illegal.
 
Superfreak said:
The kidney will NEVER form a heart, never form a brain, never have legs or arms or eyes etc... I admit I phrased that poorly, I should have remembered I was talking to a pro-abortionist and been more clear.
Click to expand...

The point is a DNA sample taken from, say, the arm of a fetus will show the same thing as a sample taken from it's kidney or heart or brain. All those samples will be identical meaning, as you stated, they will not grow arms or legs or eyes. A DNA sample does not prove anything other than it's made of human material. Is that supposed to be some earth-shattering news?

Ok, my fault there, I misunderstood who you were claiming was defective.

First, when the mothers life is in danger, it again (as I stated) puts the life of the mother against the life of the child. If one must die, for the other to survive, then the choice should go to the mother. Obviously there will be situations where the mother has a better chance of survival and other times when the child does. There is nothing illogical to state that when it is life vs. life, the mother should have the choice. Most of the time, when it comes down to life vs. life, the child is not far enough along to survive with the technology we have today. If it was far enough along, they would attempt to save both.
Click to expand...

Or they could attempt to save the fetus at the expense of the woman. With today's technology if the woman suffered a dibiliating stroke she could be kept alive artificially until the fetus came to term. Or, if there was a high probability that may happen the woman could be "institutionalized", supervised until the fetus came to term. After all, we're talking about the life of an innocent human being, according to you.

LMAO... its readily apparent that you will continue to try and come up with bizarre scenarios and descriptions to try and justify your desire to dehumanize the child. Not to worry, that is typical behavior exhibited by those who are pro abortionists
Click to expand...

It's not bizarre scenarios I come up with. It's called "thinking it through." Looking down the road to see how a certain law can affect other things.

As far as dehumanizing a child it is you whom wishes to dehumanize all children, actually all human beings, by wanting a fetus to be classified as a human being while supporting the right of a defective human being (mother) to kill an innocent human being (fetus).

Try and think for a moment. Suppose we had a law which states in any life or death situation involving two people there was one type/class of individual who was always allowed to kill the other, regardless of any provocation. For example, let's say a small boat is sinking and there is only one life jacket and there is a black man and white man on board. Rather than fight over it or "draw straws" would you support a law which stated the black man is always allowed to kill the white man or vice versa?

Or the pharmacist who refuses to give the life-saving drug to the person who can't afford it. Doesn't the ill person have a right to fight for their life up to and including killing the innocent pharmacist?

Or the woman standing on the balcony. If she was pregnant and the fetus was a threat to her life, even though the fetus wasn't doing anything wrong, she would have the right to kill the fetus. Why shouldn't she have the right to kill her 10-year old offspring by pushing him off the balcony in order to save her own life?

What is the difference between a 10-week old human being (fetus) and a 10-year old human being (child)? Why should a woman have the right to kill one but not the other unless, of course, we use logic and common sense to conclude a 10-week old fetus is not a human being. Doesn't that sound like the rational conclusion?
 
WinterBorn said:
No, that is a complete mischaracterization of what would happen. What would happen is that a law would be passed to protect unborn children. People who violate that law could be prosecuted. We are not telling people that they cannot manage their own lives. We are telling them that they are not allowed to take a life.

Your mischaracterization is bogus. It would be the equivilent of saying we created criminals by making robbery illegal.
Click to expand...

BULLSHIT...you want to dismiss the human capital that would be affected and make being prosecuted sound like a trip to the ice cream stand. WTF is wrong with you right wing morons? Are you THAT self righteous? Gee...no one is affected, just as long as people live by YOUR set of morals and YOUR beliefs.
 
Bfgrn said:
BULLSHIT...you want to dismiss the human capital that would be affected and make being prosecuted sound like a trip to the ice cream stand. WTF is wrong with you right wing morons? Are you THAT self righteous? Gee...no one is affected, just as long as people live by YOUR set of morals and YOUR beliefs.
Click to expand...

Off the deep end again. To use scientific data on the development of the fetus to term them "human" is nothing but a recognition of facts. We currently prosecute those who harm a pregnant woman as having harmed two people.

You are trying to blow this into some issue that it is not. The point is the protection of a fetus that has developed almost all the necessary organs and systems. It has a heartbeat, it swallows, it moves under its own, and more. The development after the first trimester is mainly one of growth.



Your protest could be used against any law on the books. It is not about my personal morality. It is about stopping people from killing children.
 
WinterBorn said:
And a prostitute goes to jail for taking money to allow a person temporary access to parts of their body.

I cannot sell my kidney. I can get in serious trouble for selling alcohol to minors. I cannot smoke pot in my own home.


Laws governing what people can do with their own body are plentiful.
Click to expand...

Yes, laws are plentiful and wrong. A prostitute should have the right to take money and a person should have the right to sell an organ and you should have the right to smoke pot in your own home.

I don't think anyone should have the right to sell alcohol to a minor. That really doesn't fit in here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top