Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    talk.atheism    |    Debate about the validity and nature of    |    89,766 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 89,528 of 89,766    |
|    Intelligent Party to All    |
|    Abortion Is Now "Illegal," In Half The S    |
|    20 Aug 22 00:09:11    |
      XPost: alt.politics.usa.congress, alt.atheism, talk.politics.misc       XPost: alt.politics.usa.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republicans       From: Intelligent@savetheworldmsn.com              How can you prohibit abortion, if you don't know the fetus is a person,       (equivalent to a grown man for argument's sakes)?              How can you allow abortion, if you don't know the fetus is a cadaver?              Because the default position is freedom.              The default position is not everything illegal, and only certain things       "allowed."              This is truth. Analytics. Science. The dictates of logic and reason. If you       don't believe in the law, how can you be the perpetrator of the law the       government       is, (Or as you are, through it)?              The law cannot be existant when there is not a crime identified. Abortion is       merely the most egregious example of prohibition. All prohibition is invalid,       from the war on drugs and weapons, to our public lands and sexuality, our       freedom       of speech, and children's rights, and our soldier's rights to quit. From       Hitler's       mass incarceration of Jews, to killing witches, - the government does not       reserve       nor retain the right to kill and murder, and has no such right.       Prohibition has always been a crime against humanity, an unlawful, despicable       act,       the work of a subhuman. - to keeping slaves, and punishment today - though you       contend you can't convince with reason;       Prohibition is the work of the devil, and all who practice it are damned and       condemned. They are guilty, and they deserve to die; until they repent. We       hate       them, and we want them dead; until they repent. This is our country, and they       shouldn't steal it from us.              If the fetus is a cadaver, and not a grown man, then it is an immoral sin to       not       abort. Illegal even, thus it could be against the law to not abort, if you       don't       want a baby. You are committing an immoral sin, if you do not abort, if the       fetus       is certainly a cadaver, and has no human spirit yet.              Are we ever going to all agree, on when the fetus stops being a cadaver, and       has a       human spirit in it? Personally I think 17-18 weeks, and post that, it just       gets       more and more likely, to the point of birth. Some reincarnated individuals       don't       come into the fetus until the point of birth or perhaps cesarean section. All       religions confirm reincarnation, including Christianity and Hinduism. But in       answer to the question, I doubt it. It is apparently not a completely       absolutely       scientific known at the moment. Largely speculation, when life begins. Who is       convincing or telling you or me? People have memories of the afterlife and       being       in the womb. People have memories of the afterlife and coming into the baby at       the point of birth. I've read no believable accounts of people being in the       zygote at the point of conception. So unless you are materialism, and believe       you       come out of an object, have no beliefs nor notions of past lifetimes and past       life       regression, you must admit the Spirit comes into the gestating cadaver at an       inconsistent point some time long after conception.                     Are you an athiest, deathist, materialist? What God gave you the right to       impose       your opinion onto others?              You're just like, _no God_ , I'm an athiest deathist materialist, I just       impose my       opinion.              So based on that criticism of imposing, _I can't_ stop somebody from aborting       at       35 weeks without imposing? Or even 42? (normal gestation being 40) Haven't       given       birth yet, but still changed your mind?                     So we need to draw a distinction, between prohibition based on speculation and       prejudice, and prohibition of murder and other certain crimes.              And that's my whole fucking point.              If there's not a crime identified, there cannot be a law. A notion there can,       *is* a notion, that prohibition of *any sort* and against *anything* is legal.       That anything can be made illegal. So some people think 26 weeks, but they       never       studied anything on abortion, or they would know no doctors abort past 20       weeks,       EVEN WHEN THEY'RE ALLOWED TO. Why do we have to be under law? Why can't we be       under grace? 90% of abortions take place in the first 13 weeks, and 10% in the       next 7. Do you think most women are sociopaths? The earliest premies have       survived at 21 weeks (maybe one out of many, many), YET the States put       viability       at 23 or 24 weeks. But we CAN all agree a 35 week gestated fetus is POSSIBLY a       human baby, attached to the mother, maybe not in all instances, but at least in       SOME. That there's at least a 40% chance that's a human baby, and somebody may       die, if it is aborted.              Arbitrary prohibition is contrary to all Jurisprudence, legal science, and       "Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England," (which formed the       foundation       of U.S. law), and much more the Christian and Jewish and Muslim Bible. What       God       gave you the right to impose your opinion onto others?              How can you prohibit abortion, if you don't know the fetus is a person,       (equivalent to a grown man for argument's sakes)?              You CAN'T legally. You're unlawful.              It doesn't matter what supreme court from the U.S. to Timbuktu said you can.       They're only people. Just like you and I.                     I wonder if anybody cares about that opinion of mine. What legal science or       quackery are they following if they don't?                            Yet, there is a second point relevant to abortion, besides the grown man vs.       cadaver question. And that is, that you DO have a right to separate from a       grown man:              For instance, if I needed a kidney, and it was not going to be available for       six       months, and I was like, "bro, the doctors said I'm going to die in the next few       days, if I'm not hooked up to someone," Would you hook up to me? No, you       would be       like, "sorry bro, I don't know what you're going to do."              But if I needed a kidney, and it was going to be available in two weeks, and I       was       like "bro, the doctors said I'm going to die in the next few days, if I'm not       hooked up to someone," if you were my friend, you could be like, "okay, we're       going to do this. We'll sit and watch T.V., or in the hospital for two weeks."       And so then, we hooked up, and then the doctors were like, "that kidney is bad.       There's not going to be a kidney for eight months." You would be like, "uhm,       we're not going to be hooked up for eight months. We're disconnecting." And       at       my funeral, they could be like "Dude! he's dead cause of you!," and you could       be       like "any of you could have attached up to him for eight months (you even had a       few days to do it), but you didn't!"              This proves you have a right to detach from a grown man, and thereby the right       to       detach from a fetus that is a living baby, and therefore a person, even though       it       is is no longer a cadaver.                     [continued in next message]              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca