| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
03 Sep 2007 08:28:46 PM |
| Object: |
Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1890601/posts
Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise on Abortion if Elected
President
Life News ^ | 9/3/07 | Steven Ertelt
Posted on 09/03/2007 12:57:48 PM PDT by wagglebee
Portsmouth, NH (LifeNews.com) -- Presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton campaigned in New Hampshire over the weekend and told voters
that the she won't soften her hard-core pro-abortion views if she's
elected president. That could cause her problems as a recent poll
showed extreme pro-abortion views are a turnoff to women voters.
Clinton promised she would bring change as president but also vowed
she would never compromise on her pro-abortion views.
"Ultimately, to bring change, you have to know when to stand your
ground, and when to find common ground," she said. "You need to know
when to stick to principles and fight, and know when to make
principled compromises."
Clinton didn't back down from those pro-abortion views in an August
speech to leaders at Planned Parenthood.
There, she pledged continuing support for the nation's largest
abortion business and bragged of her 100 percent voting record with
that organization.
"I'm very proud of our partnership, of working together over so many
years on behalf of reproductive freedom and health care and
fundamental Constitutional rights and values," she said.
"[W]hen I'm president, I will devote my very first days in office to
reversing these ideological, anti-science, anti-prevention policies
that this administration has put into place," she said of President
Bush's pro-life policies.
Last month, the respected Polling Company firm conducted a survey with
600 women voters of both parties from August 15-20.
The poll revealed that Hillary's positions on abortion were at odds
with a majority of American women.
Some 64 percent of women voters would be less likely to vote for a
presidential candidate who voted against the partial-birth abortion
ban -- a measure Clinton voted against on four occasions.
Sixty-eight percent of women voters are less likely to vote for a
presidential candidate who supports taxpayer-funded abortion --
something Hillary Clinton adamantly supports.
And 73 percent of those polled said they would be less likely to vote
for a presidential candidate who voted against a law that would have
made it a criminal act for an adult to take a girl younger than 18
years of age across state lines to get an abortion without her
parents' knowledge.
Clinton twice voted against a Congressional bill to do just that.
"Clinton needs women voters to win, yet her extreme abortion policies
remain out of step with the majority of American women," Marjorie
Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, told
LifeNews.com about the poll.
"The feminist lobby may support her radical positions, but in the real
and bigger world of women voters, Clinton's extremism fails to
translate into votes. Hillary needs more in common with women voters
than anatomy," Dannenfelser added.
.
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
11 Sep 2007 03:59:34 PM |
|
|
On Sep 10, 3:03 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
M_P wrote:
On Sep 8, 12:56 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:09 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A
Pearlstein) wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be
like being pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a
matter betweenp atient and physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human
person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the
right to life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If
there is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your
will to donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the
right to be given what you need in order to live.
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body
since it does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
An unborn human is created in his mother's body and needing her
Spare us the hypocritical bullshitting, pro-liar. Needs do not
create rights.
I didn't say they did,
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body since it
does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
Wrong ... needs that come about as a result of the mother's voluntary
actions do create rights.
Nonsense...that's created from your religious world
Time to catch up on your reading ... my argument is nonreligious.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
13 Sep 2007 08:14:08 AM |
|
|
On 11 Sep., 22:59, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 10, 3:03 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
M_P wrote:
On Sep 8, 12:56 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:09 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A
Pearlstein) wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be
like being pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a
matter betweenp atient and physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human
person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the
right to life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If
there is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your
will to donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the
right to be given what you need in order to live.
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body
since it does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
An unborn human is created in his mother's body and needing her
Spare us the hypocritical bullshitting, pro-liar. Needs do not
create rights.
I didn't say they did,
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body since it
does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
Wrong ... needs that come about as a result of the mother's voluntary
actions do create rights.
Nonsense...that's created from your religious world
Time to catch up on your reading ... my argument is nonreligious.- Skjul =
tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -
- Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -
What objective argument do you have that a foetus is a human being
with rights? Such a status and the rights of that status are
determined by law.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
07 Sep 2007 07:31:05 AM |
|
|
On Sep 5, 10:28 am, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 10:01 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm,Pr0r3p<pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm,M_P<m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body since it
does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
An unborn human is created in his mother's body and needing her
resources as a result of the mother's voluntary actions (except for
rape or incest), so that unborn human has a claim to remain and get
those resources.
Now, you're contradicting yourself.
"the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to be
given what you need in order to live." - M_P
.
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
07 Sep 2007 08:22:30 AM |
|
|
Guys? The abortion debate is over. It dont matter what the law says.
This, for instance,... http://www.sisterzeus.com/qaluse.htm
outlines just one of the many ways to have a HERBAL abortion.
There's a *reason* "Bachelor Button" is so named.
Why "Blessed Thistle" is blessed.
No appointment, no protestor line, no adoption sermon, no parental
consent, no problems with pharmacists, no doctor bill.
Nearly free abortions on demand. Just see a witch.
End of debate. case closed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
07 Sep 2007 01:19:50 PM |
|
|
On Sep 7, 8:22 am, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
Guys? The abortion debate is over. It dont matter what the law says.
This, for instance,...http://www.sisterzeus.com/qaluse.htm
outlines just one of the many ways to have a HERBAL abortion.
There's a *reason* "Bachelor Button" is so named.
Why "Blessed Thistle" is blessed.
No appointment, no protestor line, no adoption sermon, no parental
consent, no problems with pharmacists, no doctor bill.
Nearly free abortions on demand. Just see a witch.
End of debate. case closed.
Great idea ... munch a handful of leaves, and never mind the other
biologically active components. Makes a coat hanger sound safe by
comparison.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
07 Sep 2007 01:18:19 PM |
|
|
On Sep 7, 7:31 am, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:28 am, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 10:01 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm,Pr0r3p<pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm,M_P<m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body since it
does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
An unborn human is created in his mother's body and needing her
resources as a result of the mother's voluntary actions (except for
rape or incest), so that unborn human has a claim to remain and get
those resources.
Now, you're contradicting yourself.
"the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to be
given what you need in order to live." - M_P
No contradiction; absent creation of need by voluntary action, there
is no right to be given what you need ... but if the need was created
by voluntary action there is a valid claim against the actor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
11 Sep 2007 08:20:40 AM |
|
|
On Sep 7, 2:18 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 7, 7:31 am,Pr0r3p<pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:28 am, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 10:01 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm,Pr0r3p<pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm,M_P<m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body since it
does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
An unborn human is created in his mother's body and needing her
resources as a result of the mother's voluntary actions (except for
rape or incest), so that unborn human has a claim to remain and get
those resources.
Now, you're contradicting yourself.
"the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to be
given what you need in order to live." - M_P
No contradiction; absent creation of need by voluntary action, there
is no right to be given what you need ... but if the need was created
by voluntary action there is a valid claim against the actor.
According to you. I see nothing anywhere in the constitution that
supports your claim.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
10 Sep 2007 03:01:23 PM |
|
|
On Sep 7, 7:31 am, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:28 am, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 10:01 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm,Pr0r3p<pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm,M_P<m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body since it
does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
An unborn human is created in his mother's body and needing her
resources as a result of the mother's voluntary actions (except for
rape or incest), so that unborn human has a claim to remain and get
those resources.
Now, you're contradicting yourself.
"the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to be
given what you need in order to live." - M_P
Which part of "in and of itself" did you not understand?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
10 Sep 2007 04:43:32 AM |
|
|
On Sep 4, 8:01 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body since it
does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
You are a moron. I suggest that whoever removed *you* from your
mother's body put you back.
And stay away from children!!
--
Ray Fischer
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gwenyth Bennet" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
10 Sep 2007 08:28:51 AM |
|
|
On Sep 10, 4:43 am, "Boedi...@isp.com" <Boedi...@isp.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 8:01 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
Then a woman is free to remove a fetus from within her body since it
does not have nay right to be given the use of her body.
You are a moron. I suggest that whoever removed *you* from your
mother's body put you back.
How very "pro-life" of you.
And stay away from children!!
--
Ray Fischer
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "GW Chimpzillas Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Sep 2007 04:24:06 PM |
|
|
M_P wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
A fetus is a parasite upon the body of the mother. It doesn't hacve the right to
suck of the mother's body unless the mother wishes to carry it to term.
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Sep 2007 04:38:28 PM |
|
|
On Sep 4, 4:24 pm, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
<g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
M_P wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
A fetus is a parasite upon the body of the mother. It doesn't hacve the right to
suck of the mother's body unless the mother wishes to carry it to term.
An unborn human is created in his mother's body and needing her
resources as a result of the mother's voluntary actions (except for
rape or incest), so that unborn human has a claim to remain and get
those resources.
.
|
|
|
| User: "GW Chimpzillas Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Sep 2007 04:43:42 PM |
|
|
M_P wrote:
On Sep 4, 4:24 pm, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
<g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
M_P wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like
being pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp
atient and physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
A fetus is a parasite upon the body of the mother. It doesn't hacve the right
to suck of the mother's body unless the mother wishes to carry it to term.
An unborn human is created in his mother's body and needing her
resources as a result of the mother's voluntary actions (except for
rape or incest), so that unborn human has a claim to remain and get
those resources.
But you wrote just above:
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
What'll it be, HUH?
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
05 Sep 2007 09:27:19 AM |
|
|
On Sep 4, 4:43 pm, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
<g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
M_P wrote:
On Sep 4, 4:24 pm, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
<g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
M_P wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like
being pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp
atient and physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
A fetus is a parasite upon the body of the mother. It doesn't hacve the right
to suck of the mother's body unless the mother wishes to carry it to term.
An unborn human is created in his mother's body and needing her
resources as a result of the mother's voluntary actions (except for
rape or incest), so that unborn human has a claim to remain and get
those resources.
But you wrote just above:
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
What'll it be, HUH?
No contradiction ... in your examples, the owners of the resources did
not cause the need in question, whereas the mother did (except for
rape or incest).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
04 Sep 2007 04:42:27 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:38:28 -0700, M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 4:24 pm, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
<g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
M_P wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
A fetus is a parasite upon the body of the mother. It doesn't hacve the right to
suck of the mother's body unless the mother wishes to carry it to term.
An unborn human is created in his mother's body and needing her
resources as a result of the mother's voluntary actions (except for
rape or incest), so that unborn human has a claim to remain and get
those resources.
What "unborn human" are you lying about?
Tell you what, when you get pregnant you can make a decision for
yourself whether to keep it or have an abortion.
You don't get to decides matters of conscience for others, and
especially not by lying or using emotive but dishonest language.
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
05 Sep 2007 09:26:46 AM |
|
|
On Sep 4, 4:42 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:38:28 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 4:24 pm, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
<g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
M_P wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
A fetus is a parasite upon the body of the mother. It doesn't hacve the right to
suck of the mother's body unless the mother wishes to carry it to term.
An unborn human is created in his mother's body and needing her
resources as a result of the mother's voluntary actions (except for
rape or incest), so that unborn human has a claim to remain and get
those resources.
What "unborn human" are you lying about?
No lie: the fetus is unborn and human (not, say, feline or canine).
Tell you what, when you get pregnant you can make a decision for
yourself whether to keep it or have an abortion.
You don't get to decides matters of conscience for others [...]
So if someone else thinks lynching is OK, it's wrong for me to try to
stop them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
05 Sep 2007 09:38:19 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 07:26:46 -0700, M_P <m_p@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 4:42 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:38:28 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 4:24 pm, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
<g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
M_P wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
A fetus is a parasite upon the body of the mother. It doesn't hacve the right to
suck of the mother's body unless the mother wishes to carry it to term.
An unborn human is created in his mother's body and needing her
resources as a result of the mother's voluntary actions (except for
rape or incest), so that unborn human has a claim to remain and get
those resources.
What "unborn human" are you lying about?
No lie: the fetus is unborn and human (not, say, feline or canine).
But it's not a human being yet - stop pretending.
Tell you what, when you get pregnant you can make a decision for
yourself whether to keep it or have an abortion.
You don't get to decides matters of conscience for others [...]
So if someone else thinks lynching is OK, it's wrong for me to try to
stop them?
Where did I say that, liar?
What part of "not a human being YET" are you dishinestly pretending
you don't understand?
Is a fertilised egg a chicken on your planet?
Is an acorn an oak tree?
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
05 Sep 2007 09:46:00 AM |
|
|
On Sep 5, 9:38 am, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 07:26:46 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 4:42 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:38:28 -0700, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 4:24 pm, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
<g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
M_P wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
A fetus is a parasite upon the body of the mother. It doesn't hacve the right to
suck of the mother's body unless the mother wishes to carry it to term.
An unborn human is created in his mother's body and needing her
resources as a result of the mother's voluntary actions (except for
rape or incest), so that unborn human has a claim to remain and get
those resources.
What "unborn human" are you lying about?
No lie: the fetus is unborn and human (not, say, feline or canine).
But it's not a human being yet - stop pretending.
Tell me what you mean by "human being" and we'll see if you're right.
I posted 25 lines of argument showing that a fetus is a person ...
lines you continue to duck and dodge.
Tell you what, when you get pregnant you can make a decision for
yourself whether to keep it or have an abortion.
You don't get to decides matters of conscience for others [...]
So if someone else thinks lynching is OK, it's wrong for me to try to
stop them?
Where did I say that, liar?
Where did I say you did, dodger? I asked you a question; will you
answer or do more of your ducking and dodging?
What part of "not a human being YET" are you dishinestly pretending
you don't understand?
Is a fertilised egg a chicken on your planet?
Is an acorn an oak tree?
My argument is not that a fetus possesses reasoning free-willed
individuality because he has the potential for it ... my argument is
that a fetus, like a newborn, is a person because he has the potential
for reasoning free-willed individuality.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
05 Sep 2007 07:41:07 AM |
|
|
On Sep 4, 4:44 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm,Pr0r3p<pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
So, you admit there is no right to life, otherwise we would be
required to provide the very things needed in order to live to those
who don't have it.
the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism is to
START WITH the position that reasoning free-willed individuality (such
as is possessed by adult humans) is unique in its ethical
significance, and thus that all who possess reasoning free-willed
individuality are persons. But we can't stop there, because this group
does not include infants, who have almost without exception in Western
history been regarded as persons. The extension of "all who possess
reasoning free-willed individuality" to include infants seems clear:
they have the potential to develop reasoning free-willed
individuality.
Claiming that having the potential to be "something" and actually
being that "something" are the same is [...]
not what I've done.
So all who possess, or have the potential to get,
reasoning free-willed individuality are persons.
No. Not even close.
Says you. How else can we logically extend rights to newborns?
We don't.
This definition of
"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till
birth.
Only if you compare apples and oranges, and then claim that both are
apples.
Wrong; I'm correctly claiming that both apples and oranges are fruit.
No, you are saying that an apple seed is the same as an apple since it
has the potential to be an apple.
(I could stop right there, except that "potential" needs to be more
sharply specified. One could argue that a human gamete---sperm or
egg---has the potential to develop reasoning free-willed individuality
by first fusing with a complementary gamete. This is true in a certain
sense of "potential"---but that is a vastly different sense than
applies to zygotes. A zygote has the DNA of one particular human
individual; a gamete has an incomprehensibly larger range of
possibilities---namely, the possibility to fuse with any one of the
incomprehensibly large number of possible complementary gametes---and
thus has a vastly different potential to achieve any one of those
possibilities.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
05 Sep 2007 09:30:42 AM |
|
|
On Sep 5, 7:41 am, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 4:44 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm,Pr0r3p<pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
So, you admit there is no right to life, otherwise we would be
required to provide the very things needed in order to live to those
who don't have it.
the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism is to
START WITH the position that reasoning free-willed individuality (such
as is possessed by adult humans) is unique in its ethical
significance, and thus that all who possess reasoning free-willed
individuality are persons. But we can't stop there, because this group
does not include infants, who have almost without exception in Western
history been regarded as persons. The extension of "all who possess
reasoning free-willed individuality" to include infants seems clear:
they have the potential to develop reasoning free-willed
individuality.
Claiming that having the potential to be "something" and actually
being that "something" are the same is [...]
not what I've done.
So all who possess, or have the potential to get,
reasoning free-willed individuality are persons.
No. Not even close.
Says you. How else can we logically extend rights to newborns?
We don't.
Are you saying that we don't extend rights to newborns? Or that we do
so, but illogically?
This definition of
"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till
birth.
Only if you compare apples and oranges, and then claim that both are
apples.
Wrong; I'm correctly claiming that both apples and oranges are fruit.
No, you are saying that an apple seed is the same as an apple since it
has the potential to be an apple.
Wrong; I'm correctly saying that an apple seed and an apple, although
different, have a property in common because of the seed's potential.
(I could stop right there, except that "potential" needs to be more
sharply specified. One could argue that a human gamete---sperm or
egg---has the potential to develop reasoning free-willed individuality
by first fusing with a complementary gamete. This is true in a certain
sense of "potential"---but that is a vastly different sense than
applies to zygotes. A zygote has the DNA of one particular human
individual; a gamete has an incomprehensibly larger range of
possibilities---namely, the possibility to fuse with any one of the
incomprehensibly large number of possible complementary gametes---and
thus has a vastly different potential to achieve any one of those
possibilities.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
05 Sep 2007 01:22:59 PM |
|
|
On Sep 5, 10:30 am, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 5, 7:41 am,Pr0r3p<pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 4:44 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm,Pr0r3p<pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
So, you admit there is no right to life, otherwise we would be
required to provide the very things needed in order to live to those
who don't have it.
No response?
the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism is to
START WITH the position that reasoning free-willed individuality (such
as is possessed by adult humans) is unique in its ethical
significance, and thus that all who possess reasoning free-willed
individuality are persons. But we can't stop there, because this group
does not include infants, who have almost without exception in Western
history been regarded as persons. The extension of "all who possess
reasoning free-willed individuality" to include infants seems clear:
they have the potential to develop reasoning free-willed
individuality.
Claiming that having the potential to be "something" and actually
being that "something" are the same is [...]
not what I've done.
So all who possess, or have the potential to get,
reasoning free-willed individuality are persons.
No. Not even close.
Says you. How else can we logically extend rights to newborns?
We don't.
Are you saying that we don't extend rights to newborns? Or that we do
so, but illogically?
I'm saying that rights are granted to the newborn, not necessarily
extended from being a fetus.
This definition of
"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till
birth.
Only if you compare apples and oranges, and then claim that both are
apples.
Wrong; I'm correctly claiming that both apples and oranges are fruit.
No, you are saying that an apple seed is the same as an apple since it
has the potential to be an apple.
Wrong; I'm correctly saying that an apple seed and an apple, although
different, have a property in common because of the seed's potential.
So, you admit they are different.
(I could stop right there, except that "potential" needs to be more
sharply specified. One could argue that a human gamete---sperm or
egg---has the potential to develop reasoning free-willed individuality
by first fusing with a complementary gamete. This is true in a certain
sense of "potential"---but that is a vastly different sense than
applies to zygotes. A zygote has the DNA of one particular human
individual; a gamete has an incomprehensibly larger range of
possibilities---namely, the possibility to fuse with any one of the
incomprehensibly large number of possible complementary gametes---and
thus has a vastly different potential to achieve any one of those
possibilities.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
05 Sep 2007 01:44:13 PM |
|
|
On Sep 5, 1:22 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:30 am, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 5, 7:41 am,Pr0r3p<pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 4:44 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm,Pr0r3p<pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
So, you admit there is no right to life, otherwise we would be
required to provide the very things needed in order to live to those
who don't have it.
No response?
Sorry, I missed that question somehow. I'm not sure the right to X
necessarily implies the right to the things needed for X ... it
doesn't seem to work when X = free speech, for example. But if it'll
make you happier, substitute for "right to life" the phrase "right to
not be killed or denied those needed-for-life things to which one has
a valid claim."
the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism is to
START WITH the position that reasoning free-willed individuality (such
as is possessed by adult humans) is unique in its ethical
significance, and thus that all who possess reasoning free-willed
individuality are persons. But we can't stop there, because this group
does not include infants, who have almost without exception in Western
history been regarded as persons. The extension of "all who possess
reasoning free-willed individuality" to include infants seems clear:
they have the potential to develop reasoning free-willed
individuality.
Claiming that having the potential to be "something" and actually
being that "something" are the same is [...]
not what I've done.
So all who possess, or have the potential to get,
reasoning free-willed individuality are persons.
No. Not even close.
Says you. How else can we logically extend rights to newborns?
We don't.
Are you saying that we don't extend rights to newborns? Or that we do
so, but illogically?
I'm saying that rights are granted to the newborn, not necessarily
extended from being a fetus.
So why should we recognize newborns as having rights, if it's not
because of their potential for the reasoning free-willed individuality
that gives adults rights?
This definition of
"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till
birth.
Only if you compare apples and oranges, and then claim that both are
apples.
Wrong; I'm correctly claiming that both apples and oranges are fruit.
No, you are saying that an apple seed is the same as an apple since it
has the potential to be an apple.
Wrong; I'm correctly saying that an apple seed and an apple, although
different, have a property in common because of the seed's potential.
So, you admit they are different.
I never said nor implied otherwise. You and I are different, yet we
both have the right to life (or, if you prefer, the right to not be
killed or denied those needed-for-life things to which we have a
valid claim).
(I could stop right there, except that "potential" needs to be more
sharply specified. One could argue that a human gamete---sperm or
egg---has the potential to develop reasoning free-willed individuality
by first fusing with a complementary gamete. This is true in a certain
sense of "potential"---but that is a vastly different sense than
applies to zygotes. A zygote has the DNA of one particular human
individual; a gamete has an incomprehensibly larger range of
possibilities---namely, the possibility to fuse with any one of the
incomprehensibly large number of possible complementary gametes---and
thus has a vastly different potential to achieve any one of those
possibilities.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
05 Sep 2007 09:16:35 PM |
|
|
On Sep 5, 2:44 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 5, 1:22 pm,Pr0r3p<pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:30 am, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 5, 7:41 am,Pr0r3p<pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 4:44 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm,Pr0r3p<pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
So, you admit there is no right to life, otherwise we would be
required to provide the very things needed in order to live to those
who don't have it.
No response?
Sorry, I missed that question somehow. I'm not sure the right to X
necessarily implies the right to the things needed for X
If you can't exercise the right to life, then it's not a right.
... it
doesn't seem to work when X = free speech, for example. But if it'll
make you happier, substitute for "right to life" the phrase "right to
not be killed or denied those needed-for-life things to which one has
a valid claim."
the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism is to
START WITH the position that reasoning free-willed individuality (such
as is possessed by adult humans) is unique in its ethical
significance, and thus that all who possess reasoning free-willed
individuality are persons. But we can't stop there, because this group
does not include infants, who have almost without exception in Western
history been regarded as persons. The extension of "all who possess
reasoning free-willed individuality" to include infants seems clear:
they have the potential to develop reasoning free-willed
individuality.
Claiming that having the potential to be "something" and actually
being that "something" are the same is [...]
not what I've done.
So all who possess, or have the potential to get,
reasoning free-willed individuality are persons.
No. Not even close.
Says you. How else can we logically extend rights to newborns?
We don't.
Are you saying that we don't extend rights to newborns? Or that we do
so, but illogically?
I'm saying that rights are granted to the newborn, not necessarily
extended from being a fetus.
So why should we recognize newborns as having rights, if it's not
because of their potential for the reasoning free-willed individuality
that gives adults rights?
Because they are persons.
This definition of
"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till
birth.
Only if you compare apples and oranges, and then claim that both are
apples.
Wrong; I'm correctly claiming that both apples and oranges are fruit.
No, you are saying that an apple seed is the same as an apple since it
has the potential to be an apple.
Wrong; I'm correctly saying that an apple seed and an apple, although
different, have a property in common because of the seed's potential.
So, you admit they are different.
I never said nor implied otherwise. You and I are different, yet we
both have the right to life (or, if you prefer, the right to not be
killed or denied those needed-for-life things to which we have a
valid claim).
So, I have a valid claim to one of your lungs should I need it to
exercise my right to life?
If not, then how do I exercise my right to life when I need a lung to
live?
(I could stop right there, except that "potential" needs to be more
sharply specified. One could argue that a human gamete---sperm or
egg---has the potential to develop reasoning free-willed individuality
by first fusing with a complementary gamete. This is true in a certain
sense of "potential"---but that is a vastly different sense than
applies to zygotes. A zygote has the DNA of one particular human
individual; a gamete has an incomprehensibly larger range of
possibilities---namely, the possibility to fuse with any one of the
incomprehensibly large number of possible complementary gametes---and
thus has a vastly different potential to achieve any one of those
possibilities.)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "M_P" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
06 Sep 2007 10:57:07 AM |
|
|
On Sep 5, 9:16 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 5, 2:44 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 5, 1:22 pm,Pr0r3p<pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:30 am, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 5, 7:41 am,Pr0r3p<pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 4:44 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm,Pr0r3p<pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
So, you admit there is no right to life, otherwise we would be
required to provide the very things needed in order to live to those
who don't have it.
No response?
Sorry, I missed that question somehow. I'm not sure the right to X
necessarily implies the right to the things needed for X
If you can't exercise the right to life, then it's not a right.
Says you; it's clear to me that quadriplegics have the right to play
basketball despite not having the ability.
... it
doesn't seem to work when X = free speech, for example. But if it'll
make you happier, substitute for "right to life" the phrase "right to
not be killed or denied those needed-for-life things to which one has
a valid claim."
the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism is to
START WITH the position that reasoning free-willed individuality (such
as is possessed by adult humans) is unique in its ethical
significance, and thus that all who possess reasoning free-willed
individuality are persons. But we can't stop there, because this group
does not include infants, who have almost without exception in Western
history been regarded as persons. The extension of "all who possess
reasoning free-willed individuality" to include infants seems clear:
they have the potential to develop reasoning free-willed
individuality.
Claiming that having the potential to be "something" and actually
being that "something" are the same is [...]
not what I've done.
So all who possess, or have the potential to get,
reasoning free-willed individuality are persons.
No. Not even close.
Says you. How else can we logically extend rights to newborns?
We don't.
Are you saying that we don't extend rights to newborns? Or that we do
so, but illogically?
I'm saying that rights are granted to the newborn, not necessarily
extended from being a fetus.
So why should we recognize newborns as having rights, if it's not
because of their potential for the reasoning free-willed individuality
that gives adults rights?
Because they are persons.
Why should we recognize newborns as being persons, if it's not because
of their potential for the reasoning free-willed individuality that
gives adults rights?
This definition of
"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till
birth.
Only if you compare apples and oranges, and then claim that both are
apples.
Wrong; I'm correctly claiming that both apples and oranges are fruit.
No, you are saying that an apple seed is the same as an apple since it
has the potential to be an apple.
Wrong; I'm correctly saying that an apple seed and an apple, although
different, have a property in common because of the seed's potential.
So, you admit they are different.
I never said nor implied otherwise. You and I are different, yet we
both have the right to life (or, if you prefer, the right to not be
killed or denied those needed-for-life things to which we have a
valid claim).
So, I have a valid claim to one of your lungs should I need it to
exercise my right to life?
Not unless a voluntary action of mine caused you to need one of my
lungs.
If not, then how do I exercise my right to life when I need a lung to
live?
Who said you were guaranteed to be able to exercise it?
(I could stop right there, except that "potential" needs to be more
sharply specified. One could argue that a human gamete---sperm or
egg---has the potential to develop reasoning free-willed individuality
by first fusing with a complementary gamete. This is true in a certain
sense of "potential"---but that is a vastly different sense than
applies to zygotes. A zygote has the DNA of one particular human
individual; a gamete has an incomprehensibly larger range of
possibilities---namely, the possibility to fuse with any one of the
incomprehensibly large number of possible complementary gametes---and
thus has a vastly different potential to achieve any one of those
possibilities.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Says She Won't Compromise On Abortion |
13 Sep 2007 02:27:53 PM |
|
|
On Sep 6, 11:57 am, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 5, 9:16 pm, Pr0r3p <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 5, 2:44 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 5, 1:22 pm,Pr0r3p<pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:30 am, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 5, 7:41 am,Pr0r3p<pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 4:44 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm,Pr0r3p<pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:25 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:23 pm, (Edgar A Pearlstein)
wrote:
I never heard of anyone being "pro-abortion." That would be like being
pro-tonsillectomy.Either procedure should be a matter betweenp atient and
physician.
An abortion, unlike a tonsillectomy, kills an innocent human person.
In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
life---
If there is such a right, why isn't the government docking your
paycheck to feed the children who starve in this country? If there
is such a right, why aren't you being taken against your will to
donate an organ that another person needs to live?
Because the right to life does not in and of itself imply the right to
be given what you need in order to live.
So, you admit there is no right to life, otherwise we would be
required to provide the very things needed in order to live to those
who don't have it.
No response?
Sorry, I missed that question somehow. I'm not sure the right to X
necessarily implies the right to the things needed for X
If you can't exercise the right to life, then it's not a right.
Says you; it's clear to me that quadriplegics have the right to play
basketball despite not having the ability.
If one can't exercise a right, how is it a right?
... it
doesn't seem to work when X = free speech, for example. But if it'll
make you happier, substitute for "right to life" the phrase "right to
not be killed or denied those needed-for-life things to which one has
a valid claim."
the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism is to
START WITH the position that reasoning free-willed individuality (such
as is possessed by adult humans) is unique in its ethical
significance, and thus that all who possess reasoning free-willed
individuality are persons. But we can't stop there, because this group
does not include infants, who have almost without exception in Western
history been regarded as persons. The extension of "all who possess
reasoning free-willed individuality" to include infants seems clear:
they have the potential to develop reasoning free-willed
individuality.
Claiming that having the potential to be "something" and actually
being that "something" are the same is [...]
not what I've done.
So all who possess, or have the potential to get,
reasoning free-willed individuality are persons.
No. Not even close.
Says you. How else can we logically extend rights to newborns?
We don't.
Are you saying that we don't extend rights to newborns? Or that we do
so, but illogically?
I'm saying that rights are granted to the newborn, not necessarily
extended from being a fetus.
So why should we recognize newborns as having rights, if it's not
because of their potential for the reasoning free-willed individuality
that gives adults rights?
Because they are persons.
Why should we recognize newborns as being persons
Because that's what the legal definition of a person is.
, if it's not because
of their potential for the reasoning free-willed individuality that
gives adults rights?
You've yet to provide any legal precedence for your claim.
This definition of
"person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till
birth.
Only if you compare apples and oranges, and then claim that both are
apples.
Wrong; I'm correctly claiming that both apples and oranges are fruit.
No, you are saying that an apple seed is the same as an apple since it
has the potential to be an apple.
Wrong; I'm correctly saying that an apple seed and an apple, although
different, have a property in common because of the seed's potential.
So, you admit they are different.
I never said nor implied otherwise. You and I are different, yet we
both have the right to life (or, if you prefer, the right to not be
killed or denied those needed-for-life things to which we have a
valid claim).
So, I have a valid claim to one of your lungs should I need it to
exercise my right to life?
Not unless a voluntary action of mine caused you to need one of my
lungs.
Wrong. If you shot me in the kidney, no court would order you to give
me one of yours.
If not, then how do I exercise my right to life when I need a lung to
live?
Who said | | | | | | | |
