Baby Boy Survives Nearly Two Days After Failed Abortion - Page 3 - RC Groups
Thread Tools
May 02, 2010, 06:26 PM
Fly Runaway Fans
Quote:
it is non(e) of your or my business what a woman and her doctor decide to do on these issues.
Absoflaminglutely. Ever notice that all the leadership and spokesmen of the RTLers are males?

Somebody please explain to me how males unrelated to the woman in question have any entitlement to so much as a public opinion about how she manages her reproductive tract. ?

When the day arrives that males can become pregnant, then and only then will they be entitled to a vocal public opinion--not to mention a legislative one--on surgically-mitigated pregnancy.
May 02, 2010, 06:28 PM
Hi ya! Car ride!?
Sport Flyer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtnGoat
The same person who notes legality has nothing to do with morality, and in fact has a long track record of contradicting morality.



That woman is not making decisions which do not involve another persons life and death. A human being is not a fingernail or appendix.
Lots of moral indignation there Goat.

I'm curious, do you have the same indignation for your government when it fails to provide adequately for American children born in proverty?
May 02, 2010, 07:17 PM
Not THAT Ira
Real Ira's Avatar
Two similar stories. One with a happier ending, and by that I mean the baby lived.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...eir_lives.html
May 02, 2010, 07:19 PM
Not THAT Ira
Real Ira's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sport Flyer
Lots of moral indignation there Goat.

I'm curious, do you have the same indignation for your government when it fails to provide adequately for American children born in proverty?
So being born to a life of financial poverty is now grounds for a death sentence?
So much for liberal compassion.
May 02, 2010, 07:20 PM
Tu ne cede malis
MtnGoat's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libelle201B
Please contact the SCOTUS with your concerns. Have a great day
Out of arguments, I see.
May 02, 2010, 07:27 PM
Hi ya! Car ride!?
Sport Flyer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Real Ira
So being born to a life of financial poverty is now grounds for a death sentence?
So much for liberal compassion.
I'm curious. Please tell me how providing for children in poverty and death sentences relate again? Oh right. They don't.
May 02, 2010, 07:29 PM
Tu ne cede malis
MtnGoat's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by arbilab
Absoflaminglutely. Ever notice that all the leadership and spokesmen of the RTLers are males?

Somebody please explain to me how males unrelated to the woman in question have any entitlement to so much as a public opinion about how she manages her reproductive tract. ?

When the day arrives that males can become pregnant, then and only then will they be entitled to a vocal public opinion--not to mention a legislative one--on surgically-mitigated pregnancy.
Simple...many of us do not practice identity politics or morality where validity of judgement is tied solely to group membership.

If we wanted to play your way, and did so *conistently*, we'd notably conclude that:

women should have no say in any law concerning men, since they cannot and will never be men

whites should have no say in any law concerning blacks, since they cannot and will never be blacks

asians should have no say in any law concerning whites, since they cannot and will never be whites

and so on and so forth.

Identity politics is ideal if you are dividing people into groups with the goal of agitating for political power based in group identity. Unfortunately, it simultaneously invalidates itself if applied consistently.

There is nothing race, sex, color or personal characteristic based which results in invalidating opposition to murder. Apparently, for some, there are reasons based in these things which results in supporting it.

A woman can manage what is hers, her reproductive tract, without moral impact on others..... so long as it doesn't involve killing someone else. How so many finely honed minds, expert in the intracies of the morass of identity politics and moral relativism can't grasp this one extremely basic idea puts a fine point on the intentional blind spot...in order to clearly argue for abortion, they must deny the humanity of that which they support the slaughter of.
Last edited by MtnGoat; May 03, 2010 at 12:59 AM.
May 02, 2010, 07:40 PM
Tu ne cede malis
MtnGoat's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sport Flyer
Lots of moral indignation there Goat.

I'm curious, do you have the same indignation for your government when it fails to provide adequately for American children born in proverty?
Of course not, as that is not the role of govt.
May 02, 2010, 08:00 PM
Hi ya! Car ride!?
Sport Flyer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtnGoat
Of course not, as that is not the role of govt.
So it's the role of government to care for the babies before they are born, but not after. Interesting interpretation.
May 02, 2010, 08:03 PM
Suspended Account
To me its very simple . Unless the mother is in medical danger , or the fetus is proved to be horribly defective (no brain , just a brainstem , and other mutations not compatible with life) , and if left to its persent course(full term delivery) will result in a normal healthy birth , and someone goes in there and kills it , then its murder . Would it have become a child if left to develop in the womb as nature intended ? And someone went after it with medical instruments and ended that growing ? suger coat it any way you can , but to me its still MURDER
May 02, 2010, 08:35 PM
Registered User
Libelle201B's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtnGoat
Out of arguments, I see.
No, just tired of the discussion.
May 03, 2010, 12:58 AM
Tu ne cede malis
MtnGoat's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sport Flyer
So it's the role of government to care for the babies before they are born, but not after. Interesting interpretation.
It's the role of govt to defend rights for all people..not 'care' for them.
May 03, 2010, 12:59 AM
Not THAT Ira
Real Ira's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sport Flyer
So it's the role of government to care for the babies before they are born, but not after. Interesting interpretation.
It is governments role to fill potholes and prevent individuals from being victims of violent crime. Many consider being aborted to be a violent act against a person and that such an act should be a crime.
To try to extend that tenant to assuring other outcomes for that person either before or after they are born misses the point and is a different argument. Of course the pro abortion supporters like to try to let the one argument hitch a free ride on the other.
May 03, 2010, 01:21 AM
Fly Runaway Fans
Um, so the government should force a mother to carry a fetus to term, plop it on the floor, and then to hell with what happens from there on? When the mother might have a very good idea--presumably better than the government's--of what the fetus' future will look like once it's hit the floor? Such as not being able to afford to feed or medicate it?

Some of these notions would sprain my eyesockets rolling them, if I let it get that far. Especially considering they all come from males, who will never face the issue themselves and thus are not (IMO) entitled to an opinion AT ALL.
May 03, 2010, 08:54 AM
Hi ya! Car ride!?
Sport Flyer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtnGoat
It's the role of govt to defend rights for all people..not 'care' for them.
Ah. But adequent health care, shelter, economic security, education and opportunity aren't rights. Those are all about choices, even if they were someone elses. Gotcha.


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help! Lipo Survives 4 Days into a Dead Short !!!!! How does this happen ??? JettPilot Batteries and Chargers 18 Sep 20, 2009 11:48 AM
Discussion Boston woman sues for child-rearing costs after failed abortion MtnGoat Life, The Universe, and Politics 7 Mar 07, 2007 02:31 PM
Discussion Paraglider survives after soaring to 32,000 feet aeropal Life, The Universe, and Politics 10 Feb 19, 2007 02:40 PM