The Political Party

[yanktar]

---

mauser wrote:
Guido: What's morally abhorrent is the legalized murder of millions of children, largely out of convenience.

---

Your fundamental premise is that a woman's body is not her own.  She has NO right to her body, yet you'd DIE for your "right" to your gun!

What if SHE would die for the right to say HER body is HERS, not yours, not the state of North Dakota's or Alabama's, and not some rapist or incestuous relative?

Maybe every woman who wants her right to her body should get a gun, ok, an assault rifle, and say: "You think my body is not my own? That it belongs to somebody else?  Then just come and TRY to enforce that!"

You know, stop fucking around with trying to reason with unreasonable men like you who will NEVER know the horror of having a rapist's get growing inside of you, and say: "You think you can force it?  Come on and just try, motherfucker!"   You think a woman can't pull a trigger like a man?

[mauser]

Yank: My fundamental premise is that the life of the unborn should be protected and that while the body of the mother is certainly her own.....once she becomes pregnant there are two bodies in the equation, not just one.

Unless her own life is threatened by that of the unborn, she should have no right to end its life.

[yanktar]

---

mauser wrote:
Yank: My fundamental premise is that the life of the unborn should be protected and that while the body of the mother is certainly her own.....once she becomes pregnant there are two bodies in the equation, not just one.

Unless her own life is threatened by that of the unborn, she should have no right to end its life.

---

That's clear.  So if she's raped, she has to bear the rapist's child.  The rape goes on  and on for at least 9 months.  Should she be forced to nurse and raise the rapist's child, maybe seeing HIS features in the child every day?  After all, the child could DIE if she doesn't nurse it and care for it.

President Bashir of Sudan would be proud of you as he made the rape and impregnating the women of Darfur as a major key to "Arabizing" the non-Arabic people there.  Rape 'em. Get 'em pregnant.  Make them bear the children. Kill the non-Arab men.  Rape as a weapon of war.

In your world, HER body is not her own, while YOUR body is your own.  Got it.

[mauser]

Yank: Given that nothing I've said is supporting in any way the crime of rape, I can only assume you really don't wish to discuss the issue.

So be it.

[guido61]

---

mauser wrote:
Yank: My fundamental premise is that the life of the unborn should be protected and that while the body of the mother is certainly her own.....once she becomes pregnant there are two bodies in the equation, not just one.

Unless her own life is threatened by that of the unborn, she should have no right to end its life.

---

I agree there are two bodies in the equation.  We disagree that she should have the right to end its life.

The problem is that NOBODY but her can nuture that life before the point of viability.   And the only way to compel her to do so is by the force of government and by force of law and to strip her of any right to control the biological processes taking place inside her own body.

Since you consider yourself to be a conservative/libertarian, I find it astounding that you're ok with this degree of government intrusion over an individual.

[yanktar]

---

mauser wrote:
Yank: Given that nothing I've said is supporting in any way the crime of rape, I can only assume you really don't wish to discuss the issue.

So be it.

---

Mauser, that's simply not true.   Neither you nor I can actually prove that pregnancy resulting from rape is a de facto threat to the mother's life (as in, it can kill her).  But you would force her to bear the child or, to you, she's a murderer.

[mauser]

Guido: The government control is the protection of the right to life of the unborn, and that is essentially what government is created to do: protect the liberties of the people.

[mauser]

Yank: Doctors are able to determine the likelihood of such a threat, and the numbers are very low.

If such a threat exists, the mother would be justified in protecting her own life.

[guido61]

---

mauser wrote:
Guido: The government control is the protection of the right to life of the unborn, and that is essentially what government is created to do: protect the liberties of the people.

---

So if the woman doesn't want to continue the pregnancy, then maybe we should do what we do with unwanted born children:  remove them from her care and give them to other people to nuture and care for.

Oh wait, we can't do that, can we?  The ONLY thing we can do is FORCE her to allow her body to continue a biological process against her will.   Can you think of ANY analogous situation to this?  Would you force a woman with a born baby to care for it against her will?

Again...the obvious and logical conclusion to your position is should a woman take her 17 year old daughter to get an abortion because she had been raped by her Uncle Ernie, you'd drag them both and the attending physcian into court and have a prosecutor present evidence and witnesses before a judge and jury to sort out which of them are responsible for murder, who is an accessory, who is responsible for negligent homicide, etc.  Is this REALLY the sort of utopian libertarian society you otherwise profess to support?  Do you really think any more than a very small percentage of the nation would agree to this sort of legal process?

This actually sounds like AMERICA to you?

[mauser]

Guido: It certainly sounds better than the 3000 children who were murdered today alone, and the 56 million in the US since Roe.

[Philter]

---

Mr.NiceGuy wrote:

I think Roe's current opinion is of more import than yours. No offense.

---

By "you" you mean "the vast majority of Americans", loser.

[yanktar]

---

mauser wrote:
Yank: Doctors are able to determine the likelihood of such a threat, and the numbers are very low.

If such a threat exists, the mother would be justified in protecting her own life.

---

Dodging the issue, Mauser, and it's implication:

If a raped woman is impregnated and can safely carry to term, you want her forced her to do so.  She has to spend 9 1/2 months growing the result of a rape or you'd have her declared a murderer--for the crime of being a victim.

What is this, Pakistan, where the rape VICTIM is punished for being raped?

[mauser]

Yank: Yes, I don't believe she should be able to legally murder her unborn child.

[Bowe]

---

mauser wrote:
Yank: My fundamental premise is that the life of the unborn should be protected and that while the body of the mother is certainly her own.....once she becomes pregnant there are two bodies in the equation, not just one.

Unless her own life is threatened by that of the unborn, she should have no right to end its life.

---

wrong

no-one has the right to live inside another person, such a right does not exist, an unborn is only inside the mother by virtue of permission

your body is your own, and no-one can force you to use it, or part of it to keep someone else alive

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

mauser wrote:
Mossy: The reason abortion isn't a felony is because we've made the error of claiming that a human being doesn't exist until it's born. That is at best a subjective definition.

What we've failed to do is understand that a separate and distinct human life exists from conception forward. There is no magic transformation that takes place at birth. It is the same human life that it was prior to birth and all the way back to the moment it was conceived. It has grown and developed just as it will continue to do after its birth.

We use the term fetus and pretend that by calling it that, we can pretend it isn't a human child, albeit at the earliest stages of development. It is, still, a human child. Fetus mean nothing more than offspring, and that's what the unborn is.....human offspring.

A little intellectual honesty goes a long way.

---

Well said, worth a bump.

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

mauser wrote:
Yank: My fundamental premise is that the life of the unborn should be protected and that while the body of the mother is certainly her own.....once she becomes pregnant there are two bodies in the equation, not just one.

Unless her own life is threatened by that of the unborn, she should have no right to end its life.

---

I agree there are two bodies in the equation.  We disagree that she should have the right to end its life.

The problem is that NOBODY but her can nuture that life before the point of viability.   And the only way to compel her to do so is by the force of government and by force of law and to strip her of any right to control the biological processes taking place inside her own body.

Since you consider yourself to be a conservative/libertarian, I find it astounding that you're ok with this degree of government intrusion over an individual.

---

Not that it will make any difference, but just to bump the point that you are conflating law and morality.

Should a woman get drunk during pregnancy?  Should the government put her in jail for doing so?  Those are two different questions.

And you're just totally making up this nonsense about viability being some absolute justification for aborting a child.  Technology is constantly pushing back the point of viability.  It is at least theoretically conceivable that we will one day be able to do a complete in vitro pregnancy.  Where will your argument be then?  Why does the egg donor have absolute rights and the sperm donor none?  You're a bit of a weird guy, guido, in sometimes seeming quite reasonable and other times just digging in your heels and saying "That's my story and I'm sticking to it"

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

mauser wrote:
Guido: The government control is the protection of the right to life of the unborn, and that is essentially what government is created to do: protect the liberties of the people.

---

So if the woman doesn't want to continue the pregnancy, then maybe we should do what we do with unwanted born children:  remove them from her care and give them to other people to nuture and care for.

Oh wait, we can't do that, can we?  The ONLY thing we can do is FORCE her to allow her body to continue a biological process against her will.   Can you think of ANY analogous situation to this?  Would you force a woman with a born baby to care for it against her will?

Again...the obvious and logical conclusion to your position is should a woman take her 17 year old daughter to get an abortion because she had been raped by her Uncle Ernie, you'd drag them both and the attending physcian into court and have a prosecutor present evidence and witnesses before a judge and jury to sort out which of them are responsible for murder, who is an accessory, who is responsible for negligent homicide, etc.  Is this REALLY the sort of utopian libertarian society you otherwise profess to support?  Do you really think any more than a very small percentage of the nation would agree to this sort of legal process?

This actually sounds like AMERICA to you?

---

I can't help notice that you have no interest in making Uncle Ernie liable.

[Bowe]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

I can't help notice that you have no interest in making Uncle Ernie liable.

---

so not only should we force rape victims to have their children if they become pregnant as a result, we should force the rapist to help her raise the child?

brilliant idea

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

Bowe wrote:

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

I can't help notice that you have no interest in making Uncle Ernie liable.

---

so not only should we force rape victims to have their children if they become pregnant as a result, we should force the rapist to help her raise the child?

brilliant idea

---

You really shouldn't try this at home, shouldn't try to act all morally outraged when it's obvious you have no experience with trying to do the right thing when it's hard.

We should at least make him financially liable for the child.  It becomes tricky when Ernie has other obligations and you don't want to punish his legitimate family, but yeah, at the very least Ernie is on the hook for every last penny of expense related to this child.  We can do DNA these days, we can absolutely identify him as the sperm donor.

[Bowe]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

You really shouldn't try this at home, shouldn't try to act all morally outraged when it's obvious you have no experience with trying to do the right thing when it's hard.

We should at least make him financially liable for the child.  It becomes tricky when Ernie has other obligations and you don't want to punish his legitimate family, but yeah, at the very least Ernie is on the hook for every last penny of expense related to this child.  We can do DNA these days, we can absolutely identify him as the sperm donor.

---

are they somehow except from the same laws regarding child support as everyone else?

if a pregrant rape victim want to get financial support from the attacker for the child, then thats her choice to make

but then she should also be able to choose to have absolutely no contact at all if she so wishes