majorspark;1406525 wrote:The states and the people. I don't seek to empower the federal government to lord my beliefs over all 300+ US citizens.



No not under normal circumstances. If people were dying in large numbers because of lack of voluntary blood donations than yes I could see limited government intervention. But really in this case we would be talking about some type of major emergency situation were civil liberties understandably can be temporarily suspended. Because donating blood presents virtually no risk to the individual and the body regenerates the supply individuals are more than willing to voluntarily donate.

Federal, and some state and local governments do require individuals to donate a portion of their personal labor for things far less vital than preserving life. State and local governments may even require a portion of an individuals personal wealth to maintain ownership of an individuals personally owned property. They are after your money not your blood.

Yes the government sometimes infringes in liberty....i.e. your labor example...which you guys often lament...when it is not near the interference with private property as a taking of a woman's womb or organ....especially when we're talking about doing so for The bbenefit of a "human" that is not alive in any real sense and is contingent upon the woman's grace.

HitsRus;1406371 wrote:I don't buy that in that a random person is not responsible for someone else's life. But a person, who has engaged in activity that resulted in a situation that they are responsible for, is another story. If you want to say that because I operated a car negligently, and as a result, someone needed one of my kidney's to save their life, then I would say yes....one of my kidney's should be forfeit. In the same way, a woman who recklessly engages in sexual activity knowing full well what the consequences could be(and given the multiple options for birth control available) should be responsible for tending the life she has created.

For one...try to imagine the ohio assembly passing a law requiring negligent tortfeasors to give their organs to the people they injured if they happened to be a match, etc. You dont give up the rights to your own organs when u act negligently and the idea that small government conservatives support would support such a proposition will be quite a sight to see.

And again...it really isnt bout responsibility. Suppose a responsible married woman desires to get pregnant. She does purposefully with her husband. 10 weeks after conception she has a change of heart and no longer wants to have a child. Her womb is her property...the most intimate kind in fact. At that stage the human progeny may properly be considered "life" but it is no more "alive" than any other human cell. Should she exercise her right to use her property as she wishes she can do so without causing any pain or suffering nor causing a sentient being to "die" as we understand the phrase. In light of these consequences. A government taking of her reproductive organs does not seem worth it to me.

And while we're talking about negligence...if thats the standard...why no desire to investigate women who have miscarriages for criminal negligence? If a woman is told that she is likely to lose her pregnancy...and she gets pregnant anyways nd then oses her child...if it is wrong to purposefully abort it is wrong to get pregnant when a miscarriage is foreseeable.

BoatShoes;1406617 wrote:.if it is wrong to purposefully abort it is wrong to get pregnant when a miscarriage is foreseeable.

Liberal arguments tend to be even more fucked-up than they like to accuse the bible thumpers of. Unbelievable - comparing voluntary manslaughter to natural causes...talk about false equivalence. Certainly better arguments can be made than trying to imply taking a baby's life away is better, or even on par, than giving one a chance.

Your example is absolutely horrible. A woman wanting to have a child is a good thing, and a pro-life position.

But even if there were something like a 50% chance of miscarriage, there is absolutely no intent to commit involuntary manslaughter. You are completely ignoring intent, which is a pretty critical part of our justice system. Nor can you hold her negligent because both the pregnancy AND the body's rejecting the fetus are entirely natural.

gut;1406618 wrote:A woman wanting to have a child is a good thing,...

Nor can you hold her negligent because both the pregnancy AND the body's rejecting the fetus are entirely natural.

Not according to taxpayer-funded Planned "Parenthood".

BoatShoes;1406616 wrote:...
And again...it really isnt bout responsibility. Suppose a responsible married woman desires to get pregnant. She does purposefully with her husband. 10 weeks after conception she has a change of heart and no longer wants to have a child. Her womb is her property...the most intimate kind in fact. At that stage the human progeny may properly be considered "life" but it is no more "alive" than any other human cell. Should she exercise her right to use her property as she wishes she can do so without causing any pain or suffering nor causing a sentient being to "die" as we understand the phrase. In light of these consequences. A government taking of her reproductive organs does not seem worth it to me.

You say it's not about responsibility but if that isn't irresponsible then I don't know what is.

For one...try to imagine the ohio assembly passing a law requiring negligent tortfeasors to give their organs to the people they injured if they happened to be a match, etc. You dont give up the rights to your own organs when u act negligently and the idea that small government conservatives support would support such a proposition will be quite a sight to see.

The example I gave was more of a hypothetical presented against O-Trap's hypothetical.

And again...it really isnt bout responsibility.

Her womb is her property

It absolutely is ' bout responsibility'. I don't understand how responsibility is discarded willy nilly in a liberal agenda to fit it's own purposes....and how property is entirely one's own until the government decides that it is not.

I own my guns. I own my cars. I own my body. I own my hard earned money.
I am free to use them however I want, as long as I use them responsibly.

I cannot use my guns to shoot somebody.
I cannot drive 90 MPH down a road (even if I don't hurt anybody).
I cannot use my money to harm or cheat other individuals.
If my actions cause harm to the environment, I am responsible to clean it up plus damages.
In all, we have rules and laws that allow me to use my property how I want to, as long as it is used responsibly.

Yet the left thinks it can take guns from responsible gun owners.
But it won't compel a woman to act responsibly with her reproductive organs?
I can't drive my car 90 MPH even if it hurts no one. I am using my body to operate a vehicle recklessly. Why should a woman be allowed to recklessly create, and then destroy life?

It is absolutely about responsibility.
BP is absolutley responsible for the oil spill.
Somebody who shoots an innocent is absolutely responsible.
You get at least a ticket for driving recklessly.
You can't use your money to bribe a public official.

...and yet...you want me to believe that when it comes to life itself, we should be able do whatever the **** we want went it comes to its creation and destruction?


Responsibilty. That really is a tough idea for the left to swallow or accept. It interferes with their ability to split and parse and divide us to their political advantage.

Time to prosecute all those banks that house fertilized eggs for kidnapping and child abuse.

gut;1406618 wrote:Liberal arguments tend to be even more fucked-up than they like to accuse the bible thumpers of. Unbelievable - comparing voluntary manslaughter to natural causes...talk about false equivalence. Certainly better arguments can be made than trying to imply taking a baby's life away is better, or even on par, than giving one a chance.

Your example is absolutely horrible. A woman wanting to have a child is a good thing, and a pro-life position.

But even if there were something like a 50% chance of miscarriage, there is absolutely no intent to commit involuntary manslaughter. You are completely ignoring intent, which is a pretty critical part of our justice system. Nor can you hold her negligent because both the pregnancy AND the body's rejecting the fetus are entirely natural.

Lol this on Manhattan Buckeye level of indignation with ignorance. I don't know..maybe look up the elements of manslaughter to make sure you've got the "intent" part down?..in our justice system...under The model penal code for example...purposeful intent is only one type of mens rea. Negligence satisfies the mens rea requirement! Read your post again...you say "there's no intent" but thats not necessary for manslaughter! a person liable or guilty of manslaughter or negligent homicide is liable for the death of another despite not having the intent to kill...because they engaged in reckless or negligent conduct which satisfies the "guilty mind" requirement.

If you engage in conduct creates a foreseeable risk of death to a human being and they die due to that conduct you have satisfied the elements of negligent homicide. If a fetus deserves the same moral consideration as a human and is capable of dying as it is "alive" then women can engage n conduct that creates a foreseeable risk of death to a fetus If we hold the people who cause theunintentional deaths of adults liable for his conduct...why should we not hold the women responsible who predictably and proximately cause the deaths of their fetus.

You can't appeal to "naturalism" when here is definitely certain behavior hat increases he risk of death and could be considered the proximate cause like in any other negligence causation analysis.

but lets ask why you feel such indignation about this concept that follows from the demand that fetus' deserve the same moral consideration as sentient adults....because a world wherein women were persistently having their reproductive experiences investigated by the state would be abhorrent and we wouldnt want that. Nevertheless these same fears ought to convince us to allow women to have control over their reproductive preferences In all respects.

HitsRus;1406661 wrote:It absolutely is ' bout responsibility'. I don't understand how responsibility is discarded willy nilly in a liberal agenda to fit it's own purposes....and how property is entirely one's own until the government decides that it is not.

I own my guns. I own my cars. I own my body. I own my hard earned money.
I am free to use them however I want, as long as I use them responsibly.

I cannot use my guns to shoot somebody.
I cannot drive 90 MPH down a road (even if I don't hurt anybody).
I cannot use my money to harm or cheat other individuals.
If my actions cause harm to the environment, I am responsible to clean it up plus damages.
In all, we have rules and laws that allow me to use my property how I want to, as long as it is used responsibly.

Yet the left thinks it can take guns from responsible gun owners.
But it won't compel a woman to act responsibly with her reproductive organs?
I can't drive my car 90 MPH even if it hurts no one. I am using my body to operate a vehicle recklessly. Why should a woman be allowed to recklessly create, and then destroy life?

It is absolutely about responsibility.
BP is absolutley responsible for the oil spill.
Somebody who shoots an innocent is absolutely responsible.
You get at least a ticket for driving recklessly.
You can't use your money to bribe a public official.

...and yet...you want me to believe that when it comes to life itself, we should be able do whatever the **** we want went it comes to its creation and destruction?

Responsibilty. That really is a tough idea for the left to swallow or accept. It interferes with their ability to split and parse and divide us to their political advantage.

reps

BoatShoes;1406674 wrote:... Nevertheless these same fears ought to convince us to allow women to have control over their reproductive preferences In all respects.

Women do have complete control. Once they have chosen to reproduced is where we have a disagreement.

HitsRus;1406661 wrote:The example I gave was more of a hypothetical presented against O-Trap's hypothetical.





It absolutely is ' bout responsibility'. I don't understand how responsibility is discarded willy nilly in a liberal agenda to fit it's own purposes....and how property is entirely one's own until the government decides that it is not.

I own my guns. I own my cars. I own my body. I own my hard earned money.
I am free to use them however I want, as long as I use them responsibly.

I cannot use my guns to shoot somebody.
I cannot drive 90 MPH down a road (even if I don't hurt anybody).
I cannot use my money to harm or cheat other individuals.
If my actions cause harm to the environment, I am responsible to clean it up plus damages.
In all, we have rules and laws that allow me to use my property how I want to, as long as it is used responsibly.

Yet the left thinks it can take guns from responsible gun owners.
But it won't compel a woman to act responsibly with her reproductive organs?
I can't drive my car 90 MPH even if it hurts no one. I am using my body to operate a vehicle recklessly. Why should a woman be allowed to recklessly create, and then destroy life?

It is absolutely about responsibility.
BP is absolutley responsible for the oil spill.
Somebody who shoots an innocent is absolutely responsible.
You get at least a ticket for driving recklessly.
You can't use your money to bribe a public official.

...and yet...you want me to believe that when it comes to life itself, we should be able do whatever the **** we want went it comes to its creation and destruction?


Responsibilty. That really is a tough idea for the left to swallow or accept. It interferes with their ability to split and parse and divide us to their political advantage.

Well see now you have fallen into my trap. You are right. You cannot use your property in ways that cause the death of a human being that is alive and sentient and capable of dying. No doubt you consider a fetus to be "alive" and "capable of dying"...that is...when the embryo is destroyed....the fetus has "died"...if that is true...why only demand consequences from the government for responsibility/irresponsibility in certain respects. A woman who drinks a red bull and causes a miscarriage is just is liable for the "death" of the fetus as a doctor who performs an intentional abortion. Certainly...since fetus' deserve the same moral consideration as sentient human beings who have brains...justice demands that we see if women engaged in egligent conduct when they have had a miscarriage! It absolutely does if we are to be consistent. Until you accept these ramifications of your own appeals to government enforced responsibility...your arguents will ring hollow.

And your response To otraps hypo does not satisfy concerns he raised because you seem to admit why it would be erroneous to follow through with your suggestion...

And fwiw...I dont think a fetus prior to having a brain is capable of "dying"...therefore we need not hold women responsible since a fetus cannot "die" at most stages of pregnancy.and hence since no death Is caused negligent or reckless others wjo have miscarriages and women who intionally abort heir pregnancies cannot be liable for death

Well see now you have fallen into my trap.

LOL. Since you want to take away my guns...then you might also want to take away my car "to be consistent". As for your assertion that a red bull taken by the mother caused the miscarraige, then you better have proof, and proof of intent to charge and prosecute. That is a far cry from directly, unambiguously, actively and purposefully committing a murder. Your argument is completely based on wild hypotheticals, and then you demand consistency from your opponents when your own Mayor Bloomberg can't help but butt in with his nanny state health ordinances.

How convienient that you believe the presence of 'brains' should determine life. What day in the pregnancy precisely is that? If the presence of brains determines life, then it should be open season on liberals and we should be able to use our assault rifles to euthanize them and their gobbledygook way of rationalizing.(sarcasm).
At the end of life...if a body is alive and no brain waves are present, you still cannot plunge a stake thru their heart, poison them, etc... or anything that actively ends a person's life. If you cannot do this at the end of a life where there is no hope of recovery, why should this be allowed when there is plenty of hope for a long fruitful life?

HitsRus;1406754 wrote:...

How convienient that you believe the presence of 'brains' should determine life. What day in the pregnancy precisely is that?...

Should it then be considered then murder to abort a human which has a brain?

HitsRus;1406754 wrote:How convienient that you believe the presence of 'brains' should determine life. What day in the pregnancy precisely is that? If the presence of brains determines life, then it should be open season on liberals and we should be able to use our assault rifles to euthanize them and their gobbledygook way of rationalizing.(sarcasm).

It might be sarcasm but it rings with ironic truth.

HitsRus;1406754 wrote:How convienient that you believe the presence of 'brains' should determine life. What day in the pregnancy precisely is that? If the presence of brains determines life, then it should be open season on liberals and we should be able to use our assault rifles to euthanize them and their gobbledygook way of rationalizing.(sarcasm).

It might be sarcasm but it rings with ironic truth.

Con_Alma;1406757 wrote:Should it then be considered then murder to abort a human which has a brain?

Well, it should at least be murder if an innocent unborn baby is aborted when it "officially" has a brain.

I would love to hear from the lefties at what point they deem that a zygote, fetus, or whatever feel-good and convenient euphemism they attach to the unborn infant is considered to have a brain.

believer;1406810 wrote:...
I would love to hear from the lefties at what point they deem that a zygote, fetus, or whatever feel-good and convenient euphemism they attach to the unborn infant is considered to have a brain.

The real question for me is that whenever that point is, shouldn't that be the abortion limitation time-frame?

Con_Alma;1406848 wrote:The real question for me is that whenever that point is, shouldn't that be the abortion limitation time-frame?

If abortion is to remain the law of the land then I would say yes. Now we just need the leftists to dictate to us precisely when that happens in their - um - minds.

Do any of the Ultra Liberals on here agree with an Abortion at anytime during the pregnancy? Excluding life of the mother of course and to save time also rape and incest. So other than those three reasons, is anyone really ok with late term abortion?

I think it is fair for people to have debates on when life begins. Whether its conception, heartbeat, brainwaves, etc.... At least in the early phases, I think you can have an honest debate without calling someone a murderer or saying someone wants to take rights away from women.

pmoney25;1406895 wrote:Do any of the Ultra Liberals on here agree with an Abortion at anytime during the pregnancy? Excluding life of the mother of course and to save time also rape and incest. So other than those three reasons, is anyone really ok with late term abortion?

I think it is fair for people to have debates on when life begins. Whether its conception, heartbeat, brainwaves, etc.... At least in the early phases, I think you can have an honest debate without calling someone a murderer or saying someone wants to take rights away from women.

Rape, incest and confirmed direct threat to the life of the mother are the only arguably valid reasons for abortion.

For millions of us human life begins at conception. That fertilized egg will not eventually be born as a chimpanzee, snake, or goat....it will be and is from the very beginning of conception human.

But if taking the life of innocent unborn human beings is the law of the land, we should at least agree that late-term abortion is definitely murder and probably murder when brainwaves are detected.

BoatShoes;1406674 wrote:Lol this on Manhattan Buckeye level of indignation with ignorance. I don't know..maybe look up the elements of manslaughter to make sure you've got the "intent" part down?

What is the penalty for an unnatural death where there is no intent and no negligence? LMAO, I'm struggling to even think of a scenario where such a thing would be considered a homicide.

You MIGHT get a judgement in civil court if you've got a slick lawyer and dumb jury. But the simple fact of the matter is that baby dies of natural causes - you're trying to turn the woman's internal organs into some sort of weapon used to commit a murder. Can you not see how completely asinine that argument is?

Like I said, your "foreseeable" argument is horribly misguided. It is 100% foreseeable that baby will never live if she doesn't get pregnant in the first place. Therefore you simply cannot make the claim that getting pregnant is some sort of hostile act or that not getting pregnant is somehow in the best interest of the unborn.

"Lol this on Manhattan Buckeye level of indignation with ignorance"

Once again, thanks for the compliment.

i'll make this short and sweet. Any woman that "chooses" to have an abortion at that late of a time period is seriously messed up or is involved in a seriously messed up situation. All she has to do is hold out another four months and could likely make $50,000 to $75,000 easily. That isn't an indignant comment - it is reality. A world you don't live in.

Manhattan Buckeye;1407146 wrote:All she has to do is hold out another four months and could likely make $50,000 to $75,000 easily.

You're a dumbass. She'll keep the baby and get thousands from the gubmit EVERY YEAR.

Con_Alma;1406420 wrote:He doesn't have an authoritative claim unless you chose to carry out some act that you knowingly created a scenario that it was only your blood that would sustain his life. You chose to create the situation. The greatest difference, however, is that your's is a hypothetical. while mine is not.

The person doesn't have such a right. That's the point of the thread. They are legally able to be discarded as nothing more than a bio-hazard.

IN addition, the person doesn't have the choice to be put into the situation whereby they are dependent or not. The adult does have complete ability to act in away that may create life or not.

I believe the follow-up has already been posed, but suppose I was to injure someone, causing them to have need of someone else's body in order to remain alive. Am I, or am I not, required to then give them use of my body by law? The more important question is, should I be? And if so or not, why so or not?

O-Trap;1407187 wrote:I believe the follow-up has already been posed, but suppose I was to injure someone, causing them to have need of someone else's body in order to remain alive. Am I, or am I not, required to then give them use of my body by law? The more important question is, should I be? And if so or not, why so or not?

Yes and it's provided in the form of money.