Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Giving abortions should be illegal!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Giving abortions should be illegal!

    The mantra of pro Abortionists is that a Women should have a right to what she wants with her own body. I propose that a woman can retain that right while making it illegal to give an abortion.

    Science has proven that a fetus is a human being. So this conversation will not apply to science deniers.

    We all agree that it is wrong to murder an innocent human being. But we also believe people should have the right to do what they want with their own body. Both of these rules can be satisfied if it is illegal to kill another human including a human in it's gestation phase. If the child is not in your body, you have no right to take that life. If you do you will be prosecuted as you would for committing any murder of an innocent human.

    A woman can have the right to do what she wants with her own body, and if she chooses to abort a child in her own body, there should be no legal punishment under the law. It can maintain her right to her own body.

    If she can not remove that child from her body without causing harm to herself, then that is the burden she must bear. A person can have the right to do with their body what they want, but a person does not have the right to assistance. A woman should not have the right to be assisted in exterminating a human life.
    Last edited by OldmanDan; 10-16-2016, 06:08 AM.

  • #2
    The legal system has already decided there is no crime in provididng abortion services, not for the clinics, not for the doctors.

    ?


    • #3
      Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
      The legal system has already decided there is no crime in provididng abortion services, not for the clinics, not for the doctors.
      The "legal system" has decided that all manners of idiocy is "legal" ... what does "legal" mean when "laws" are as subject to change as a child's emotional states ? Not very much.

      ?


      • #4
        Originally posted by msc View Post
        The mantra of pro Abortionists is that a Women should have a right to what she wants with her own body. I propose that a woman can retain that right while making it illegal to give an abortion.

        Science has proven that a fetus is a human being. So this conversation will not apply to science deniers.
        In the same manners that we use and manipulate "science" to support "man caused global warming" - now called "climate change" - we can use "science" to say that a fetus is or IS NOT "fully human" .... aware or whatever to support - or NOT support, killing people in certain stages of life.

        Science is convenient like that. Love that science !!!

        ... it's not science that is the problem, it is human nature's willful, dark-side that is, and has always been the problem.

        Originally posted by msc View Post
        We all agree that it is wrong to murder an innocent human being. But we also believe people should have the right to do what they want with their own body. Both of these rules can be satisfied if it is illegal to kill another human including a human in it's gestation phase. If the child is not in your body, you have no right to take that life. If you do you will be prosecuted as you would for committing any murder of an innocent human.

        A woman can have the right to do what she wants with her own body, and if she chooses to abort a child in her own body, there should be no legal punishment under the law. It can maintain her right to her own body.

        If she can not remove that child from her body without causing harm to herself, then that is the burden she must bear. A person can have the right to do with their body what they want, but a person does not have the right to assistance. A woman should not have the right to be assisted in exterminating a human life.
        Perhaps she - the woman - and the male she did the deed with, should have considered the very possible consequence before engaging in that act.

        Of course in our "new age" we can't and don't expect people to make responsible, rational choices do we ? This is unwise & we all pay for it.

        ?


        • #5
          Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

          The "legal system" has decided that all manners of idiocy is "legal" ... what does "legal" mean when "laws" are as subject to change as a child's emotional states ? Not very much.
          Well, if giving abortions should be "illegal" that would be done with a "law". You do see where I'm going here, right? You are telling us all the issue doesn't matter very much at all when you say the "law" is as subject to change as a child's emotional state since the issue at had is promoting the "illegality" of abortion.

          ?


          • #6
            Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
            Well, if giving abortions should be "illegal" that would be done with a "law". You do see where I'm going here, right? You are telling us all the issue doesn't matter very much at all when you say the "law" is as subject to change as a child's emotional state since the issue at had is promoting the "illegality" of abortion.
            I think - and I'll probably catch hell from all sides for it - that abortion "law" is like the the transgender bathroom "law" issued by our half-wit in chief barry obama.

            Unnecessary and pointless and in the category of "things that cause unintended consequences & even bigger problems" than existed originally.

            I think maybe MSC has a good point, but I'm not sure making it "legal" or "illegal" in whatever circumstance is the answer. We ALL live with our actions and choices in life and it doesn't seem to me that arguing about some issues is worth the time & energy spent trying to make "laws" about all of them.

            That may be why the supreme court sometimes chooses not even to issue an opinion on every matter. The last 50 or so years though, something has made them decide to do so on some very dumb things.. .

            Do we really need 8 or 9 dipsh$ts in black robes issuing opinions on every oddball idea our population comes up with ? Do we really need them issuing opinions on every nutty thing some fringe fruitsnuts&flakes throw at them relating to procreation, relationships and sex ? We do not.

            ?


            • #7
              Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
              The legal system has already decided there is no crime in provididng abortion services, not for the clinics, not for the doctors.
              Yes, I'm aware of that. But the legal system is authorizing the murder of another human being that is not in your own body. This is murder. A civilized legal system should not be authorizing murder.

              ?


              • #8
                Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                I think - and I'll probably catch hell from all sides for it - that abortion "law" is like the the transgender bathroom "law" issued by our half-wit in chief barry obama.

                Unnecessary and pointless and in the category of "things that cause unintended consequences & even bigger problems" than existed originally.

                I think maybe MSC has a good point, but I'm not sure making it "legal" or "illegal" in whatever circumstance is the answer. We ALL live with our actions and choices in life and it doesn't seem to me that arguing about some issues is worth the time & energy spent trying to make "laws" about all of them.

                That may be why the supreme court sometimes chooses not even to issue an opinion on every matter. The last 50 or so years though, something has made them decide to do so on some very dumb things.. .

                Do we really need 8 or 9 dipsh$ts in black robes issuing opinions on every oddball idea our population comes up with ? Do we really need them issuing opinions on every nutty thing some fringe fruitsnuts&flakes throw at them relating to procreation, relationships and sex ? We do not.
                Sorry, but the transgender bathroom law is nothing like abortion law. Transgender law does not guarantee nor endorse the extermination of human life. As ridiculous as I think it is, it doesn't compare to a law the legalizes a crime. When comparing any debatable law to abortion law, it is doing an injustice to the subject of taking innocent life. It's a distraction from the reality of legalizing a crime that is the highest transgression against mankind. Against humanity.

                ?


                • #9
                  I understand the mental anguish a woman will go through when raped and carrying that child, or even if she got pregnant by someone she chose to be with, and anticipating the responsibility of raising a human being when a woman knows she doesn't have the means. I understand that when a woman gets pregnant in opposition to her plans and fears that this will derail her life and possibly end all her dreams. I understand the torture a woman's mind will go through when giving birth to a child and giving it up. I know an unplanned pregnancy is a hardship. But there are many unplanned hardships that people must deal with because reality is reality. Murder is never the answer to free yourself from an unwanted situation.

                  Taking the life of another human being through abortion is not free of mental anguish either. A woman's emotional state does not just improve for the rest of her life when the abortion is completed. Having an abortion creates a whole new set of emotional torture for many women. And this could affect them negatively for the rest of their lives. Having an unplanned child could also change a woman's life for the good. Who knows if an aborted child had been kept may have set the life of a person on a better path. Many women who kept the child of an unplanned pregnancy have divulged that the child was the greatest blessing, has given them something to live for, that they had previously not anticipate.

                  I've put myself in all these scenarios. I imagined what it would mean for my life. Or the life of my child if they had an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. It wasn't an easy to come to the conclusion that taking a human life was bigger than any possible reasoning to warrant an abortion. It took decades of thought, maturity, and wisdom to come to this conclusion.

                  I honestly can't say that in my younger years had I been in this situation or someone I loved and cared about was, that abortion would have been off the table. I would like to believe that had I been in this situation. with respect for all human life, including the child that was a fetus, that clarity would have come to me, but I don't know if it would have.

                  When I was in my 20's a coworker had an abortion. When she was discussing her plans to get it, I had very little opinion. In fact I understood her desire and reasoning. Because it was "legal", ( I was young and naive and less educated at the time), I was distracted from the fact that an innocent life was being murdered. I didn't understand the conflict of sacrificing a life to improve another life. I didn't understand that there are burdens we must bare, whether we like it or not. As any young person thinks, I too wanted to eliminate obstacle that got in the way for my planned future. Of course only if it's "legal", and not hurting anyone else. I knew abortion was wrong because of the morals I was raise with. But I didn't quite understand why or how wrong it was with my own thought process.

                  A law cannot decide what a life is. Nature decides what a life is. Man is deciding the value of that life. Picking and choosing winners and losers, who can live and who can die. This is wrong.

                  In the situation where a woman aborts her own child, I can not see any justification for legal punishment. For her to do this, she would have to be in a distorted mental state. Plus, even when a child is planned and or wanted, there are hormones at play that alter a womans emotional state. And even if she was clear thinking and was just good with it, the law can not have a say. The child is in fact part of a woman's body and law should not dictate anyone's actions upon their own body. This crime is between her and God. God will judge and she will decide if it matters to her.

                  I go back to my original statement, which I believe is not in debate with any scientists. Fact: A fetus is a human life. Fact: Murdering a human life is inhumane and illegal. Fact, a person who gives an abortion to another, is not exercising a right to do what they chose with their own body.

                  With these 3 facts that are agreed upon, the question is: How can law justify righteousness in one human being murdering another, if that human being is not a part of their own body? How is it possible to legalize a crime? Do technicalities not matter? Because technically, it is murder.
                  Last edited by msc; 10-18-2016, 06:28 AM.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Demonstrate how: "Science has proven that a fetus is a human being."

                    I myself am not an abortion proponent but if we are basing legal reality on science, let's see the science.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by msc View Post

                      Yes, I'm aware of that. But the legal system is authorizing the murder of another human being that is not in your own body. This is murder. A civilized legal system should not be authorizing murder.
                      A law banning abortion is also forcing women to go through a pregnancy and give birth to a child she clearly doesn't want no law should force women to do that.

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post

                        A law banning abortion is also forcing women to go through a pregnancy and give birth to a child she clearly doesn't want no law should force women to do that.
                        Why not?

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by msc View Post
                          Sorry, but the transgender bathroom law is nothing like abortion law. Transgender law does not guarantee nor endorse the extermination of human life. As ridiculous as I think it is, it doesn't compare to a law the legalizes a crime. When comparing any debatable law to abortion law, it is doing an injustice to the subject of taking innocent life. It's a distraction from the reality of legalizing a crime that is the highest transgression against mankind. Against humanity.
                          My point was the need we seem to now have for "..8 or 9 dipsh$ts in black robes [ to issue ] opinions on every oddball idea our population comes up with. Do we really need them issuing opinions on every nutty thing some fringe fruitsnuts&flakes throw at them relating to procreation, relationships and sex ? We do not."

                          I understand the differences in the issues concerning life and the way we feel about life .. how much respect we have for it.

                          As has been demonstrated by the supreme arrogance of that court, humans, no matter how lofty & intelligent they are, get it wrong every time. Do we really want these people making "laws" about such things ?

                          It is just asking for trouble.

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post

                            A law banning abortion is also forcing women to go through a pregnancy and give birth to a child she clearly doesn't want no law should force women to do that.
                            A law banning murder does not force anything upon anyone. The law is not responsible for an unwanted pregnancy. The law did not create the situation. Life would be forcing her to deal with the reality of life. Every human being is forced to deal with realities of life and all the obstacles along the way. It's not legitimate to say that people who do not help you deal with your obstacles are responsible for forcing something upon someone. Especially when were talking about exterminating another human life.

                            Have you put yourself in the situation of the unborn child that death is being forced upon? There are two lives involved.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                              Demonstrate how: "Science has proven that a fetus is a human being."

                              I myself am not an abortion proponent but if we are basing legal reality on science, let's see the science.
                              "Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
                              [Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]


                              https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/a...yoquotes2.html

                              Now this next one is interesting. I was trying to look for an article where a scientist disagrees with when a human life is in existence. This article is supporting the idea that scientists don't know or agree. But what is being argued, is that there no consensus when personhood begins, not when life begins. There is no denying or dispute here that scientists have concluded that after fertilization has taken place it is a life. And you'll see in the conclusion offered, that science and the beginning of life has little to do with personhood, the right to be considered a person.

                              SCOTT GILBERT WAS walking through the halls of Swarthmore when he saw the poster, from a campus religious group: Philosophers and theologians have argued for centuries about when personhood begins, it read. But scientists know when it begins. It begins at fertilization. What troubled Gilbert, who is a developmental biologist, was the assertion that scientists know. I couldnt say when personhood begins, but I can say with absolute certainty scientists dont have a consensus, he says.

                              Bell is wary of his research being appropriated by the debate over abortion. To doctors and scientists, the question of when life begins isnt a matter of gathering more evidence. The science has very little to do with the answer, says Gilbert. Every iteration and advance in the lab make the question even more the purview of philosophers and theologians. And lawyers.


                              https://www.wired.com/2015/10/scienc...s-life-begins/

                              I believe this article concludes that life is created by a natural process. Human life is created by the natural process of man's existence. Personhood is assigned by man. Scientists agree through objective finding that human life begins at fertilization and the natural process will determine if that life becomes viable. Personhood is subjective with people deciding when the life is valuable enough to be considered a person.

                              So you see, there is no disagreement between scientists that a fetus is a human life/human being.





                              Last edited by msc; 10-19-2016, 06:03 AM.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X