Death with dignity

[beachbum]

I'm going to make this as simple as I can...

We have the rights to defend ourselves, of course we do, the rights you and I have are no different than that of an elderly person.

So I know what you want to hear about....abortion.

Why are liberals for abortion?

Very simple....because we believe the rights of a woman and her body override the NON-Rights of an unborn, unviable fetus.

It is unreasonable to give MORE rights to something that can't even think or feel over a fully adult woman.

However, once it reaches viability, it is considered a person with rights and thus it is protected.

This is logical.

And for the record, I HATE abortion, I wish no one would ever choose to do it.

It makes me SICK to think a person can use it as a contraceptive....

However, I will still defend the rights of all women to get an abortion.

Because rights are not about what you like and don't like, it's about what is reasonable and logical.

You know what else I hate?

Cigarettes....They do nothing but cause harm and misery to the user, I wish it had never been invented.

However, I will NEVER be in favor of banning cigarettes or try to stop people from smoking.

Because I'm a TRUE liberal, and I believe in TRUE freedom.

The freedom to do whatever the hell you want to do.

As long as you don't infringe the rights of others.

Can you name one person alive now or previously alive (dead may be considered politically incorrect) that skipped the conception stage and early cellular stage of formation ( I call this life) and still became a full blown person...what you clinically call "viable"?

I can't think of one person that can skip conception and early cellular formation and still became a person...BECAUSE IT IS ALL LIFE!!!

BTW, I wasn't going after abortion, you can't read my mind afterall, ironically it wasn't a trick question, I was simply trying to find your position on the right for people to defend themselves to preserve their life. Thats it.

[JustAlex]

@Beachbum...

You can look up viability for yourself to see what it is and what it means, this is something everyone should know and comprehend, but I get the feeling that not everyone does, and that's why we have so much debate on this issue.

Before viability a fetus hasn't even fully developed the nervous system, which means they can't feel nor think.

This is simply not something we can deem to be a "person" with rights.


I can't think of one person that didn't come about from sperm....are you telling me that sperm is life?

Are you telling me that in my lifetime I have "killed" billions of lives whenever I release myself?


As for defending yourself, I did answer you.

Yes, we ALL have the rights to defend ourselves from potential harm....this is reasonable.

I never said or implied we don't have the right to protect ourselves.

[imronron]

[QUOTE=JustAlex;13591593]I'm going to make this as simple as I can...

We have the rights to defend ourselves, of course we do, the rights you and I have are no different than that of an elderly person.

So I know what you want to hear about....abortion.

Why are liberals for abortion?

Very simple....because we believe the rights of a woman and her body override the NON-Rights of an unborn, unviable fetus.

It is unreasonable to give MORE rights to something that can't even think or feel over a fully adult woman.

However, once it reaches viability, it is considered a person with rights and thus it is protected.

This is logical.

And for the record, I HATE abortion, I wish no one would ever choose to do it.

It makes me SICK to think a person can use it as a contraceptive....

However, I will still defend the rights of all women to get an abortion.

Because rights are not about what you like and don't like, it's about what is reasonable and logical.

You know what else I hate?

Cigarettes....They do nothing but cause harm and misery to the user, I wish it had never been invented.

However, I will NEVER be in favor of banning cigarettes or try to stop people from smoking.

Because I'm a TRUE liberal, and I believe in TRUE freedom.

The freedom to do whatever the hell you want to do.

As long as you don't infringe the rights of
.[/QUOTE There is a difference between freedom and license. True freedom brings with it responsibilities. True freedom is what you ought to do, not want you want to do.
Case in point, in™Washington v. Glucksberg™(1997) the Supreme Court agreed in a rare 9-0 decision that there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide.(true freedom) Ironically enough it does say there is an inalienable right to life.(true freedom) License is more correctly what you're wanting, not true freedom. You are free to blow your brains out anytime you want, you are free to break the speed limit, you are free to steal your neighbors goat, that's not true freedom, that's licence. You and others it would seem, want from the state, license from the state, from true freedom. James Bond doesn't have a freedom to kill, he has a license to kill.

[beachbum]

Before viability a fetus hasn't even fully developed the nervous system, which means they can't feel nor think.

This is simply not something we can deem to be a "person" with rights.


I can't think of one person that didn't come about from sperm....are you telling me that sperm is life?

Are you telling me that in my lifetime I have "killed" billions of lives whenever I release myself?


As for defending yourself, I did answer you.

Yes, we ALL have the rights to defend ourselves from potential harm....this is reasonable.

I never said or implied we don't have the right to protect ourselves.

I'll tell you what you can look up...look up zygote, its not just a sperm or an egg it is the union of the two and that is what makes it so special. You can "release" yourself all day long, but without a willing partner to procreate you'll never get close to creating a human zygote. Since you dodged my question again, I'll let you try again, who do you know that became human by skipping the zygote stage of LIFE??

Yes, you did answer me about defending myself, albeit weakly and vaguely.

[JustAlex]

There is a difference between freedom and license. True freedom brings with it responsibilities. True freedom is what you ought to do, not want you want to do.

I highly disagree.

The whole concept of what you ought to do and not do is straight out of religious morality....and nowhere near true freedom.

Case in point, in™Washington v. Glucksberg™(1997) the Supreme Court agreed in a rare 9-0 decision that there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide.(true freedom) Ironically enough it does say there is an inalienable right to life.(true freedom)

I clearly said before that I do NOT worship our constitution nor do I think it's anywhere near perfect.....in fact it is flawed in certain areas.

You are free to blow your brains out anytime you want, you are free to break the speed limit, you are free to steal your neighbors goat, that's not true freedom, that's licence. You and others it would seem, want from the state, license from the state, from true freedom. James Bond doesn't have a freedom to kill, he has a license to kill.

No, I never said true freedom is the things you are saying.

Read my words carefully.

True Freedom is being able to do WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT as long as you DO NOT infringe the rights of others, also for certain things you NEED strict REGULATION (I know this is a word many conservatives HATE, but it's a MUST)....you see there are conditions to be met with my definition of "True Freedom".

So no, you can't drive at whatever speed you want because you are endangering the lives of others, thus infringing on their rights, so we need certain regulations as to how fast you can go.

You can't steal anyone's anything, since that is clearly infringing the rights of others.

And obviously true freedom is not about being able to kill others at will....since you are taking the freedom away from others.

[JustAlex]

I'll tell you what you can look up...look up zygote, its not just a sperm or an egg it is the union of the two and that is what makes it so special. You can "release" yourself all day long, but without a willing partner to procreate you'll never get close to creating a human zygote. Since you dodged my question again, I'll let you try again, who do you know that became human by skipping the zygote stage of LIFE??

Yes, you did answer me about defending myself, albeit weakly and vaguely.

I didn't dodge anything, it doesn't matter how humans come about, you're missing the point that we are NOT going to say that a non-viable fetus has more rights that a fully grown woman.

And I have no idea how you think I answered your defending yourself question in a weak and vague manner.

I'm not being vague.....do you and other people have a right to defend yourself against harm? Of course you do.

What more should I say?

How you want to defend your life?

With a gun, knife, sword, shuriken star, blunt instrument, etc.?

Yes, go ahead an use any of these objects to defend your life.

[beachbum]

I didn't dodge anything, it doesn't matter how humans come about, you're missing the point that we are NOT going to say that a non-viable fetus has more rights that a fully grown woman.

You're right the fetus doesn't have "more rights", they should have equal rights, and they don't...a true liberal should be all over this inequality.

By the way, you did dodge my question, no one can become human by skipping the zygote stage of LIFE, it is essential to becoming a human being.

[JustAlex]

You're right the fetus doesn't have "more rights", they should have equal rights, and they don't...a true liberal should be all over this inequality.

By the way, you did dodge my question, no one can become human by skipping the zygote stage of LIFE, it is essential to becoming a human being.

It doesn't have equal rights because it's not considered a "person".

A person can think and feel, a non-viable fetus can't.

See how simple it is to understand that?

[beachbum]

It doesn't have equal rights because it's not considered a "person".

A person can think and feel, a non-viable fetus can't.

See how simple it is to understand that?

The zygote/fetus can't do jumping jacks either, doesn't make it not Human, its essential to life, you went through all the stages that I did and everyone else to become human.

Humor me and give me your definition of viability. I know you told me to look it up but I wanted to see what you have to say, maybe you've done it before but just humor me if you have the time. BTW, again, this is not a trick question. Thanks.

[JustAlex]

The zygote/fetus can't do jumping jacks either, doesn't make it not Human, its essential to life, you went through all the stages that I did and everyone else to become human.

Humor me and give me your definition of viability. I know you told me to look it up but I wanted to see what you have to say, maybe you've done it before but just humor me if you have the time. BTW, again, this is not a trick question. Thanks.

I don't know what the point of this is, my definition of viability is the same from the medical dictionary...

Viability is when a fetus can survive outside the uterus.

This usually occurs in the 22-24 week period of pregnancy.

Up until viability a fetus is still developing the nervous system and the brain.

It's like I previously said....I don't like abortion, and yes I can agree with you that all of us went through the same process to be born...

A fetus IS a potential life, I don't deny that.

But, like I said, I'm not going to say that an underdeveloped fetus or zygote has rights when it can't even think or feel, and is fully dependant on the mother for survival.

You know what politicians can do to decrease the number of abortions in this country?

STOP attacking women's rights to contraceptives and stop saying that it's your religious right to deny said contraceptive to women.

The more contraceptives that are available to women, the less abortions we will have.

Also, let's help poor families out even more, let's give them some hope that they CAN raise a family without going bankrupt.

Do you know one of the MAIN reasons women get abortions is because they feel they can't afford to raise a child?

Where is the GOP on this?

Aren't they the ones who day they are "Pro-Families" and also have the gull to call themselves Christian?

If this were true they would not be the ones leading the charge in cutting safety nets for poor families.

And guess what GOP, Jesus was NOT a greedy, old, capitalist that didn't care for anyone except the rich and his "donors".

He was compassionate, always put others ahead of himself, and truly cared for the weak, the hungry, the sick, and the poor.

Never have I seen Jesus' attributes with the GOP.