Life is not sacred, leave my womb alone!

[Mistress Lithia]

Roih Uvet

Mistress Lithia

Roih Uvet

Mistress Lithia

Roih Uvet

This isn't a discussion about how laws are sexist, it's a discussion about how your explanation for the legality of abortion is inconsistent with the actual law of the land.

The last time I checked, bringing up blatantly sexist practices meant you were trying to discuss sexist things. Again, if you want to talk about the sexism in the law make your own thread.

And again, the issue wasn't sexism. You need to go back and read the post again. The issue is not, I repeat, not sexism. The issue is your poor understanding of our legal system, in that we do not actually have a right to bodily integrity. Just because some of the things I brought up are also sexist does not mean that the issue at hand is their sexism. Do you understand?

Willfully misinterpreting what I write doesn't make you look smart, Lithia. Read the words I send to you as they are written, not as you think I meant to have written them.

It IS about sexism Rioh. Women ARE granted this by the law, and as such, the fact it doesn't extend to males it is about sexism. Roe vs Wade ensured bodily integrity, as do rape laws that allow a woman to use force to make an assault stop even if it leads to her attacker's death. So yes, the issue is that its sexist and needs to be extended to males as well.

No, God damnit. You don't get to tell me what my own posts are about. Just plain ******** that noise. If you want to be Queen Bee, where your word is law to such an absurd extent, go back to your bedroom, but I'm not going to let this boat sail.

Roe v Wade has nothing to do with bodily integrity and everything to do with privacy. In fact, Roe v Wade explicitly rejects bodily integrity:

Roe v Wade

Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200 (1927) ( sterilization).

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

Not only is it about privacy as opposed to bodily integrity, privacy isn't some kind of super duper trump card--it has to be weighted against other things, like legitimate State interests.

My post listing these other things is not about sexism, it's about illustrating that we do not have a right to "bodily integrity" in this country, whether or not you want that right. Roe v Wade does not base itself on bodily integrity, nor does it grant us that right, and your understanding of this court case is grossly flawed.

You're just plain incorrect, I'm sorry.

I'm just not buying your 'Nuu its not about sexism' when the only thing you used to support your claim were sexist laws in the U.S. that violate the bodily integrity rights of males.

I do concede on my comment about RvW though.

[Mistress Lithia]

Nymph of Life

Mistress Lithia

Nymph of Life

Ryo Tarn

Nymph of Life

Falling Down stairs and getting punched.

And these are the answers given by people who "support 'women's rights'...."
Guess I shouldn't expect much from the crowd that wants to keep murder legal.

It's not murder by the way. That's just factually incorrect.

Anyways, in terms of cost; some scrape enough money together, some might borrow money from friends and family, and some unfortunately are forced to desperate measures they shouldn't be forced in to.

Up here they afford it by getting them paid for by the province.

<removal of laymans definition when discussing a purely LEGAL term>

If you're going to use a ******** LEGAL TERM GODDAMN IT then use a LEGAL DEFINITION. Its not ******** rocket science, so you're just being deliberately dense.

Quote:

murder

n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.
Legal definition of murder, since it IS a legal term we are discussing.

Quote:

Background: Common Law Murder

At common law, murder was defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is a legal term of art, that encompasses the following types of murder:

"Intent-to-kill murder"
"Grievous-bodily-harm murder" - Killing someone in an attack intended to cause them grievous bodiliy harm. For example, if a person fatally stabbed someone, even if she only intended to wound her victim, she could still be executed.
"Felony-murder" - Killing someone while in the process of committing a felony. Note that at common law, there were few felonies, and all carried the death penalty. For example, at common law, robbery was a felony. So if a robber accidentally killed someone during a robbery, the robber could be executed.
"Depraved heart murder" - Killing someone in a way that demonstrates a callous disregard for the value of human life. For example, if a person intentionally fires a gun into a crowded room, and someone dies, the person could be convicted of depraved heart murder.

These definitions are valuable because they inform subsequent reforms of American murder law.
Again, the legal definition disagrees with you.

Quote:

The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.

Murder is perhaps the single most serious criminal offense. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the killing, a person who is convicted of murder may be sentenced to many years in prison, a prison sentence with no possibility of Parole, or death.

The precise definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the Common Law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that he or she felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or reck-lessness that separated murder from other killings and warranted stiffer punishment.

The definition of murder has evolved over several centuries. Under most modern statutes in the United States, murder comes in four varieties: (1) intentional murder; (2) a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury; (3) a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness; and (4) murder committed by an Accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies.
And yet again, the legal definition disagrees with you.

I use the lay definition, because I don't give 3 ******** about the flawed legal one in this case. The murder of a child, by any other name is still murder, regardless of the hoops you "Choicers" have to go through to dehumanize it enough that you can skirt the law.

You can't be this ******** stupid. You are discussing a LEGAL procedure, when you talk about LAWS. As such, the erroneous lay definition does not fly. That's like talking about combustion engines and saying they're controlled by a hand crank just because engines used to require a hand crank.


No one is skirting the law. Now, if you continue to use the incorrect terminology, deliberately, while talking about LAWS then I will take that to mean you are nothing but a troll and block you.

[Mistress Lithia]

` B e l o v e d

Mistress Lithia

` B e l o v e d

FETUSES deserve to live - babies deserve to be born.

Prove this. You have yet to provide a shred of proof to support your claim. Do so or get the ******** out.

` B e l o v e d

Are you really that challenged on this subject?

You are the one who seems challenged.

` B e l o v e d

Your response isn't even on topic.

You're the one who asked the question, I answered it. Get over it.

` B e l o v e d

Do I believe in the death penalty, yes.

You're a lying hypocrite and I am done with you. I despise liars.

Wow, struck a nerve, eh?

Not even in your wettest dreams, little girl. If you think me being intelligent and typing my words out instead of using chatspeak means you struck a nerve then you've lived a sheltered life.

` B e l o v e d

You as a human being have no right to say whether or not another human life is worth protecting or squashing out - the key word here, is squashing out

Tough s**t. Charles Manson doesn't deserve to live on my tax money, receiving free room and board, three square meals a day, and air conditioning.

` B e l o v e d

Saying I'm all for the death penalty but also saying I'm against a person taking life before its born, how does that make me a hypocrite, again?

It proves you don't really give a s**t about life, but a liar and hypocrite isn't going to admit to it. You're like the hypocritical 'pro-lifer' who decides they can't have a kid right now and aborts then goes right back to vilifying women who abort. They decide that theirs is the only 'morally right' abortion.

` B e l o v e d

Also, it just shows your naivety that you'd really want to debate me over who should live and who shouldn't. "Prove to me that babies deserve to live." Wow, that's really sad. Sounds to me like you should arm yourself with a shotgun, go into a school and start taking out children left and right. Murder is murder - but then again, you need a reminder of whether or not life is sacred.

Still waiting on the proof. I will tell you what I told Nymph, murder is a legal term and abortion doesn't fit the criteria. YOU are the one making a claim, so it is on you to support your claim. What's the matter? Incapable of doing it?

` B e l o v e d

Also, last time I checked the death penalty is for adults, human beings, that have done something horrendous enough to be killed because of it. You stand behind the ideals that a human being, not a grown adult, should be killed because it's an inconvenience.

Nope, I stand behind the ideals that I am not anyone but me and I have no right to dictate to others how to live their lives or what's best for them. I stand behind the ideals that I am not an arrogant egotist, unlike you.

` B e l o v e d

I'm a hypocrite?

Do I need to repeat myself?

` B e l o v e d

Okay, I can take that (even though you're clearly dead wrong). I'd rather be a hypocrite than a person on this earth so far gone that he/she thinks it's acceptable to buy into the corporate sham that is abortion.

So you're a crazy conspiracy theorist too.

` B e l o v e d

I'm for saving and protecting the innocent, not killing it because it's inconvenient.

First, see above. Second,a fetus is neither innocent nor guilty; it just exists.

` B e l o v e d

With that being said, I'm done "debating" the meaning of life with you.

Good riddance then.

` B e l o v e d

You are obviously so unhappy in your own life that it's spilling out here, over the internet. It's also corrupting how you see the world. Have a fantastic weekend.

*rolls eyes*


That's the best flame you've got? So, being in a happy, loving relationship with both my partners, having the job I always wanted, a family that loves each other, accepts each other, and a plethora of friends we get together with frequently (not to mention a little angel who brightens our world just by being here), makes someone unhappy? Not in the real world. Little girl, I'm quite sure I am a god deal older than you and I have supported choice, and known I was childfree, since my early teens. I just happen to think real people matter more.

[smile right now]

low iq 111

Mistress Lithia

Xiam

Life is sacred.

Prove that life is sacred.

This whole idea, that the universe is just nothing at all but unintelligent force, playing around, not even enjoying it, is a put-down theory of the world. People who had an advantage to make, a game to play by putting it down, and making it out that because they put the world down they were a superior people. That just won’t do, because if you seriously go along with this idea of the world, you’re what is technically called alienated. You feel hostile to the world. You feel that the world is a trap. It is a mechanism, it is electronic. A neurological mechanism into which you somehow got caught. And you, poor thing, has to put up with a body that falls apart.

[Roih Uvet]

Mistress Lithia

Roih Uvet

Mistress Lithia

Roih Uvet

Mistress Lithia

The last time I checked, bringing up blatantly sexist practices meant you were trying to discuss sexist things. Again, if you want to talk about the sexism in the law make your own thread.

And again, the issue wasn't sexism. You need to go back and read the post again. The issue is not, I repeat, not sexism. The issue is your poor understanding of our legal system, in that we do not actually have a right to bodily integrity. Just because some of the things I brought up are also sexist does not mean that the issue at hand is their sexism. Do you understand?

Willfully misinterpreting what I write doesn't make you look smart, Lithia. Read the words I send to you as they are written, not as you think I meant to have written them.

It IS about sexism Rioh. Women ARE granted this by the law, and as such, the fact it doesn't extend to males it is about sexism. Roe vs Wade ensured bodily integrity, as do rape laws that allow a woman to use force to make an assault stop even if it leads to her attacker's death. So yes, the issue is that its sexist and needs to be extended to males as well.

No, God damnit. You don't get to tell me what my own posts are about. Just plain ******** that noise. If you want to be Queen Bee, where your word is law to such an absurd extent, go back to your bedroom, but I'm not going to let this boat sail.

Roe v Wade has nothing to do with bodily integrity and everything to do with privacy. In fact, Roe v Wade explicitly rejects bodily integrity:

Roe v Wade

Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200 (1927) ( sterilization).

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

Not only is it about privacy as opposed to bodily integrity, privacy isn't some kind of super duper trump card--it has to be weighted against other things, like legitimate State interests.

My post listing these other things is not about sexism, it's about illustrating that we do not have a right to "bodily integrity" in this country, whether or not you want that right. Roe v Wade does not base itself on bodily integrity, nor does it grant us that right, and your understanding of this court case is grossly flawed.

You're just plain incorrect, I'm sorry.

I'm just not buying your 'Nuu its not about sexism' when the only thing you used to support your claim were sexist laws in the U.S. that violate the bodily integrity rights of males.

I do concede on my comment about RvW though.

You don't have to "buy" anything. All you have to do is read my post. In my post, it says that it's about examples of bodily integrity not really counting. Finding another common link between them all does not make the post about this other thing.

As an authority on my own arguments, you're just wrong.

[Nymph of Life]

Mistress Lithia

You can't be this ******** stupid. You are discussing a LEGAL procedure, when you talk about LAWS. As such, the erroneous lay definition does not fly. That's like talking about combustion engines and saying they're controlled by a hand crank just because engines used to require a hand crank.


No one is skirting the law. Now, if you continue to use the incorrect terminology, deliberately, while talking about LAWS then I will take that to mean you are nothing but a troll and block you.

In other words, you have to resort to insults such as calling me stupid, because you choose to ignore that other definitions exist, and you seem to believe the law is infallible. Guess what, Slavery used to be a thing, because the law said it was ok too. Society has evolved, and we understand that owning people is wrong. The "legal" definition isn't a rigid, unchangeable thing. It can evolve as society evolves.

And then you resort to the final bit of your ignorance. I disagree with you, therefore I must be a troll. Go ahead and block me, it doesn't change the fact that you have to go out of your way to justify murder.

[Bryling]

Your body your rules.

[` B e l o v e d]

Nymph of Life

Mistress Lithia

You can't be this ******** stupid. You are discussing a LEGAL procedure, when you talk about LAWS. As such, the erroneous lay definition does not fly. That's like talking about combustion engines and saying they're controlled by a hand crank just because engines used to require a hand crank.


No one is skirting the law. Now, if you continue to use the incorrect terminology, deliberately, while talking about LAWS then I will take that to mean you are nothing but a troll and block you.

In other words, you have to resort to insults such as calling me stupid, because you choose to ignore that other definitions exist, and you seem to believe the law is infallible. Guess what, Slavery used to be a thing, because the law said it was ok too. Society has evolved, and we understand that owning people is wrong. The "legal" definition isn't a rigid, unchangeable thing. It can evolve as society evolves.

And then you resort to the final bit of your ignorance. I disagree with you, therefore I must be a troll. Go ahead and block me, it doesn't change the fact that you have to go out of your way to justify murder.

Honestly, this woman is crazy. Like, lunatic on the rag kind of crazy. There's no point in discussing anything with her because rather than being level-headed and respectful, she hides behind her keyboard and monitor.

[AsuraSyn]

Fermionic

One may say "If I had been considered for abortion, it would be my preference to not have been aborted. Hence, it would be polite to afford the same consideration for current foetuses".

And if one would rather have been aborted than brought into the world unwanted, unloved and abandoned?
Can you honestly not comprehend life for someone who's entire existence is considered both accidental and inconvenient to all?
I can assure you, nothingness would be a blessing.

[Fermionic]

AsuraSyn

Fermionic

One may say "If I had been considered for abortion, it would be my preference to not have been aborted. Hence, it would be polite to afford the same consideration for current foetuses".

And if one would rather have been aborted than brought into the world unwanted, unloved and abandoned?
Can you honestly not comprehend life for someone who's entire existence is considered both accidental and inconvenient to all?
I can assure you, nothingness would be a blessing.

I've had this line of reasoning previously in this thread, I suggest you read that example.

Do not think to ask me what I can and cannot think to comprehend when you are ignorant of a dizzying majority of my life. My statement does not exclude the validity to one such person, someone who rather wish they had never been born rather than grow up in an environment they believe unacceptably hostile. There is a qualifier, you see. Or rather, didn't see.

However, I take issue to your apparent assumption that all such people would take that position. I myself do not.

[AsuraSyn]

Fermionic

AsuraSyn

Fermionic

One may say "If I had been considered for abortion, it would be my preference to not have been aborted. Hence, it would be polite to afford the same consideration for current foetuses".

And if one would rather have been aborted than brought into the world unwanted, unloved and abandoned?
Can you honestly not comprehend life for someone who's entire existence is considered both accidental and inconvenient to all?
I can assure you, nothingness would be a blessing.

I've had this line of reasoning previously in this thread, I suggest you read that example.

Do not think to ask me what I can and cannot think to comprehend when you are ignorant of a dizzying majority of my life. My statement does not exclude the validity to one such person, someone who rather wish they had never been born rather than grow up in an environment they believe unacceptably hostile. There is a qualifier, you see. Or rather, didn't see.

However, I take issue to your apparent assumption that all such people would take that position. I myself do not.

Perhaps you missed this little ******** "?" in my post.
Also, your qualifier was negated by the presumption that one may ask such a question but the only possible answer is the one you assume.

[Fermionic]

AsuraSyn

Fermionic

AsuraSyn

Fermionic

One may say "If I had been considered for abortion, it would be my preference to not have been aborted. Hence, it would be polite to afford the same consideration for current foetuses".

And if one would rather have been aborted than brought into the world unwanted, unloved and abandoned?
Can you honestly not comprehend life for someone who's entire existence is considered both accidental and inconvenient to all?
I can assure you, nothingness would be a blessing.

I've had this line of reasoning previously in this thread, I suggest you read that example.

Do not think to ask me what I can and cannot think to comprehend when you are ignorant of a dizzying majority of my life. My statement does not exclude the validity to one such person, someone who rather wish they had never been born rather than grow up in an environment they believe unacceptably hostile. There is a qualifier, you see. Or rather, didn't see.

However, I take issue to your apparent assumption that all such people would take that position. I myself do not.

Perhaps you missed this little ******** "?" in my post.
Also, your qualifier was negated by the presumption that one may ask such a question but the only possible answer is the one you assume.

I deigned it to be rhetoric. Either way my answer remains the same.

You are mistaken, both in that that is your interpretation of my initial statement, and in that you consider it as negating my qualification.

[AsuraSyn]

Fermionic

AsuraSyn

Fermionic

AsuraSyn

Fermionic

One may say "If I had been considered for abortion, it would be my preference to not have been aborted. Hence, it would be polite to afford the same consideration for current foetuses".

And if one would rather have been aborted than brought into the world unwanted, unloved and abandoned?
Can you honestly not comprehend life for someone who's entire existence is considered both accidental and inconvenient to all?
I can assure you, nothingness would be a blessing.

I've had this line of reasoning previously in this thread, I suggest you read that example.

Do not think to ask me what I can and cannot think to comprehend when you are ignorant of a dizzying majority of my life. My statement does not exclude the validity to one such person, someone who rather wish they had never been born rather than grow up in an environment they believe unacceptably hostile. There is a qualifier, you see. Or rather, didn't see.

However, I take issue to your apparent assumption that all such people would take that position. I myself do not.

Perhaps you missed this little ******** "?" in my post.
Also, your qualifier was negated by the presumption that one may ask such a question but the only possible answer is the one you assume.

I deigned it to be rhetoric. Either way my answer remains the same.

You are mistaken, both in that that is your interpretation of my initial statement, and in that you consider it as negating my qualification.

The structure of your rhetoric is "If one may A, one must B" but it is not so.

[Fermionic]

AsuraSyn

Fermionic

AsuraSyn

Fermionic

AsuraSyn

Fermionic

One may say "If I had been considered for abortion, it would be my preference to not have been aborted. Hence, it would be polite to afford the same consideration for current foetuses".

And if one would rather have been aborted than brought into the world unwanted, unloved and abandoned?
Can you honestly not comprehend life for someone who's entire existence is considered both accidental and inconvenient to all?
I can assure you, nothingness would be a blessing.

I've had this line of reasoning previously in this thread, I suggest you read that example.

Do not think to ask me what I can and cannot think to comprehend when you are ignorant of a dizzying majority of my life. My statement does not exclude the validity to one such person, someone who rather wish they had never been born rather than grow up in an environment they believe unacceptably hostile. There is a qualifier, you see. Or rather, didn't see.

However, I take issue to your apparent assumption that all such people would take that position. I myself do not.

Perhaps you missed this little ******** "?" in my post.
Also, your qualifier was negated by the presumption that one may ask such a question but the only possible answer is the one you assume.

I deigned it to be rhetoric. Either way my answer remains the same.

You are mistaken, both in that that is your interpretation of my initial statement, and in that you consider it as negating my qualification.

The structure of your rhetoric is "If one may A, one must B" but it is not so.

That is not the structure. The structure is "One says A, where I am convinced that C is an appropriate response to B, and both B and C are constituents of A".