RE: Ron Paul ignored.
November 30, 2011 at 5:13 pm
(This post was last modified: November 30, 2011 at 5:16 pm by reverendjeremiah.)
Quote:Sometimes I think you intentionally misinterpret my posts in order to make a scene. In no way did I make a statement which even alludes to forcing raped women (or any woman) to carry to term. Those are your words; stop putting them in my mouth.No. They are NOT the words you said. They are the eventual CONSEQUENCES of what your words may likely bring. Surely you understand the difference?
Allow me to explain the consequences of your words...
Quote:What about the rights of the unborn child?
If you are FOR the rights of the unborn child, then SURELY you make no difference between an accidental child, or the product of a rape. Unless you are NOT for them. Are you flip flopping again?
So which one is it? Do unborn children have rights or not..or just CERTAIN unborn children have rights and others dont. Stop flip flopping and make the call. Either you support rights for the unborn or you do not.
Example: I support the right of the OWNER of the womb (the individual woman) to be more important than what is in the womb, regardless of the circumstance, regardless of rape, and regardless of accident or not. The right of the woman to control her womb is immune to the opinons of those around her regardless of wether there is an unborn baby in it or not. regardless of the opinion of the unborn babies father or not. It is not up to the vote of the masses, or the father, or the in-laws, but ONLY up to the vote of the individual who owns the womb.
You, on the other hand, are splitting hairs about it. "unborn babies have rights!" vs. "I never said I was for forcing rape victims to carry to term". Well, if unborn babies have rights, then a woman cannot abort it merely because of a rape. To bad, so sad, the unborn baby's rights are superior to the mothers rights.
Your semantics arguments do nothing for you. It is not an "intentional misrepresentation" of your words. Again, it is you back tracking when you realize the results of your words have negative consequences on the masses and you are trying to bump them off onto me to avoid the stigma
Just like when you say something like "I support businesses right to placing 'whites only' signs on their windows". When I point out the mass negative consequences to such a belief, you will try to find some way to blame it on the one pointing out the consequences, not the one (you) supporting the tools required to actually cause said negative effects on society.
Quote:What I did do was ask questions. Very important questions that should be addressed before we condemn what is effectively an innocent child to death. Abortion is a matter of conflicting rights; the rights of the child versus the rights of the woman. Whose rights get special treatment? In America, the rights of the woman always come before the child. As far as I am aware (and please correct me if I am mistaken), any woman can go and get an abortion. The careless youth is treated exactly the same as the innocent rape victim. I don't think that is right; I think that certain cases should qualify for immediate abortions (rape victims, women that are in some kind of danger from having a baby, etc), but the others should be ruled upon on an individual basis.
You flip flop so many times in this I dont even need to individually point them out. So unborn babies are "innocent" and deserve rights..but apparently you do not think the product of a rape (which would STILL be an innocent baby) should have rights, or that these "rights" should be decided upon an individual case only. So if a white man accidently impregnates a white woman, then a judge can say "no abortion ruled". But if a black man accidently impregnates a white woman the judge can say "abortion awarded". Absolutely NO consistencies in your concept of rights. Just like in other posts. One moment you say "Rights should not be voted upon" then you flip flop again and say "these rights should be voted upon".
Go ahead and tell me I am wrong..that I am misinterpretting your words above on purpose.
As usual, your concepts of human rights are appaling and NOT well thought out. Seems like they are based more on emotional moments and personal views. And how are rights considered rights if they are ruled on an individual basis? Will some black people be allowed civil rights while, lets say darker black people will have their rights ruled upon by a judge on an individual basis? How about atheists? Will some of the atheists (the quiet ones) have their rights no questions asked, but the ones who open their big mouths will have their rights ruled on an individual basis?
Doesnt sound very anti-authoritarian, anarchist, or Libertarian to me.
Quote:No, it's about the conflict of rights between the mother and the child. In some cases, the mother's rights should outweigh the child's; in other cases, the child's should outweigh the mother's.there is no "conflict of rights" in this situation. The unborn baby is CLEARLY a product of the mothers body. To argue that unborn babies have rights would be the same as to argue that sperm and eggs have rights as well....they are living organisms inside the human body just the same as an unborn baby. Masterbation would be murder. Menstruation would be murder.
Rights are not conditionary to other rights. Rights are all equal or they are not rights at all.
For someone who praises logic so highly I am suprised I have to point out the slippery slope you are advocating.
