Breaking news: The Mona Lisa Project, video 2
As soon as I clicked “publish” on the previous post, I received an email announcing the release of the 2nd video by the Mona Lisa Project exposing a 2nd IN Planned Parenthood as a child rapist protector, this 1 in Indianapolis.
This video was shot the same day as the video at the Bloomington PP, only 90 miles away.
In both stings, Lila Rose posed as a 13-year-old girl who told PP employees she was having sex with a 31-year-old man. This is underage rape according to IN law and immediately reportable to authorities if the victim is under age 14.
IN PP may have fired the Bloomington nurse, but this 2nd video shows a pattern. In it 2 Indianapolis PP staffers also turn a blind eye to the victim’s abuse.
The 1st staffer stated, “We don’t really care about who, what, the age of the boyfriend.” She then forwarded Rose to a counselor, who stated after hearing the “boyfriend’s age, “I don’t care how old he is.” The counselor added, “The surrounding states don’t have parental consent. I can’t tell you any more.”
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
How can anyone even deny that planned parenthood is trying to protect rapists anymore?
It’s like they’re all reading from the same script. I have no doubt Planned Parenthood trains these people to respond this way.
You’d think that after all of these stings that Planned Parenthood would be calling in some of these, to at least give the *appearance* that they care. :-S
Despite all the bad news, here’s something to chuckle about:
FUNNY Stuff…
Only in America
Only in America ……do drugstores make the sick walk all the way to
the back of the store to get their prescriptions while healthy people
can buy cigarettes at the front.
Only in America …..do people order double cheeseburgers, large fries,
and a diet coke.
Only in America …..do banks leave both doors open and then chain the
pens to the counters.
Only in America …..do we leave cars worth thousands of dollars in the
driveway and put our useless junk in the garage.
Only in America….do we buy hot dogs in packages of ten and buns in
packages of eight.
Only in America …..do they have drive-up ATM machines with Braille
lettering.
EVER WONDER .
Why the sun lightens our hair, but darkens
our skin?
Why women can’t put on mascara with their mouth closed?
Why don’t you ever see the headline ‘Psychic Wins Lottery’?
Why is ‘abbreviated’ such a long word?
Why is it that doctors call what they do ‘practice’?
Why is lemon juice made with artificial flavor, and dishwashing liquid
made with real lemons?
Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?
Why is the time of day with the slowest traffic called rush hour?
Why isn’t there mouse-flavored cat food?
Why didn’t Noah swat those two mosquitoes?
Why do they sterilize the needle for lethal injections?
You know that indestructible black box that is used on airplanes? Why
don’t they make the whole plane out of that stuff?!
Why don’t sheep shrink when it rains?
Why are they called apartments when they are all stuck together?
If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
If flying is so safe, why do they call the airport the terminal?
“This is the day the Lord hath made, I will rejoice and be glad in it”.
Well, as a supporter of Planned Parenthood, I don’t like this one bit. Next time they solicit a contribution, I’m going to write back and tell them until I’m convinced they are ensuring compliance with the rules on reporting statutory rape.
Hal, I really respect you for saying that.
Thanks Bethany. I left out part of that sentence however. Should read “I’m going to write back and tell them they’re not getting any more of my money until I’m convinced they are ensuring compliance with the rules on reporting statutory rape.”
If they want an exemption from the reporting laws they should seek it from the legislature.
“Well, as a supporter of Planned Parenthood, I don’t like this one bit”
—————————————-
Sorry for being cynical, Hal…but which part didn’t you like: The part where PP teaches victims to lie about underage rape OR the part that they got caught doing what they were “trained” to do?
In healthcare, 1 MRSA infection is too many. we don’t wait till there is a pattern.
But colmes and the secular progressives do not get it.
Hal,
I join Bethany in her sentiment.
Hal, I’m so glad to hear that you’re open to seeing the evidence of this pattern of cover ups.
Hopefully there are more people like you who are also alarmed by this and will call on Planned Parenthood to be held accountable.
RSD, I don’t like the fact that many Planned Parenthood employees are avoiding the reporting requirements and that victims of statutory rape are not getting the protection the law requires. Despite my “pro sex” attitude, I am not in favor of adults having sex with teenagers. They should be reported and prosecuted.
Lauren, maybe Planned Parenthood will pay more attention to the criticism leveled by their supporters. I hope so.
“Why women can’t put on mascara with their mouth closed?”
I put on mascara with my mouth closed. Snap.
Me too, Hal.
This is so sad.
It’s like they’re all reading from the same script. I have no doubt Planned Parenthood trains these people to respond this way.
Posted by: Bethany at December 16, 2008 11:06 AM
**************************************
Oh, there’s no question. In the last video, they did the exact same thing: told her to go out of state.
This should make it crystal clear that PP breaks the law on a regular basis and is NOT protecting possible victims of statutory rape.
BTW, do you think these workers will be fired, too?
How many people will they have to throw under the bus in order to keep breaking state law?
Obviously, “Diana” from the first video was no isolated case. She was doing what she was trained to do, and when found out (by the general public) was fired for it.
Hi Kel,
I have a feeling Miss Lila Rose has quite a few more videos to show us!! God bless that girl!!
If they are not fired they will be “reprimanded” right?
Only in America ……do drugstores make the sick walk all the way to the back of the store to get their prescriptions while healthy people can buy cigarettes at the front.
-Cigarettes are an impulse item, antibiotics are not.
Only in America …..do people order double cheeseburgers, large fries, and a diet coke.
-Not everyone who drinks diet wants to loose weight, some people just like the taste better.
Only in America …..do banks leave both doors open and then chain the pens to the counters.
-It’s a lot easier to walk off with a pen then to rob the actual bank.
Only in America …..do we leave cars worth thousands of dollars in the driveway and put our useless junk in the garage.
-Again it’s a lot easier to steal a hammer and small things then to steal an actual car.
Only in America….do we buy hot dogs in packages of ten and buns in packages of eight.
-Considering the low-carb craze I assume some people would want their dog bun-less.
Only in America …..do they have drive-up ATM machines with Braille lettering.
The person using braillie was in the passenger seat, they don’t want to discriminate against the handicapped as much as you don’t want them aborted.
EVER WONDER .
Why the sun lightens our hair, but darkens
our skin?
-We have melinin in our skin, our hair is just dead skin cells.
Why women can’t put on mascara with their mouth closed?
-We can, I do it all the time.
Why don’t you ever see the headline ‘Psychic Wins Lottery’?
-Cause there are no such things as “psychics” and even if there were could they really predict something so detailed?
Why is ‘abbreviated’ such a long word?
-Because it’s not abbreviated.
Why is it that doctors call what they do ‘practice’?
-Because they are practicing, that doesn’t mean they never did it before.
Why is lemon juice made with artificial flavor, and dishwashing liquid made with real lemons?
-What lemon juice are you buying?
Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?
-It’s not descriptive. You don’t write “two” as “2”.
Why is the time of day with the slowest traffic called rush hour?
-Because everyone is in a rush because the traffic is so slow.
Why isn’t there mouse-flavored cat food?
-Cats don’t usually eat the mice, they just catch them and play with them. If there were a bunch of chickens running around I bet the cat would go after them first.
Why didn’t Noah swat those two mosquitoes?
-The spiders wouldn’t have had something to eat and died, then the snakes wouldn’t have had something to eat and died, then the egaels would have starved…
Why do they sterilize the needle for lethal injections?
-They try and make it as humane as possible.
You know that indestructible black box that is used on airplanes? Why don’t they make the whole plane out of that stuff?!
-The airplane would be way too heavy/expensive. Those who could afford to get on a plane would never make it off the ground.
Why don’t sheep shrink when it rains?
Sheep aren’t made out of wool just like humans aren’t made out of hair.
Why are they called apartments when they are all stuck together?
Why would you call something blue if you wrote it in black?
If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
-It sounds similar but is different; like: their, they’re, there.
If flying is so safe, why do they call the airport the terminal?
Again it doesn’t mean that.
“This is the day the Lord hath made, I will rejoice and be glad in it”.
Fine by me.
Thanks HisMan. I needed the laugh today!! :) Nice to see you back by the way!! Are you going to The March for Life?
I’ve always liked you, Hal, believe it or not, but your comments have made me even more fond of you.
Are you auditioning to take over Colmes once he leaves H&C?
I don’t like the fact that many Planned Parenthood employees are avoiding the reporting requirements and that victims of statutory rape are not getting the protection the law requires. Despite my “pro sex” attitude, I am not in favor of adults having sex with teenagers. They should be reported and prosecuted.
Posted by: Hal at December 16, 2008 11:50 AM
-I agree with you, Hal – and also with your sentiment on holding back donations until they can explain or rectify. This will not stop my weekly hands-on help in the clinic, but I would certainly consider a comment to the national HQ. If they hear from supporters, maybe they will recognize how signicant it is. They need to get a new position on how to protect patient’s privacy and comply with issues like this.
Posted by: carder at December 16, 2008 1:13 PM
I heartily second the motion!!!
Sometimes laws are wrong. Such as those that allowed slavery and persecuted those that aided escaping slaves.
In this particular case, reporting requirements are not intended to prevent, nor can they, statutory rape. The only reason for these witch hunts is to deter minors from seeking health care services, and to deter health care providers from providing their services to them. In the cases where violence and coercion are suspected, PP providers do in fact report.
Sometimes laws are wrong. Such as those that allowed slavery and persecuted those that aided escaping slaves.
Posted by: Cameron at December 16, 2008 2:25 PM
******************************************
And those that allow the abortion of unborn human beings on demand.
Kel,
Only if you beg the question of personhood.
Fetus is not person, which is why you all use equivocal vocabulary, like “human being.” If you had a spine, you’d say it’s a person instead screaming the biological self-evident strawman arguments: it’s “human” it’s “alive.”
More on this,background and a link to a similar video of a Charlotte PP, see http://www.lifenews.com/state3709.html
Cameron, we’ve heard all the anti-personhood arguments from our resident Doug here.
Biological self-evident “strawman” arguments???? LOL!! That’s funny. They just happen to be TRUE. And I don’t believe I screamed, actually.
At one time in our history, the law also claimed that those in the black race were not persons, a sub-human class. I look forward to the day when that is changed for those who are unborn as well.
Have a nice day, Cameron–assuming you can, as you are a human being who is alive and has a right to live. :)
Cameron, they can prevent abuse from continuing. There was a case a short time ago about a teenager who was being abused by her step-father. She told the counselors at PP when she went in for an abortion and they told no one. The abuse continued for another year. Had PP done what it is legally required to do and reported the incident,the further abuse could have been prevented.
Cameron,
The reason we use words like “human being” to describe the fetus is to avoid falling the semantical trap that is arguing with a pro-choicer. If we call it a person, then our argument is ignored and they begin to chastise us for using “scientifically and medically inaccurate” terminology. Just like using the term pro-abort instead of pro-choicer, partial birth abortion instead of D & X, abortion as murder instead of abortion as killing (murder is a legal term, blah blah), etc etc. A whole book could be written on how the pro-choice movement was built on semantics. So no, we aren’t “afraid” to use the word person to describe the unborn, just afraid to get into a semantical argument with a pro-choicer, which is their bread and butter.
Cameron, I believe the parental notification laws are “wrong” and counter-productive. The statutory rape reporting laws were not passed to target abortion providers. They followed many instances of teachers, doctors, priests, etc., not intervening when a young boy or girl was being raped.
Cameron: “Fetus is not person, which is why you all use equivocal vocabulary, like “human being.” If you had a spine, you’d say it’s a person instead screaming the biological self-evident strawman arguments: it’s “human” it’s “alive.””
You may be new to the abortion debate Cameron. Human being is universally accepted by both the pro-choice and pro-life side to mean “person.”
Also, please dont claim that someone used a “strawman” argument, especially if you do not know what a “strawman” argument is. Not only do you sound like a pretentious twit, but you also sound like a kid playing dress-up. You might as well call his argument “kafka-esque.”
Lauren, I’m not arguing that PP doesn’t make mistakes, and they apparently fired the counselor in the video. There is a conflict however between reporting laws and patient confidentiality. Such a witch hunt however has already been shot down in Kansas as an abuse of legal authority.
Bobby
“The reason we use words like “human being”… ”
Because it’s a redherring which helps you dodge having to advance your prescription, because you can’t advance your prescription.
You can of course make me eat my words right here and now by advancing your prescription.
Why do you think a fetus should have more rights than any other class of people?
Oliver
“Human being is universally accepted by both the pro-choice and pro-life side to mean “person.””
Well at least you can admit when you’re begging the question.
Why do you think a fetus should have more rights than any other class of people?
Posted by: Cameron at December 16, 2008 3:05 PM
**************************************
We don’t.
“Because it’s a redherring which helps you dodge having to advance your prescription, because you can’t advance your prescription. ”
No Cameron, I already explained it. It seems that you just throw a lot of logical fallacy terms out there without explaining yourself.
“You can of course make me eat my words right here and now by advancing your prescription.”
I have no interest in making anyone “eat their words.”
“Why do you think a fetus should have more rights than any other class of people?”
First of all, I do not think a fetus should have more rights than any other class of people. They should have the same rights because they are biologically human beings. Every single one of us began life as an embryo. That is a scientific fact. The only difference between a born person and an embryo is size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency, which are all accidental to the very nature or essence of what the embryo ontologically is. Hence, as a member of the human species, an embryo has inherent dignity and worth simply because it is human, all be it less developed than you or me. There is no other warrant to directly kill an innocent human being as a means to an end as abortion or ESCR does. While a crisis pregnancy is a conflict of interests, the embryo has more to lose; namely, it’s life. When two rights are butting up against each other, the law as well as common human sense should fall on the side of protecting the individual who has more to lose. In the case of abortion, it is always the embryo that has more to lose, as I mentioned above.
There is a thumbnail sketch of why I believe an embryo or fetus should have the same rights as any other individual.
Cameron: “Why do you think a fetus should have more rights than any other class of people?”
Who says that? Every human has the right to not be neglected the basic necessities of life, even at the partial sacrifice of the default caregiver. Take a look at children. They are granted the right to infrince on their parent’s property and privacy. If the parent does not concede a part of their rights in this regard to provide the basic necessities of life for their child, and they do not find an alternative, we call it child abuse. Note that it is not child abuse when a parent CANNOT provide these things, only when the parent CHOOSES to not provide these rights.
You may say then, “well, even though it is not in our constitution, the right to bodily autonomy, or domain, is a special right that can never be infringed upon by other rights!”
Tell that then to the criminal undergoing a cavity search. Tell that to the criminal who has swallowed a stolen diamond. In both cases the right to bodily domain/autonomy loses out to another right. This establishes that the right to your body is not “untrumpable.”
You might say then, “Well maybe so, but there is no precedent for a parent sacrificing their right to their body for their child.”
Well what about a mother who breastfeeds? A mother is obligated to feed their child via their breastmilk if there is no alternative. Note again, similarly to the parent who CANNOT afford their child, a mother that CANNOT provide breastmilk to the point of starvation of their child is not negligent. However, a mother who CHOOSES to not breastfeed their child to the point of starvation is indeed negligent. The mother in the latter case must either provide the milk or provide a suitable alternative.
So you see, a fetus does not have any more special rights. Every human who is incapable of providing food, water, and shelter for themselves is responsible to someone, whether it be the state or an individual.
Finally you may say “well a mother who is pregnant has in no way any recourse, so she cannot be held to any level of responsibility”
Can a parent immediately evict their child into a snowstorm the second that they decide to relinquish their responsibilities to their child? Of course not, they need to take the child to the adoption agency or foster program or whatever.
You may say “well, but seriously, that is only a car ride, it isnt 8-9 months!”
First of all, that is a QUANTITATIVE difference and not QUALITATIVE. But lets expand the analogy. Lets say you take your child on a 9 month trip around the world. If you have the capability to feed adequately both yourself and the child, I am sure that you would agree that you would be responsible until the end. Do you believe that you have the right to evict your child from your property into the shark infested waters below when you decide that you are no longer interested in parenthood? If you change your mind halfway through the trip, you need to take your child to the local adoption agency, even if it would mean finishing the trip out.
Of course, admittedly, all this hinges on the notion that a fetus is a person, which is much harder to establish. However, the current appeal to intuition that we use today is completely contradictory. If we use reason to establish personhood, either we exclude infants, or we include quite a few mammals, probably a clear majority.
Oliver,
“Who says that? Every human has the right to not be neglected the basic necessities of life,”
I love it when you all make up rights where none exist.
Nobody has a right to life when another person’s body, or parts of it, are required to facilitate that right to life. That donor must willingly submit.
So why do you think a fetus should have this right when nobody else does?
There is no doubt the baby was understood to be a human baby. sanger and Hitler caused a few people to doubt reality anc hessitate in calling it a baby. It seems a kicking baby is clear enough for even a low education mom to understand.
Who says that? Every human has the right to not be neglected the basic necessities of life,”
Cameron: “I love it when you all make up rights where none exist.”
So…you dont think humans have the right to not be neglected? You think we can neglect children and the mentally handicapped, and that the state is not responsible to take care of abandoned children?
Even if you do, you claim that I am making up rights, yet the right to bodily domain is made up. Where does that right come from other than from inference as does mine?
Cameron: “Nobody has a right to life when another person’s body, or parts of it, are required to facilitate that right to life. That donor must willingly submit.”
You obviously didnt read my post. I know that it was a lot longer than the average myspace bulletin, so I can understand your problems.
A mother is required to breastfeed her child if there is no alternative. If she CHOOSES to not breastfeed her child, and allows that child to starve to death, she is guilty of neglect.
Does a woman have to breastfeed other adults? Of course not. There is an obvious special relationship between a parent and child such that a parent is OBLIGATED to provide the basic necessities of life to their child.
In the same sense, I am not obligated to house a random stranger, but I AM obligated to house my child to a sufficient extent.
Cameron:
“So why do you think a fetus should have this right when nobody else does?”
Again, every newborn has that right.
Oliver,
“In the same sense, I am not obligated to house a random stranger, but I AM obligated to house my child to a sufficient extent.”
It’s not quite a stranger in the case I’ll describe, but in Frank Beckwith’s book “Defending Life” he documents a case where a couple either had to pay money for hospital bills or something for refusing to let a house guest whom they invited over for dinner stay the night when it was extremely cold and the man had a ways to travel. Apparently he got frostbite (I think) and the judge ruled that while they had no legal obligation to let him stay the night, they had a moral obligation as fellow human beings. I hope I’m remembering that correctly. It was something like that.
But that even goes to show you that there is (somewhat of a) legal precedent to care for fellow human beings when they are in need of help if we can provide such help. Obviously it seems to me that a case like this is similar to that of abortion. God love you.
Bobby,
Thats extremely fascinating. I actually would feel that you WOULD be obligated to house a stranger to keep them from certain harm, as long as it had a negligible effect on you. However, as you have said, that only further establishes the moral duty we have to those that cannot provide for themselves, even perfect strangers.
Nobody has a right to life when another person’s body, or parts of it, are required to facilitate that right to life. That donor must willingly submit.
So why do you think a fetus should have this right when nobody else does?
Posted by: Cameron at December 16, 2008 3:32 PM
I don’t think it’d convince you but felt I had to say something. There are people out here that believe unborn babies have rights despite the law of the land. I am about as far away from you as possible I think though and so you’ll probably just laugh it off. I’ve never considered a pregnancy to be parasitic as you do. For that matter, a newborn is a bit parasitic too… he or she just has more people to go to for the life – sustaining care he or she needs to survive. Maybe it would be better for you to ask Norma McCarvey this question. It would be more objective coming from her, as she felt once the way you do now. I think you must know who that is to have such a strong argument. There was once a woman here who told me that being forced to carry her unwanted pregnancy is forcing her into servitude. I’m sorry she felt that way. All I want to say is that if she carries her unwanted pregnancy the distance, even if she felt she were forced into it, in the end I think she’d be pretty proud of her “sacrifice” and the true miracle that she is.
Sorry, above was me.
Lisa,
You have to understand, Cameron thinks that everyone thinks like he does about preborns. Which is amazing, because if he truly believes this, how and why is he having an argument about it? Maybe he thinks we are all AIM bots, or his own delusions.
Oliver
“So…you dont think humans have the right to not be neglected?”
People have to consent to the obligation or responsibility before there is a case for neglect. With parental obligations to children, we consent to this by signing the birth certificate, or tacitly by removing the infant from the hospital. Alternatively, we would not be held culpable for negligence if the baby is abandoned there in the hospital, or even left at a fire station weeks later, and left for adoption.
“Where does that right come from other than from inference as does mine?”
The right to bodily autonomy is actually the very first principle upon which bio-ethics is founded… informed consent. We simply cannot do something to someone’s body against their will, unless of course that right of autonomy has been removed or qualified via due process (e.g. your criminal getting a cavity search).
If you don’t think this is so, then maybe you should do something other than vapidly insinuate that I fabricated as much. Essentially you look like a pathetic child engaged in playground trash talk screaming “I know you are but what am I”… after having been accused of as much yourself.
Grow up Oliver.
“You obviously didnt read my post.”
You obviously did not explain who else has this right that you think a fetus should have.
“Again, every newborn has that right.”
So we can force the mother to give up a kidney or a lobe of her liver if the new born requires it, even if she doesn’t want to?
What I see you doing with everyone of your pathetic examples is that you remove or omit the right of autonomy from the argument. When you sadly and foolishly point to parents providing shelter and food, you do nothing more than simply omit or deny that there are in fact two competing rights in this abortion argument.
In doing so, you humorously and sadly imply that pregnancy and birth and parenthood are akin to doing nothing.
Bobby,
I’d like to see you cite/source this case. “But that even goes to show you that there is (somewhat of a) legal precedent to care for fellow human beings..”
Anon.,
“There are people out here that believe unborn babies have rights despite the law of the land.”
I was wondering why they should have *MORE* rights than anyone else.
This is fabulously amusing watching you all dodge this question.
Christmas Break is going to be so much fun here!!
Anon., (that was me)
“There are people out here that believe unborn babies have rights despite the law of the land.”
I was wondering why they should have *MORE* rights than anyone else.
posted by: Cameron at December 16, 2008 4:39 PM
What do you mean by “more” rights? My train of thought is that they should have a basic human right, the right to exist I guess. If you mean somehow that the fetus has extra rights to live because he or she is dependent on mother…. that’s where we part ways. That’s why I said you should ask Norma. She once felt as you do, and now she knows the truth. She can’t look at her adult daughter she didn’t initially want and say “yeah, you should have been killed because I had to live for you for x amount of time”.. On a moral high ground, I guess I could argue that the baby is helpless and we should always be on the side of the helpless so maybe that’s why they should have extra rights as you put it, or maybe just because they’re so extra cute and innocent. ???
Cam,
“I’d like to see you cite/source this case”
OK, the actual case is footnoted in the following:
John T. Noonan, “How to argue about Abortion,” in Morality and Practice, 2nd ed, ed. James P. Sterba (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1988), 150
However, I think you can look at the book here http://books.google.com/books?id=s7y5MJOuN30C&pg=RA1-PA42&lpg=RA1-PA42&dq=%22on+a+january+night+in+minnesota%22&source=web&ots=UJSelnI6Cx&sig=J7sN0Ev-Pcp5-8WWFrSZEZma-jA
I’m able to read the footnote, and it footnotes
American Law Institute, Restatement of Torts, Second (1965) sec. 197
I can not find that online, but you can at least read the restatement of the case in the above link.
Cameron: “People have to consent to the obligation or responsibility before there is a case for neglect. With parental obligations to children, we consent to this by signing the birth certificate, or tacitly by removing the infant from the hospital.”
Tacitly? Where do you get that idea from? Does that mean that a women “tacitly” gives obligation to the fetus when she has sex?
There is no such thing as “tacit” obligation, and even if there were, it would certainly apply to a pregnant woman anyways.
Would then a parent be allowed to randomly give birth, and I dunno, dump the baby in a trashcan? They never signed any paperwork, so obviously they are not responsible right?
What about women who do not know they are pregnant? It is rare, but it happens. Are THEY allowed to dump their babies?
Cameron: “Alternatively, we would not be held culpable for negligence if the baby is abandoned there in the hospital, or even left at a fire station weeks later, and left for adoption.”
Yeah, duh, because it is a suitable alternative. Do you read what I am saying Cameron?
Think for a second…..why is it okay to leave a baby at a firestation but not in a trashcan? Oh thats right….its because a mother is resonsible for her child by default until she finds a SUITABLE alternative. See, logic is cool.
Cameron: “The right to bodily autonomy is actually the very first principle upon which bio-ethics is founded… informed consent. We simply cannot do something to someone’s body against their will, unless of course that right of autonomy has been removed or qualified via due process (e.g. your criminal getting a cavity search).
If you don’t think this is so, then maybe you should do something other than vapidly insinuate that I fabricated as much. Essentially you look like a pathetic child engaged in playground trash talk screaming “I know you are but what am I”… after having been accused of as much yourself. ”
And the right to not be neglected is also the basis for child-care/ederly-care/mentally ill-care law and ethics. So what? Both rights have equal establishment. In fact, the right to not be neglected sometimes beats out the right to bodily domain, so why are you so shocked when I advance that a mother has to make a similar sacrifice for her child in pregnancy.
Cameron: “You obviously did not explain who else has this right that you think a fetus should have.”
Look, if you read my post, you will see that I VERY clearly explained that a fetus does not have any special right over a normal child, and that infants have the right to infringe on their mother’s bodily domain through breastfeeding. Please, just read my posts, it would help you out a lot when you try to debate.
Cameron: “So we can force the mother to give up a kidney or a lobe of her liver if the new born requires it, even if she doesn’t want to?”
Dude, read the post. We can “force” a mother to breastfeed her child, unless she can provide a suitable alternative. No parent is obligated to their child beyond food, water, shelter (which includes both physical and psychological), access to a school of some sort and access to medical care of some sort. Organ donation doesnt work into that anywhere. This much I would think is obvious. A mother is obligated to provide for her preborn those things; food, water and shelter. An abortion is akin to kicking your starving child out into the snow to preserve your right to property.
Cameron: “What I see you doing with everyone of your pathetic examples is that you remove or omit the right of autonomy from the argument. When you sadly and foolishly point to parents providing shelter and food, you do nothing more than simply omit or deny that there are in fact two competing rights in this abortion argument.”
Obviously you do not have children, and were/are an ungrateful child (my bet is on “are.”) Parenthood involves competing rights as much as pregnancy does. Trust me, I have 2 kids. In fact, my wife was freer when she was pregnant, and she frequently jokes that she wishes she could put the kids back inside for a while as it was “much easier.”
Cameron: “In doing so, you humorously and sadly imply that pregnancy and birth and parenthood are akin to doing nothing.”
Watch your inferences there Cameron. Parenthood and pregnancy are in both cases issues of competing rights. In fact, this makes sense because they are the same. Pregnancy IS parenthood. In both cases, if you insist on viewing them separately, the parent is required to make a partial sacrifice to their existing rights in order to provide food, water, shelter, access to medical care and school(of course this one isnt really applicable to pregnancy). The only differences are the exact rights in peril. Most pregnancies dont infringe upon privacy. Most newborns dont infringe upon bodily autonomy, although in both cases there is cross over. A baby who cannot stomach any formula is owed breast milk from her mother, or else adoption. A pregnancy that puts the mother on bedrest keeps the mother from envoking her right to privacy. Regardless, these two issues are the same, and trust me, as the father of two, and the husband to a wife who has had an unbelievable pregnancy, I know.
I really dont think you have any idea, other than from dissecting the pregnant pig in 11th grade. Of course, you may not have gotten that far yet in school, I cant really tell.
Cameron: “This is fabulously amusing watching you all dodge this question.”
Uhm, we havent dodged the question. What are you talking about?
I think it would be more productive for you to post in notepad, seeing as you dont actually need to read to digest what other people are saying in their posts.
Cameron continues the “proud tradition” of proaborts making silly semantic arguments: “Fetus is not person, which is why you all use equivocal vocabulary, like “human being.” ”
Soak this up, Cameron: (Links available on request)
per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human’s body: a human being’s body, often including the clothing
(encarta.msn)
per•son Pronunciation: (pûr’sun),-n. 2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. 6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person. (infoplease)
Main Entry: per·son 1 : HUMAN: 4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; (.merriam-webster)
Person: Pronunciation puhr sEn Definition 1. a human being. Definition 2. the body of a human being. Example the clothes on his person. (wordsmyth.net)
Lisa
“What do you mean by “more” rights?”
Nobody has a right to life when and if they require blood, organs, or support from another persons body. That donor must willingly submit, and is not culpable should the person die with that donation, no matter how egregious and selfish we might think they are.
Bobby,
That is a tort case, not a criminal case, and it is an extraordinarily exceptional finding if you ask me. My guess is that it was an election year or something and the judge is grand-standing. Typically, criminal court establishes precedence for civil court, and I know of no such criminal case which would facilitate precedence for this particular tort case.
None the less, thanks for making the effort for me and providing a link.
Best,
Cameron
Fair enough. I know nothing about law, and was just mentioning that account somewhat anecdotally to Oliver. So yeah, very good. Good journey.
Oliver,
Now you are engaged in fallacy of many questions. You’re clearly getting angry too, which is a typical response from some people; rather than simply admit they might be wrong about something they get angry.
Keep up the pathetic antics and let your true colors shine.
Whenever you’re done dodging the question, see if you can answer it.
I’ll repeat it since you appear to have a short term memory problem: Who else has this right to unvolunteered body/organs?
“…and that infants have the right to infringe on their mother’s bodily domain through
breastfeeding.”
Oh… so there is a universal human right to a tit now? LOL Making up rights again are you?
No they don’t. I’ve never heard of anyone being held criminally responsible for not breast-feeding, however there are people who are kind Nazis towards others that do not.
Doyle.
FYI, we’re having the personhood argument on the other thread. I’m assuming for the sake of argument that the fetus is a person in this thread.
Please try to keep up doyle. Or just shut up if you don’t know what we’re talking about.
Cameron: “Oh… so there is a universal human right to a tit now? LOL Making up rights again are you?
No they don’t. I’ve never heard of anyone being held criminally responsible for not breast-feeding, however there are people who are kind Nazis towards others that do not. ”
http://www.cnn.com/US/9905/19/breastfeeding.trial.02/index.html
This isnt the case that I am looking for, but what do you know. Apparently there is precedent. There is another case where the mother refused because she just didnt want to. I dont think she has been convicted yet though.
Satisfied there Cameron?
When are you going to respond to my posts?
Do you know why my posts are so long Cameron? It is because I respond to nearly every thing you say. You do not. Why not Cameron? Who am I kidding, you just wont respond to this part.
I have to go to work, you know that thing that adults do, but I will be back later tonight.
Bobby, although Cameron is basically correct, he’s no legal expert either. If the question is whether one person has a duty to protect or save another, then generally no. But, if there is a “special relationship” (school/student, or common carrier, that kind of thing) sometimes a duty to act does exist. Shouldn’t a school bus driver come to the aid of a student being beaten by another? I could see a lawsuit if he or she failed to act.
Jill,
are you dissapointed that the scandal in Illinois is only making Jesse Jackson Jr (who revealed today he’s actually been working FOR the govt in the corruption investigation) and Obama (who was cleared of any possibility of involvement today) look CLEANER?
Thanks, that’s interesting Hal. Boy, but that really seems to be in favor of anti-abortion though, doesn’t it? How would you understand abortion in terms of this, Hal? Since you’d probably agree that there is no relationship more special than a mother/child, my guess is that there would be debate about whether or not to consider the fetus a “child”?
As you know, I know nothing of law-stuff, so obviously I’m not intending to argue, just interested in your legal opinion.
BTW, I may not get a chance to respond tonight.
“Satisfied there Cameron?”
You can bring up as many cases of neglect as you want, in which the culpable party has in fact consented to and accepted the obligations he/she failed to provide/do. It still doesn’t answer the question. Who has a right to unvolunteered body organs of another person?
Hi Bobby. Parent/Child relationship is not one that is ever mentioned in that context, but it would seem to make sense. When I get some time, I’ll look into the history and application of this doctrine and share my thoughts with you.
Cameron consider conjoined twins. If there is a situation in which either both twins will live conjoined, but one would die if they are separated, they must remain conjoined. The rights of the weaker twin are weighed against the rights of the stronger twin.
Lauren,
“If there is a situation in which either both twins will live conjoined, but one would die if they are separated, they must remain conjoined. The rights of the weaker twin are weighed against the rights of the stronger twin.”
LOL
You are entirely divorced from reality here, and I can provide ample evidence contrary to your inane assertion. Parasitic twins are seperated all the time, and there is actually a court case in which the courts found against the hyper-religious parents who would sooner let both twins die rather than have them seperated such that one would live.
Lauren, thats not true. Parasitic conjoined twins are removed quite often, knowing they will die – to save the stronger, more anatomically complete twin.
Cameron, you need to study your reading comprehension. We aren’t talking about twins who would eventually die due to their conjoined status. We’re talking about twins who will both survive if they stay conjoined, but where one will die should separation occur. Cases in which both parties will die are obviously of a different nature.
Lauren…
I didn’t miss your bizarre qualification; if it’s not life threatening.
I have at least one situation, an egyptian parasitic twin scenario in which it wasn’t life threatening and they still removed the cojoined parasitic twin.
What do you have?
Lauren…
When I invoke the British court case of both dying vs. only one dying, it doesn’t mean that I missed your bizarre qualification; if it’s not life threatening….
I have at least one situation, an egyptian parasitic twin scenario in which it wasn’t life threatening and they still removed the cojoined parasitic twin. A parasitic twin which seemed to smile and interact with others.
What do you have?
Oliver: “I have to go to work, you know that thing that adults do, but I will be back later tonight.”
Some of us adults are beyond that stage, Oliver, and have retired. You know, that thing that us old folks do?
“Who has a right to unvolunteered body organs of another person?”
once you volunteer body organs you cannot unvolunteered them, dum dum.
Cameron’s argument in a nutshell: We should have the right to kill unborn children because they are too weak to survive outside the womb. Mothers should be allowed to kill their own progeny because the pre-born are excessively dependent upon their mothers. That is the height of perversity.
Cameron’s argument is similar to those used by most genocidal madmen, and boils down to the philosophy that might makes right, or that the strong have the right on prey upon the weak by virtue of being strong.
How is the qualification that the conjoined status be not life-threatening “bizarre”?
Twins are conjoined all the time in such a way that separation would prove fatal to one, but together they can have a normal lifespan.
Cameron :”You can bring up as many cases of neglect as you want, in which the culpable party has in fact consented to and accepted the obligations he/she failed to provide/do. It still doesn’t answer the question. Who has a right to unvolunteered body organs of another person?”
When does a parent exactly take official consent Cameron? Ive had two kids, I didnt sign any contracts about that. Maybe I missed it.
Just admit you are wrong, whats so bad about that? You LOL’d when I said there was a moral obligation, and you joked about the idea of a woman held legally responsible, then when I presented a case, you didnt even admit you were wrong. Youre a smug son of a bitch, and a coward at that.
Cameron: “I have at least one situation, an egyptian parasitic twin scenario in which it wasn’t life threatening and they still removed the cojoined parasitic twin. ”
Let me see the source on that Cameron. Im interested in the details, because if history is any sort of guide, Im sure you misread what happened.
Bobby: “Fair enough. I know nothing about law, and was just mentioning that account somewhat anecdotally to Oliver. So yeah, very good. Good journey.”
Dont worry Bobby, neither is Cameron. Tort law still proves legal responsibility, even if “exceptional” as Cameron has called it. And his random speculation to his benefit is completely unsubstantiated.
I also find it humourous that Cameron complains when I insult him, yet he insults every other person on the board. I dont mind the insults personally, but its an interesting insight into the mind of someone who claims an action is “pathetic” then espouses it himself.
Cameron: “I have at least one situation, an egyptian parasitic twin scenario in which it wasn’t life threatening and they still removed the cojoined parasitic twin. A parasitic twin which seemed to smile and interact with others. ”
If this is the same case, you do not have any situation. The twins both live, and had every chance of living. There was no certain death for the parasitic twin, as there is for the parasitic preborn. It is clear from what Lauren was posted that she is talking about separation at the point of death.
Lauren: “we’re talking about twins who will both survive if they stay conjoined, but where ONE WILL DIE SHOULD SEPARATION OCCUR. (Capitalization for ephasis.)”
Of course, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are talking about another, less publicized case. This is the only thing I found through a quick Google search.
So, again, care to provide the article, the story, the reference so I can fact check you?
By the way Cameron, it will be pretty hard to provide articles about something that didnt happen, in reference to your request for examples of twins who were forced to live their life out healthily conjoined as opposed to a surgery that would kill one twin over the other. Keep in mind that if she cannot provide any articles, it does not establish that she is wrong, as Im sure you know, it only establishes that she does not have proof. The idea is still debatable by appealing to either intuition or reason.
Doyle,
I was referencing Cameron with that comment, not the board in general, just for your information.
Check out this poem on the cemetery in Lynden:
http://www.flashquake.org/poetry/cemetery.html
Cameron, it seems that the issue here is the defence of necessity.
In order to qualify for this defence the following qualifications must be met:
(1) an imminent peril; (2) no reasonable
legal alternative to breaking the law: (3) proportionality
between the harm avoided and the harm inflicted.
There was a moot case involving twins who had a relatively good expected lifespan, but in which one would die if separated. The judge ruled that separating such twins would be illegal.
You can examine the moot case here: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1086&context=law_pubs
\
Oliver at 9:01 was me, sorry.
Kel: Cameron, we’ve heard all the anti-personhood arguments from our resident Doug here.
It’s not really an “argument,” it’s different desires. Some people want certain status attributed to the unborn, even to the point of taking away the freedom that a pregnant woman now has, and some don’t.
Doug, you make an interesting statement by saying “to the point of taking away the freedom that a pregnant woman now has.”
The unborn had their rights taken away in 1973. No one seems to be questioning why they were stripped of legal protection.
Nobody has a right to life when and if they require blood, organs, or support from another persons body. That donor must willingly submit, and is not culpable should the person die with that donation, no matter how egregious and selfish we might think they are.
Posted by: Cameron at December 16, 2008 5:09 PM
I just wanted to give this little piece of information… because I think it is one of the most beautiful things about pregnancy. Because of increased need for blood, a woman’s body produces it. So much so that there is weight gain. So much so, that a woman’s “heart size” increases as well to handle the volume. Reminds me of the (good) Grinch! Also, and more importantly, symbolizes for me the beauty of a mother’s love and the miracle of her body. I guess technically you could remove “blood” from the requirement because baby doesn’t take mother’s blood. The blood exists because of baby, and for baby. You could maybe replace it with “production of blood” I suppose………..
last time I checked, the unborn baby has organs of his or her own. I don’t recall there being anyway for an unborn child to STEAL his/her mother’s organs.
I think Child Development should be a mandatory class for EVERYONE. And it should have accurate information like heart beat, brain waves, movements, etc.
Lisa & Liz,
“I guess technically you could remove “blood” from the requirement because baby doesn’t take mother’s blood.”
You’re welcome to belittle physiological hardship of pregnancy all you want, even deny that it could cost the woman much, permanently damaging tissues and even causing death.
The bottom line is that you can’t do anything to someone’s body against their will, whether or not that something is genuinely “taking” or not.
Jasper,
“once you volunteer body organs you cannot unvolunteered them, dum dum.”
Actually you can back out of organ donation at any time. Once the organ is in someone else’s body, it is part of their body then, and you can’t take it back. What you’re doing now asserting that consent cannot be withdrawn once something has started.
This is exactly the same argument a rapist uses, when he didn’t stop when she said no.
Now how much longer are you all going to amuse me at your expense by dodging the question?
Who else has this right that you think a fetus should have?
Cameron: “Who else has this right that you think a fetus should have?”
A breastfeeding child, at least according to the United States law.
There is no contract that a parent signs to care for a child, by the way.
By the way, care to take back your strawman argument from earlier? I dont like it when people call me dishonest when I directly paraphrase them.
Oh also Cameron, there is that court case Lauren brought up. Apparently conjoined twins have the right. And no, your Egyptian twins didnt make the cut. Unless you are talking about another case of course….care to cite that case Cameron?
Cameron: “Actually you can back out of organ donation at any time. Once the organ is in someone else’s body, it is part of their body then, and you can’t take it back. What you’re doing now asserting that consent cannot be withdrawn once something has started. ”
I think it is pretty obvious that by “volunteer” Jaspar was referring to the definition “to willingly take part in an action,” meaning that once you have given your organ to someone willingly, you cannot take it back. To be fair, I am sure you are referencing the definition “to express a willingness to take part in an action,” but you should have the capability to understand what he was referencing.
Cameron, “You’re welcome to belittle physiological hardship of pregnancy all you want, even deny that it could cost the woman much, permanently damaging tissues and even causing death. ”
Could you please elaborate? I’ll give you physiological hardship. I accept that… I remember the backaches and the braxton hicks. I admit to some discomfort. But in the end, it’s worth it. What permanent tissue damage and death are you speaking of though? Because maternal death can be avoided without fetal demise. Without terminating a pregnancy. I am not a doctor (obviously) but do know a bit about high risk pregnancy – at least those related to eclampsia (high blood pressure/ stroke) and h.e.l.l.p. syndrome (liver failure). I’ve sisters who survived both – along with my niece and nephew. Please know that I am not for killing a mother to save a child, I don’t think anyone here is. But today it seems we can usually save both.
I really don’t mean to belittle a woman’s hardship. I like women. I am a woman. I have a mother and a daughter and sisters. I don’t want to seem so insensitive. But it goes both ways. You seem to have no sensitivity to the babies that are destroyed. When I think of choice I think of what needs to be done to “execute” that choice is it okay for me to be very sad about that? And to try as much as I can to get anyone who bothers to listen to me to understand the life inside as well? Okay now I’m rambling. I’ll stop. Thanks.
Hi Lisa,
“Could you please elaborate?”
Doesn’t sound like I need to if you accept that it there is a bodily hardship.
“But it goes both ways. You seem to have no sensitivity to the babies that are destroyed.”
Now you’re just trying to personalize it. Make it into an indictment of me personally. Any pathetic drivel you can muster instead of answering the question I guess, or admitting that you can’t answer it.
Nobody has a right to life when the organs or body of another person are required to facilitate that right to life. The donor must be willing.
Best,
Cameron
Cameron: “Nobody has a right to life when the organs or body of another person are required to facilitate that right to life. ”
I disagree. By that theory, no one is all of the history of mankind has ever had the right to life without the “permission” of his/her mother. And that gives pregnant women the power to end the human race, if they so chose.
It is neither rational nor logical to give so much power to one gender simply because of the human method of reproduction. And it is certainly not moral to give every pregnant women the power of life or death over her unborn child.
Since the unborn child is totally blameless in both the fact of, and the process of it’s own gestation, it seems the height of barbarianism to make the legal slaughter of the unborn a “normal” part of any society.
We are, in fact, even more barbaric than the ancient Romans, both in numbers of innocents killed and in the methods of killing them.
Lauren…
I’m sorry I missed this. Very humorous stuff.
“There was a moot case involving twins who had a relatively good expected lifespan, but in which one would die if separated. The judge ruled that separating such twins would be illegal.”
LMAO
You do realize both what “moot” and “hypothetical” mean don’t you??
You’re evidence is basically a bunch of law students debating a hypothetical situation that didn’t actually occur.
Cameron, I was only trying to be sensitive to your concerns and ask that you be sensitive to mine. And the ‘could you please elaborate’ was more related to your post concerning the “permanent tissue damage and death caused by pregnancy.” But don’t bother, your replies feel very condescending to me and I don’t appreciate that.
There is a difference between passively refusing to provide an organ transplant to a dying man and actively killing the child in your womb. But I wouldn’t expect a miscreant like Cameron to admit that.
He’s arguing apples and oranges. Refusing to save a person is a far cry from killing someone. The analogous situation to abortion isn’t not giving your organs to a dying man, but shooting the man to death.
Doyle!
“It is neither rational nor logical to give so much power to one gender simply because of the human method of reproduction. And it is certainly not moral to give every pregnant women the power of life or death over her unborn child.”
So guys can’t refuse to have sex??
LMAO
You do realize that you are essentially admitting that you think a women, by virtue of being pregnant, should have less rights than anyone else, or that a fetus should have more.
You justify this with an inane conjecture that we’d go extinct, as though women would choose to end the human race, never minding a reality otherwise; legal abortion and population growth.
I’m sorry… what’s supposedly more “rational/logical” about this argument??
What’s abundantly obvious is you wouldn’t know logic if it slapped you upside the head.
Pay attention now… A logical argument has premises arriving at a conclusion.
lol
When I state that nobody has a right to the unvolunteered body/organs of another, it’s not an argument or a theory. It’s a factual reality.
Do you see the difference? no premises there, no inference or deduction, not a logical argument or theory.
lol
If you wish to refute this like an adult, say that it is not factually correct, then simply provide evidence otherwise. Point us to these people who can take blood or organs from unwilling donors such that they’d not die.
::head desk::
Does anyone know the name of the law that allowed Scott Peterson to be tried for two murders instead of one – even though Conner was not born yet? I know this happens sometimes but that’s the only case I can think of where a terminated fetus seems to have more rights if murdered by someone other than an abortionist as a choice.
Continuing Cameron’s ridiculous argument:
-By Cameron’s logic, a baby has more rights than an adult because it is illegal to leave a baby on the sidewalk but not illegal to leave an adult on the sidewalk. We must have equal rights, so it must either be legal to leave a baby on the sidewalk or it must be made illegal to leave an adult on the sidewalk
-By Cameron’s logic, a baby has more rights than an adult because it is illegal to not feed a baby but not illegal to not feed an adult. We must have equal rights, so it must either be made legal to not feed a baby or made illegal to not feed an adult.
-By Cameron’s logic, a baby has fewer rights than an adult because a baby is not allowed to work while an adult is. Either babies must be allowed to get jobs, or adults should not be allowed to have jobs.
-By Cameron’s logic, a baby has fewer rights than an adult because a baby is not allowed to go see an R-rated movie without an adult being with him while an adult is. Therefore babies must be allowed to see R-rated movies or adults must be banned from them.
As you can see, Cameron is an idiot and his arguments are garbage.
Lisa,
if I have to explain that pregnancy can cause death or damage organs, then there is no point talking to you.
John,
Name calling already??
“There is a difference between passively refusing to provide an organ transplant to a dying man and actively killing the child in your womb. But I wouldn’t expect a miscreant like Cameron to admit that.”
I wouldn’t expect any of Stanek’s ilk here to say that they’d permit abortion if the fetus was removed intact and allowed to die.
Next stupid and irrelevant point??
Does anyone want to answer the question? Maybe admit they can’t??
“Continuing Cameron’s ridiculous argument:”
Translation: “Attack Cameron… attack cameron…we can’t refute the fact.. so attack the messenger….call him names… indict him with perjorative accusations… anything but argue like adults”
I suppose it does no use to report people like you for breaking your own rules here.
Lisa…
“Does anyone know the name of the law that allowed Scott Peterson …”
Ah.. so novel two year old prolife legislation is now evidence of something?
LOL
I get a kick out the fetus protection laws. It illustrates how prolifers don’t really care about women or saving babies. Just makes you look like a bunch of drunks in a bar screaming at the latest murderer on TV .. .”off with his head.”
So Cam, you’re all for abortions up until just before birth, correct?
So Bobby, you’re unable to answer the question?
What’s wrong, Cameron? Too dumb to understand my post? Try sounding it out. If you read it, you’ll finally see how stupid your arguments are.
Babies and adults do not have “equal rights”. They never have and they never will. Babies have certain rights under the law because they are babies, and adults have certain rights under the law because they are adults. You might think that you can just arbitrarily declare that this is not true and type “lol” whenever someone tells you how wrong you are, but it does nothing but make you look like the complete fool you truly are.
But sure, go ahead and cry to the moderators that I hurt your feelings, princess. Call your Mommy in to change your diaper while you’re at it.
Cameron,
Please do not accuse me of not caring for women. That is not fair. And I don’t much like capital punishment either. Or war. Or bars. You do not know me, except for what I’ve posted about, which is my love for babies and admiration for a woman’s body – especially during pregnancy.
Abortion sometimes causes “permanent tissue damage and death” too. FYI.
Bobby,
FYI… John’s calling me names.
Translation of Cameron’s last post: “WAAAH, WAAAH!!!!”
On all sides of the debates-
Let’s all just kind of take a step back, and remember that the person that we’re discussing these issues with is a real human being with feelings, thoughts, and emotions just like you and me. If someone insults you personally, there’s no need to insult back. Blanket of love, blanket of love.
Hi John,
“What’s wrong, Cameron? Too dumb to understand my post?”
You sound about as defensive as a crass whore in church.
LOL
Yes… I know … I read your arguments that are supposedly my arguments, as opposed to a factual reality, and like Oliver, they imply that adoption should be illegal.
Why do you think adoption is wrong?
“So Bobby, you’re unable to answer the question?”
The question is when else is “when is someone allowed to use another person’s body?”, right? I would argue that describing pregnancy as “using someone’s body” minimizes the entire life cycle, but going with your phrasing, my answer is no other time. Pregnancy should be the only time because the alternative is such a high “loss” for the fetus. Like I mentioned yesterday, in a situation where you have a conflict of interests, the law should fall on the side of the one with more to lose, which is always the fetus.
But depending on whether you support abortion through all 9 months, I may have more to add. So do you?
Lisa,
“Please do not accuse me…”
I accused prolifers in general, however it’s fascinating that you suddenly think accusations are unfair.
You should practice what you preach.
Curiously, you don’t seem interested in why I say as much. Little too close to the truth I guess.
“Why do you think adoption is wrong?”
Are you on drugs?
I am telling you that our laws do not and never have treated babies and adults the same way. You insist that our laws do and always have treated babies and adults the same way. That is absurd.
Bobby,
“right?”
Wrong. **Who**, not when. Try to keep in mind that we’re talking about who has what rights, although it is exceedingly amusing that you seem to think that rights are somehow dictated by “when”
So much for the unaliable right such as life.
That was really a pitiful effort on your part.
You seem to be the most sober person here so allow me to spell this out.
You all aren’t going to get anywhere denying what it is you want. There are two approaches to this prescription of yours, either the fetus has more rights than anyone else, or the woman by virtue of being pregnant has less. That’s why prolifers advance arguments like the responsiblity argument and the tacit consent argument. They know it’s hard to make a case for a fetus having more rights, so the alternative is to somehow find the woman culpable for having had sex.
You’re never going to make your case denying that it is the case you are making.
Best,
Cameron
Okay Cameron, I will try my best to be understanding of what you say because that is the issue. I am interested in what you say, but to be honest only because I wish so dearly I could win you to my side. To see those babies as gifts with worth and not “nothing” to be brutally and (IMO) shamefully discarded as such. Anyway, have a good night. I’ve gotta go home and get a hug from my little girl. You’re not the princess Cameron, despite what John says, she is… lol. (I mean no harm to either of you by that) :o)
Can a 3 year old legally get a job at a factory in America?
Can a 7 year old legally get a driver’s license in America?
Can a 17 year old legally vote for political candidates in America?
Can a 20 year old legally drink beer in America?
Can a 30 year old be elected president of the United States?
According to Cameron, the answer to all of these questions must be “yes”. Otherwise, none of his arguments make sense.
Cameron, you do realize that I understand what a moot case is, right? A moot case is designed to examine laws and understand application.
What do you have?
Anyone else notice that Cameron didnt respond to a single post that I made, yet he posted 5 or 6 times? Interesting…
Just for the record, Cameron has yet to provide any proof of his Egyptian twins. He has yet to admit that breastfeeding is a legal obligation. He has yet to address his erroneous statement that a parent signs a contract for the care of their child. He has yet to admit that he has incorrectly applied logical fallacies 3 times now….etc etc etc
What is up with this guy?
“**Who**, not when. Try to keep in mind that we’re talking about who has what rights, although it is exceedingly amusing that you seem to think that rights are somehow dictated by “when” ”
Well now wait a second, not all rights are always absolute. You can lose certain rights and privilages based not only on your behavior, but also on the circumstances, especially when it conflicts with another “who’s” rights. So what I said above still stands. We have a conflict of interests. Both of them have full rights as human beings, but when those rights are in conflict, the one with the least to lose is the one whose right’s are trumped.
“So much for the unaliable right such as life.”
I’m not sure what you mean by this.
“You seem to be the most sober person here so allow me to spell this out.”
False. Drunk beyond imagination.
“You all aren’t going to get anywhere denying what it is you want. There are two approaches to this prescription of yours, either the fetus has more rights than anyone else, or the woman by virtue of being pregnant has less.”
Cameron, you’re creating a false dichotomy here. Do you really see it as being logically impossible that both not allowing a woman to kill a fetus and the fetus having the same rights are coherent? I think you need to spell out why, assuming the fetus is fully human and a person, those two statements are mutually exclusive.
“That’s why prolifers advance arguments like the responsiblity argument and the tacit consent argument. They know it’s hard to make a case for a fetus having more rights, so the alternative is to somehow find the woman culpable for having had sex.”
I have never once made this argument. I’ve never argued that because you have sex, you consent to pregnancy and must not abort. If the fetus is a human being, you can not kill it because it is wrong to directly and willfully kill an innocent human being as a means to an end. I don’t see how that is special.
I have to go, and might not get a chance to respond tonight. Take care.
Cameron : “Your evidence isnt as good as mine. What? You want to know about my evidence? Thats a….uh….strawman argument!! ROFLCOPTER!1!!1”
Lisa,
“… only because I wish so dearly I could win you to my side.”
That’s not going to happen. I don’t care how much of a slut she’s been, or how trivial her reasons for having an abortion. I don’t think she should be thrown in jail if she doesn’t want to endure pregnancy.
John,
“I am telling you that our laws…”
Try to remember we’re talking about human rights. If you whish to trivialize as much as akin to being able to go to a movie, then at least be consistant when it comes to all rights. If you wish to trivialize them with every effort in one direction and champion them by virtue of omitting all other competing rights in the other direction, you look like a flippen retard.
If you think that parental obligations are inborn, as opposed to consented to, then, like Oliver, you apparently think that adoption is wrong.
Cameron says:”If you think that parental obligations are inborn, as opposed to consented to, then, like Oliver, you apparently think that adoption is wrong. ”
And this, my friend, is a strawman!
“I don’t care how much of a slut she’s been, or how trivial her reasons for having an abortion. I don’t think she should be thrown in jail if she doesn’t want to endure pregnancy. ”
Wow, I didn’t even see this part. Are you trying for the Strawman Olympics, Cameron?
Pro-lifers don’t want women thrown in jail, and it certainly has nothing to do with them being “sluts.” Were abortion recriminalized, we would want to see the abortionist prosecuted.
Blanket of love, blanket of love.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at December 17, 2008 4:47 PM
******************************************
Can we suffocate Cameron (who I hope is still banging his head on his desk, as it might knock some politeness into him eventually) with the blanket of love, Bobby? :D
/sarcasm
Lauren,
“What do you have”
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=conjoined+twins+separated+died&spell=1
Pick one. Let me know when you find a doctor charged with murder.
Oliver
“Anyone else notice that Cameron didnt respond..”
You haven’t said anything new. You have a vapid denial that parental obligations aren’t consented to, which implies that adoption is wrong. You’re also childish, as evidenced here by this plea to all others, insulting, and generally sort of pitiful.
Bobby,
“You can lose certain rights and privilages based not only on your behavior,”
Via due process. Which is why the right to abortion is protected under due process. Which is why we can remove your right to life with due process and send you to a gas chamber.
“…but when those rights are in conflict, the one with the least to lose is the one whose right’s are trumped.”
So you think we can take a kidney from an unwilling donor to keep someone alive?
“False. Drunk beyond imagination.”
LOL…. I appreciate the genuine humor.
“Cameron, you’re creating a false dichotomy here.”
That would mean that I’ve omitted some other options. As far as I can tell, you’re either pregnant or you’re not pregnant. What is this alternative scenario that I’ve missed?
“I have never once made this argument”
Like Lisa, you’re taking my generalization personally. What you need to do is admit that some prolifers do as much, but that you don’t agree with it.
“…because it is wrong to directly and willfully kill an innocent human being as a means to an end.”
It isn’t wrong to force someone to do something with their body against their will, and without due process??
Like many prolifers, what you do with each sentence is try to change the argument from permiting abortion vs. forced gestation to permiting abortion vs. no abortion, as though pregnancy and birth are akin to doing nothing.
Oliver
“Thats a….uh….strawman argument”
A strawman argument is when you misrepresent your opponents arguments. Typically it’s done by stating something self-evident, and doing so such that it looks like your opponent was arguing otherwise… like you do.
Anyone want to answer the question yet??
Anyone want to admit you can’t anwer it?
Best,
Cameron
Lauren,
“Were abortion recriminalized, we would want to see the abortionist prosecuted.”
What you don’t seem to understand is that if it is recriminalized, then the woman would be the abortionist. In this day and age, we’re talking about a black market for abortifacients, drugs which induce a misscarriage, or a woman drinking some home made concoction to induce.
By all accounts, you’re never going to stop abortion, short of strapping everyone to a table once they test positive for pregnant.
Cameron:
http://www.workers.org/ww/1999/walrond0923.php
virtual ammo
Cameron, every time you insult someone on this board, you whine about being called names but fail to see that your LOLing and LMAOing and saying things like “good effort!” to other adults is really not having a respectful, adult conversation.
But, apparently you came here to insult others over Christmas break from school. That’s fine, but don’t be surprised when some posters bite back after you’ve spewed at them from your throne of false intellectual superiority.
Enjoy your evening and take care.
And Bobby, I still say you’re brilliant. So there. :D
Cameron, none of those cases directly relate to a situation I outlined. In the case of Hope and Faith, the girls developed an intestinal blockage and both would die unless separation was attempted.
I know it’s hard, Cameron, but you need to find an actual case. You said you had knowledge of some set of Egyption twins that were separated resulting in the death of a twin that would otherwise have lived. If this is true, let’s see it.
Also, I’m glad you’ve finally learned what a strawman argument is. Since you’ve used the term incorrectly several times, it’s good to see progress! Maybe now that you know the definition you can keep yourself from using the fallacy in the future. Or, maybe you want to go for the hat-trick.
As for the recrimilization of abortion:
If a black market for abortion pills is created, which I agree is likely, then we will focus prosecution on the dealers and suppliers. It’s not a difficult concept to understand, Cameron.
Finally, which question are you talking about? I’ve answered every question you’ve posed.
Kel,
At best, you have a two wrongs make a right argument.
If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to admonish your ilk as well.
“Anti-Oliver”
The letter writing campaign sprung from the idea that the mother had tried to breastfeed but was unsuccessful. If this is the case, I agree that it was a tragic situation and she shouldn’t be punished. However, the letter writers are not supporting a woman for simply *refusing* to breastfeed, which was Oliver’s contention and the courts original finding.
There’s another case that recently came through regarding a woman who didn’t breastfeed her infant. She was also convicted. I’m having trouble locating it, but it involved an Indiana woman I believe.
Regardless, there is an obvious difference between someone who refuses to feed her child and one who is unable to feed her child.
Oops, it appears it was actually a wisconson case. Here ’tis.
http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2008/07/15/news/00lead.txt
It seems the case hasn’t been decided yet, but that she admitted to starving her child. Sorry I was a bit fuzzy with the details, but I first heard about this back in July.
Antioliver-
That still establishes that a mother is legally responsible to breastfed. The question was not ‘does she owe her body’ but ‘did she do her best to provide her body’
No matter what, it establishes that breastfeeding is a legal responsibility. Period.
Hi Lauren…
“Cameron, none of those cases directly relate to a situation I outlined. “
The situation you outlined is “If there is a situation in which either both twins will live conjoined, but one would die if they are separated, they must remain conjoined”
Here you go…here’s the prolife video version of it… decrying the injustice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqZBN9bxSAw&NR=1
Cameron, are you trying to be dense?
The case involving Manar and Islaam was one in which they would both die unless separated. Manar had all of the vital organs and was supporting them both. This had caused severe heart failure 6 times before the separation. Obviously, this is not a case in which both children could live if left together, and thus not pertinent to the argument.
Arg, sorry oliver at 7:02 was me.
Oliver… or Lauren…
You’re right. However, it still doesn’t make your case; that the other twin is obligated to facilitate the other.
The burdnen of proof once agian is on you all to provide a case in which a doctors was convicted of murder for seperating conjoined twins in which one died.
Cameron, look either one of two things is going on here. Either you can’t make word for word derivations or you’re purposefully coming up with falacious cases thinking that I wont challenge you.
Regardless, I’m feeling generous so I will provide your with even more to add to my arguement.
I, of course, posted the moot case which examined current law and its applications and found my argument to be correct. Of course, it was only a moot case, but because it is the only sort of ruling of its sort, it is the best legal text we have to go on.
Of course, an actual case hasn’t occured because hospitals go through several layers of ethical commitees before separating twins. Separations that would result in one infant being killed for the sake of the other’s bodily domain are nixed before they start.
According to the American Pediatric Surgical Association:
“Detailed and repeated discussions are necessary particularly if, after all of the preoperative evaluations are done, it is evident that only one twin can survive or if one of the two will probably be left with a serious disability. Only solitary survivors may be possible in twins with conjoined hearts, twins with only one inferior vena cava draining shared livers, and twins with a single biliary tree.
In terms of such cases in which only one twin can survive, such difficult decisions can be aided by the knowledge that both children usually die without separation under these circumstances… If high-quality survival is possible, most experienced pediatric surgeons recommend that twins be separated, even if only one twin can survive, rather than allowing the loss of both infants. ”
Oliver said: “And this, my friend, is a strawman!”
And that is the best post in the entire thread.
Anyway, here’s the last thing I have to say here since Cammy is so dense that I need to spell it all out for him:
His argument is, Why should a fetus have a special right that nobody else has? And the answer is, why wouldn’t a fetus have special rights, just like a baby has, just like a child has, and just like an adult has? A fetus has a right to not be killed simply because he lives and grows inside his mother by virtue of his being a fetus and in this world, human fetuses live and grow inside their mothers.
It is the nature of our world that a fetus lives in his mother until he is born. That is NOT a crime worthy of execution! Cameron is attempting to turn the world on its head, which is why his argument is so preposterous.
A fetus is not an “unjust aggressor”. A fetus is not an unrelated third party who is in need of help. A fetus is the progeny of the pregnant woman who lives inside of her until he is born. To speak of him as an invader, or an attacker, or a parasite, is nothing short of insane.
Anyone want to answer the question yet??
Hi Cameron, I gather that you’re the “original Cameron” here, and I think you’re doing a fine job.
Doug
You would, Doug. Making stupid, illogical arguments to support child murder is a forte of yours.
It looks like John and/or Doug are sockpuppets, the same person. Although this sort of backslapping cheerleading is not uncommon amongst the ideological brain dead.
Eh, Cameron, you do realize that Doug is pro-choice right? He was legitimately complementing you. John’s pro-life. I can assure you that they are two separate people.
oops…
Yes lauren… I meant John and Oliver
And I can again confirm that John and Oliver are two different people. Oliver’s my husband. John is some guy in Pennsylvania.
Kel,
At best, you have a two wrongs make a right argument.
If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to admonish your ilk as well.
Posted by: Cameron at December 17, 2008 6:11 PM
****************************************
It wasn’t an argument. It’s not up for debate that your style of discussion is inflammatory at best, and incredibly condescending. You begin “debating” by using the most mocking tone possible and then get whiny when someone gives it back to you. If you’re aware of it, great. If not, just pointing it out to you.
I have to say that I appreciate Doug more and more here on this board. Doug, even though we disagree, I think you are a very likeable person and appreciate that you don’t talk down to those who disagree with you during a debate. Perhaps since you think Cameron’s doing such a fine job, maybe you might lend him a bit of your tact.
BTW, John @ 8:32, thank you for your post. I am in agreement.
Doug: “Hi Cameron, I gather that you’re the “original Cameron” here, and I think you’re doing a fine job.”
Really Doug? Did you check out when he called me a liar when I paraphrased him perfectly? Did you check it out when he misapplied the logical fallacies of the “strawman” argument, and absence of evidence? Did you see when he just responded with absurd, possibly made up fallacies instead of addressing the arguments I have made?
Look at when we called him out on the breastfeeding. He “LOLed” when I said a woman is legally responsible for breastfeeding, and I when I presented an actual case, he didnt admit he was mistaken. He did the same thing when he brought up the cases of coinjoined twins MULTIPLE times that did not fit the criteria we were discussing. This was misleading to say the very least.
He complains about insults, yet insults everyone here for the most part.
What is there to admire? If you want to respect someone like SoMG, that is much more reasonable. This guy is full of sh*t. He cant even face it when he has been completely called out on his absurd arguments.
Really Doug, Im not your greatest fan, but Im disappointed that you would be fooled by his pomp. Just because you throw around cool sounding buzz words and phrases doesnt mean you know what you are talking about. I encourage you to really investigate his reasoning. Hes a fop.
By the way Cameron, I am still waiting on your apology for calling me a liar when I directly paraphrased you.
Cameron: “You are entirely divorced from reality here, and I can provide ample evidence contrary to your inane assertion.”
Im also waiting to see your “ample” evidence for such a case. How about one case? That would be a start.
Kel,
“You begin “debating” by using the most mocking tone …”
I began debating by pointing out that sometimes laws are wrong. The only one whining about anything is you.
This is called the style v. substance fallacy.
You can’t answer the question, so now your whining about my “tone.”
Like I said already, you have no credibility though so long as you’re not whining about Oliver’s tone too. You just look like a lil’ hypocrite is all.
If you can set aside you pathetic in-group biase and at least admonish the overt name calling here, I might start to take you seriously…
Otherwise, like most prolifers, you’re just a sanctimonious git that really doesn’t give a rat’s ass about anything but your own moral self-promotion.
you’re just dodging the question
Best,
Cameron
Oliver,
Have you checked out how you look/sound.
Go back and read you rampant posts.
I think it’s funny, but I suspect most of you ilk would be embarrassed by your antics.
“Look at when we called him out on the breastfeeding. He “LOLed” when I said a woman is legally responsible for breastfeeding, and I when I presented an actual case, he didnt admit he was mistaken. ”
Looks like Olivah is doing the dense and obstuseness misread of evidence again, Cameron. Wonder if he practices, or if it comes naturally?
If anything, that was an anti-breastfeeding case. Ms. Walnord wasn’t prosecuted because she wouldn’t use her body to feed her baby (unless you think that a woman can control milk flow, like your kitchen faucet). It was an attempt to show that she should have known how much was enough or notand should have bottlefed. She was too young and inexperienced to know if the child was getting enough milk – and she was wrong. Problem was, as the sequel post showed, when she sought help from the “experts” and “state,” no less, she was turned away due to a technicality.
So go back and find a case where a woman is prosecuted for bottlefeeding instead of breastfeeding – in the U.S.
Hint: since many medical “professionals” and their pharmafood enablers still undermine breastfeeding attempts in the hospital, and 60-75% of American women don’t breastfeed beyond a couple of weeks, for no other reason than perceived “convenience” go ahead, find that case.
Cameron, I’ve seen the rational side of you before. I’ve seen glimpses of the Cameron who can actually hear what people are saying to him and make arguments based on logic rather than just insulting for no apparent reason, and I know you’ve heard me say before that I like that side of you. Where did that part of you go?
I’d really appreciate it if you’d try to listen to other people’s arguments instead of hastily responding with LOL’s and just being obnoxious. I know you can debate better than that.
Doug, you make an interesting statement by saying “to the point of taking away the freedom that a pregnant woman now has.”
The unborn had their rights taken away in 1973. No one seems to be questioning why they were stripped of legal protection.
No, Lauren. Rights hadn’t been attributed. All it was was that the act of abortion was illegal in some circumstances. It still only took the say-so of two doctors and an abortion could be had.
John L: You would, Doug. Making stupid, illogical arguments to support child murder is a forte of yours.
Ha ha. You can’t even get to logic in the first place, John, since you’re reduced to pretending that abortion is “murder.”
It looks like John and/or Doug are sockpuppets, the same person.
OwOoOoOoOo Cameron, you made me laugh there. ; )
In terms of such cases in which only one twin can survive, such difficult decisions can be aided by the knowledge that both children usually die without separation under these circumstances… If high-quality survival is possible, most experienced pediatric surgeons recommend that twins be separated, even if only one twin can survive, rather than allowing the loss of both infants.”
Lauren, I think that’s one of the most interesting topics. Some really tough decisions in some of those cases.
Antioliver,
“Looks like Olivah is doing the dense and obstuseness..”
I think the best part is that when he insists that parental obligation need not be accepted/consented to… that it’s supposedly inherent or something… he inadvertently implies that adoption is illegal.
Bethany,
Like I told the other sanctimonious git here, pull your head out of your @ss and see if you can admonish your own ilk here (hint Oliver is name calling). Otherwise you’re just a pathetic lil’ hypocrite as far as I’m concerned.
Your selective blindness reminds me of the KKK and white supremacists. In addition to your inborn hatred of equal rights, you see only the wrongs that *they* do.
You people are so ugly in so many ways.
Now… would you care to answer the question , or are you going to continue to dodge with style v substance fallacies?
Best,
Cameron
OMG… How did I miss this.
John’s trying to answer the question…
“Why should a fetus have a special right that nobody else has? And the answer is, why wouldn’t a fetus have special rights, just like a baby has,”
It’s seems you can’t decide if you are for equal rights or for special rights.
Last I checked, we can’t force a mother to give up a lobe of her liver, or blood, or anything even if it’s for her new born. So no… not “just like a baby”
Thanks for playing though.
Best,
Cameron
Cameron, so basically you don’t have a leg to stand on,so instead of actually addressing the issues we raise you say that we’re mean and stupid. You throw out lofty claims that are easily debunked and then duck and dodge and pretend that they haven’t been addressed. Grow up.
Bethany,
Like I told the other sanctimonious git here, pull your head out of your @ss and see if you can admonish your own ilk here (hint Oliver is name calling). Otherwise you’re just a pathetic lil’ hypocrite as far as I’m concerned.
Your selective blindness reminds me of the KKK and white supremacists. In addition to your inborn hatred of equal rights, you see only the wrongs that *they* do.
You people are so ugly in so many ways….
Best,
Cameron
Posted by: Cameron at December 18, 2008 9:39 AM
*******************************************
Now I get to LOL!
Cameron, if this is your “best” then I’m sorry for you.
AO :”Looks like Olivah is doing the dense and obstuseness misread of evidence again, Cameron. Wonder if he practices, or if it comes naturally?”
Are you having to fight Cameron’s battles for him? He said a woman could not be held legally responsible for breastfeeding, here she was, and that is enough to show that he was incorrect, yet he never responded.
AO: “If anything, that was an anti-breastfeeding case.”
I actually agree with you a bit here. I feel sorry for the woman. However, that is completely irrelevant, what matters here is that it is a legal responsibility for a woman to breastfed.
AO: “Ms. Walnord wasn’t prosecuted because she wouldn’t use her body to feed her baby (unless you think that a woman can control milk flow, like your kitchen faucet). It was an attempt to show that she should have known how much was enough or notand should have bottlefed.”
I dont think you understand the case. The defense was not “she didnt know she was having trouble.” The defense was “she was having trouble and could not get help.”
The prosecution claimed that she starved the baby intentionally by witholding her body. They did not believe she had any problems with her breast supply and argued that she did not provide the breastmilk out of anger with her boyfriend.
Whether or not that is true has no bearing here, which I would think is pretty obvious. We are not questioning her capability to breastfeed, we are questioning the legal responsibility of breastfeeding. Apparently you can convict someone for refusing to breastfed.
AO: “She was too young and inexperienced to know if the child was getting enough milk – and she was wrong. Problem was, as the sequel post showed, when she sought help from the “experts” and “state,” no less, she was turned away due to a technicality.
So go back and find a case where a woman is prosecuted for bottlefeeding instead of breastfeeding – in the U.S.”
How would that be relevant? “Bottlefeeding” would be the suitable alternative to breastfeeding. If you choose not to breastfeed, you better provide that alternative. This is the same in parenting. If you choose not to care for your child, you better adopt that child out. The point of this article was to show that breastfeeding is a legal responsibility until you provide an alternate solution. Whether Walrond was guilty of the crime is meaningless. The important note is that it was considered a crime.
If I wanted to prove that wearing socks is illegal, I would need to provide a case where a judge accepted that sock wearing was illegal, even if the defendant was not found guilty of wearing socks. As it is, Im sure you could not make it through to actual court on that charge.
AO: “Hint: since many medical “professionals” and their pharmafood enablers still undermine breastfeeding attempts in the hospital, and 60-75% of American women don’t breastfeed beyond a couple of weeks, for no other reason than perceived “convenience” go ahead, find that case.”
Uhm…what the hell does this have to do with anything? My wife breastfeeds and its wonderful for her and our family. I have no problems with breastfeeding. What are you talking about?
http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2008/07/15/news/00lead.txt
Heres another AO. She was responsible for supplying her body to this child.
Cameron, why are you whinning about John’s “attacks” when your post to me was full of personal attacks?
Cameron: “So guys can’t refuse to have sex?”
That’s a lame excuse even for a red herring argument. You know quite well that is totally irrelevant to my statement.
Cameron: “You do realize that you are essentially admitting that you think a women, by virtue of being pregnant, should have less rights than anyone else, or that a fetus should have more.”
Another red herring. NO ONE should have the elective power of life or death over another innocent human being…. NO GENDER, NO GROUP should have the legal blessing to KILL other innocent humans at will!
Cameron: “You justify this with an inane conjecture that we’d go extinct, as though women would choose to end the human race, never minding a reality otherwise; “
No such conjecture was made, apparently you need to lie about my post to make any rebuttal. What I said was: “And that gives pregnant women the power to end the human race, if they so chose.
”
You can’t see the difference? Why am I not surprised?
Cameron: “What’s abundantly obvious is you wouldn’t know logic if it slapped you upside the head.”
Ah, and now that you’ve insulted me, you’re going to whine about others calling you names, right?
Cameron: “Point us to these people who can take blood or organs from unwilling donors such that they’d not die.”
Unborn babies do NOT “take blood or organs” from the mother. Have you no idea how gestation works? Or are you just being silly?
See? It’s actually possible to refute someone’s arguments without sprinkling insults, LOL’s, etc, all through your post. Why not try it? Maybe you will earn a little respect here, who knows?
Alright. I guess Cameron has no response to my points. I suggest everyone else just remember how Cameron refused not only to respond to my points demonstrating his incorrectness, but that he has yet to apologize for his false accusations of “strawman” arguments.
By the way, I have been “admonished” for insults before Cameron. You can stop being a crybaby now.
Bethany, you guys act like Cameron has some sort of respect here. Have you now noticed that he is a paper tiger, with no real substance? Ive answered his question, and instead of responding to the answer, he just asks the same question to other posters. What a shame.
By the way, where is that ample evidence? Another cocky falsehood from Cameron? Or is it that he does not have the comprehension ability to link criteria to a case? Who knows? And with his constant evasion, we will probably never know.
Anytime you want to actually respond Cameron, go ahead.
Just sitting here thinking about this…
What other purpose does the uterus serve?? It is the female reproductive organ. An unborn child, living in the uterus, is EXACTLY where it is supposed to be, as the uterus was designed specifically FOR reproduction. No bodily organ has been usurped from the mother here. If the woman does not wish for her uterus to be used for the purpose it was intended, she should have that organ removed prior to conception, as it is unnecessary to her survival.
I’m finding it a bit baffling that the unborn child is talked about here as if it is an invader, when by nature, it is growing exactly where it should be. Abortion is against that process of nature.
Oliver, I know and agree with you. Most of the time, Cameron acts this way and it’s extremely annoying and obnoxious.
The reason I posted that was because there was one time that he stopped acting like this and actually participated in a rational debate, and I remember it shocked me. In fact, I kind of wondered if it was another individual using his computer and his name and not really Cameron himself, because it sounded so unlike his typical posts. That’s what I was referring to when I was saying this to Cameron. I really have no interest in even attempting to debate him right now, the way he is acting- too annoying for me. I wonder if he comes here just to vent his frustrations?
Bethany,
Gotcha. Didnt mean to insult you then. I have to say it is incredibly annoying to watch someone selectively respond to not only certain posts, but certain parts of posts. I think the “selective” poster that Cameron is outweighs the normal troll in annoyance.
Yes, it really is incredibly annoying and I think that is his goal. I think he actually enjoys getting people riled up and annoyed. He does an EXCELLENT job at that, if that is his goal.
It is a little frustrating, but what is more frustrating is that anyone here thinks he is doing anything otherwise. I dont like Doug or Hal’s ideas too much, of course, but they should at least recognize that he is evasive when he has nothing to say, and understand that he is not REALLY trying to debate anything.
Ah, I wondered if this was the same Cameron that MK had told me about. Very good, Bethany.
Doyle,
“That’s a lame excuse even for a red herring argument.”
Please explain, if you can, in infinite grasp of redherrings, how it is not relevant to refute the asinine argument that women could chose to have the human race go extinct via abortion by pointing out that men can also chose as much by not having sex.
“ You know quite well that is totally irrelevant to my statement.”
How so?
Please try for just one fricken second to argue like an adult.
You know… support your vapid bare-assertions with an explanation or evidence.
“NO ONE should have the elective power of life or death over another innocent human being…. ”
Speaking of redherrings, is this supposed to explain that it is irrelevant of me to point out who has more or less rights when we’re arguing about who has more or less rights?
All you’re doing is arguing by omitting half the argument. There happen to be two competing rights in this argument, and you’re not exactly compelling if you have to pretend there is only one.
In fact, you’re humorously pathetic.
“No such conjecture was made,”
Now you’re denying that you argued by invoking extinction?
“See? It’s actually possible to refute someone’s arguments without sprinkling insults, LOL’s, etc, all through your post.”
I’m sorry, what did you refute?
All I see is you vacuously dismissing everything I’ve said without any explanation. Then you conclude by simply omiting that we’re talking about two competing rights.
LMAO
Folks, let’s not feed the troll anymore. He’s has all the troll traits: argumentative, dismissive, hi-jacking of threads, unresponsive to requests made of him, unwilling to try to see another’s viewpoint, insulting, and dragging others down to his level.
Let him have his fun during his break. He’ll go back to school soon enough, and no matter how ridiculous his comments, try to impress upon the NOW coed who won’t give him the time of day how he showed up all those ignorant pro-lifers.
Let’s leave the troll alone while the grown-ups talk shop, okay?
Let’s summarize…
The question was who else has this right to the unvolunteered body/organs of a donor?
Doyle, despite reality, argues that it is a recipe for extinction.
Oliver thinks its neglect even though neglect requires consent/acceptance of responsibility/obligation. I haven’t read anything else from him though since it became apparent that he’s so divorced from reality. So I may have missed something.
Kel and Bethany whine.
John can’t decide if he’s insisting on special rights for a fetus or if he thinks that we can take organs against people’s will.
Have I missed anything?
Sadly I agree with you Michael. I thought Cameron was just a ruder SoMG, but the truth is that he has little cognitive ability. Let him “LOL” himself through the holidays. When he decides to indiscriminately respond to every part of every post, not just the one he has a snarky comment for, then maybe we can engage him in a reasonable discussion.
Cameron: “Oliver thinks its neglect even though neglect requires consent/acceptance of responsibility/obligation. I haven’t read anything else from him though since it became apparent that he’s so divorced from reality. So I may have missed something.”
Dude be honest. You dont know what to say to my posts so you just automatically dismiss them. Ive addressed the question repeatedly. Neglect has nothing to do with consent, it has everything to do with who is responsible. No parent officially takes responsibility for their kid. It is a part of society. If a woman gives birth at home, she is still responsible for her child because she is the default caregiver.
You also missed the conjoined twins who cannot separate Cameron. They have the right to each others organs.
Also, I know I brought it up before and Cameron refused to address it, but if consent is necessary for responsibility, then why is it illegal for a mother to dump her child in a trashcan after an unwanted birth? She never accepted consent to mother that child, but the nature of the relationship gives her default caregiver status. This is the same for a pregnant woman.
Also, just to clear the air. I never refuted the status of adoption. I specifically stated that responsibility lies in the “default caregiver.” In the case of a pregnant woman, or a mother giving birth at home, or a mother taking her child home from the hospital, the parent is the default care-giver until a SUITABLE alternative is provided. As explained above, dumping the child in a trashcan is not suitable. Leaving the child at a fire station IS suitable. An abortion is not a suitable option anymore than tossing a child off a boat in mid journey, or leaving your newborn in a dumpster behind the highschool gym.
Oliver,
Nothing you wrote ever conveyed the message that you thought adoption should be illegal. I don’t think anyone was buying that accusation, even the troll himself. Just resist the urge to respond to the troll.
Oh I know. I just want to make sure it is clear what Cameron is doing. Apparently he left last time with people respecting him a tad. I dont really care if he makes stuff up, as long as he is called on it repeatedly so that it can never be said “that Cameron guy was one of the few well reasoned pro-choicers.”
It also helps of course that I dont have much work today and I havent posted in a while…
Thanks for the support :)
I agree. I think it is time to recognize Cameron’s tactics as those of a troll, and stop responding to them. No good can come from being drawn into non-sensical shouting matches.
I have to say that I appreciate Doug more and more here on this board. Doug, even though we disagree, I think you are a very likeable person and appreciate that you don’t talk down to those who disagree with you during a debate. Perhaps since you think Cameron’s doing such a fine job, maybe you might lend him a bit of your tact.
Thank you, Kel. To each their own, here….
Doug: “Hi Cameron, I gather that you’re the “original Cameron” here, and I think you’re doing a fine job.”
Oliver: Really Doug? Did you check out when he called me a liar when I paraphrased him perfectly? Did you check it out when he misapplied the logical fallacies of the “strawman” argument, and absence of evidence? Did you see when he just responded with absurd, possibly made up fallacies instead of addressing the arguments I have made?
Holy Crow, Oliver, I just meant he did a good job asking the question (from his point of view). We all make our own experience here. You’re taking it awfully seriously, seems to me.
Well I take it seriously when someone who has repeatedly lied and made stuff up gets any level of respect. Thats all. The way you phrased the sentence “I think you are doing a fine job” seemed to imply that you thought his entire time on the board was well done.
Oliver, you’re still taking it too seriously.
That of course it your opinion, to me this is one of the most important problems with our culture. I dont think you are taking it seriously enough.
You would have a goatee.
You know, I really, really hate those @$%$#*^%%
commercials they force you to look at for two minutes, but there’s a good article on WND:
WorldNetDaily
Today’s Baal worshipers
Exclusive: Matt Barber cites strikingly similarities between ‘progressives,’ child sacrificers
–WND
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83960