Imagine a world without Democrats?

It's completely moral to kill a pre birth human baby in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy upon demand by the mother.

It might also be sad...but life ain't perfect.

Your opinion shouldn't matter one bit because you'll never be pregnant.

And whaddya trying to do?.....derail your own thread?

 

The chance of getting pregnant from any single act of sex, consensual or otherwise, is so small that pregnancy cannot be considered an expected outcome.

It would be like saying that every time you get in your car, you are consenting to getting into an accident and therefore cannot do anything about it if it happens.

 

1. 100% percent correct. Rights end where another's begin. That means that a fetus's right to life ends where the mother's property rights begin. No one has the right to enslave another person to ensure their own survival.

2. The only legal methods of abortion should be those that remove the fetus intact from the mother. If it cannot survive in the outside world, then the only thing killing it is nature.

 

It is an assumed risk, don't be silly.

It would be like saying every time you drove drunk is more like it. Taking a known risk that may injure someone's life. In either event, in both cases when the accident happens the person is responsible. There are consequences to freedom.

 

Given the demographics, it's much easier to imagine a world without Republicans, but entertaining a fantasy in which dodo birds thrive and primates become extinct is much more of a mental challenge.

 

Where else in the law can you use deadly force to protect property?

Nature would see it born. The act of severance alone is violent. That is like saying we should just lock up felons in a cell and just let nature take its course. No food no water. After all no one is flipping the switch.

 

When birth control or other protective measures are taken that risk drops to such a minis how amount that consent to sex cannot be considered consent to getting pregnant any more than being a cautious driver means that you still consent to getting his by a drunk driver.

Either way, it is insignificant. If I allow someone to use my property, I have the right to change my mind and deny its use later.

 

Why would it be sad and moral at the same time? Don't pretend you didn't mean it, please just answer the question no need to dodge and spin.

- - - Updated - - -

You can't kill that person in order to evict them can you? Unless they pose a threat to your life?

Are people aware that BC doesn't always work? If so, and I think you will find this is the case, aren't they aware of the risk as well?

 

Then every town could be Detroit. Every city a Compton, every borough a Newark.

 

Driving cautiously doesn't prevent you from getting either, does that mean you have no recourse when someone does hit you?

Of course you don't have the right to kill someone to evict them, but if you send them out and they die later, then you aren't killing them.

That person does not have the right to enslave your property against your will to ensure their own survival.

 

You got it backwards. Just because you are driving cautiously doesn't mean when something goes wrong you aren't responsible. (It wasn't the baby's negligence.)

If I send my kid out in the wilderness in Montana did my act kill him? Or am I blameless?

That is not what slavery is at all. The use of the property was an assumed risk. Paying for consequences when you would prefer not too isn't slavery. We have lawsuits and judgments all the time in this country and the losers have to work to pay the winners and it wasnt voluntary.

Besides, deadly force is not an acceptable means to protect property. It is only justified to protect the person from death or deadly felony.

 

We're not talking about that. We're talking about a medical procedure performed in a hospital where the staff should and would take every action to try and save the fetus. If you dropped your kid off at an orphanage and they died, it wouldn't be your fault.

Then figure out a way for fetuses to take their mothers to court and vice versa.

What about when the property in question is your own body? You just basically argued that women can fight back against rape.

 

Jeeeeeezus......settle down there little fella!......

Abortions are saddening because it goes completely against the maternal instincts a mother has, and it is stressfull for them, and if you've ever seen the waiting room at an abortion clinic, you know what I'm talking about.

In the first and second trimester of pregnancy, baby killing by order of the mother is, and should be, completely legal, and not imoral in any way. That means it's not murder as well.

Please now proceed with your inevitable hasty and entirely innaccurate attemp to accuse me of being heartless and loving abortion

 

If the orphanage separate them from food and water would they be accountable? If they fail to care for the elderly, can they be sued? If there patients die because they haven't been given food or water, or if their IV isn't maintained?

The dead cannot go to court obviously. Are you referring to a cause of action for their next of kin to sue the mother? Like the father could sue? That sounds like a reasonable first step. Good call. If that isn't what you mean,did you mean that wrongful death lawsuits should be limited to only those cases where the victim can rise up from the dead and pursue their claim?

Yes. Against rape. At best you have an issue of an expired invitation case of trespassing. No where in our history has that property violation given a justification to use deadly force.

 

Why would it be against her maternal instincts? If it isn't a baby? Why would anyone feel guilty for living morally?

 

Again we aren't talking about that. For you situation to be accurate, the children would be given food, water, and medical care and then die anyway. If that happens is it the fault of the parents, the orphanage, or nature?

No deadly force involved. The only legal methods of abortion, as stated already, should be those that remove the fetus alive and intact.

 

No, an abortion is removing them from food and water and air. It isn't the same thing as caring for a child like you suggest at all.

Is it not force that is likely to lead to death? Because that is the standard.

Since those don't exist, and would require force with a high likelihood of death as a result are you against abortion? Or just how it is practiced in America now?

 

imagine a world without environmental rules & regulations.

imagine a world without workplace safety

imagine a world without a minimum wage.

imagine a world without child labor laws.

imagine a world without the FDA.

imagine a world without the FAA

imagine a world without labor laws.

......that's the world without Democrats.

 

Food, water, and air can be provided artificially through the use of machines.

If an insurance company/hospital turns someone down for a surgery that they would need to prevent death, has the insurance company/hospital initiated deadly force or is the person dying from natural causes?

They do currently exist. For instance, abortifacients that flush the fetus from the mother's body (IE the vast majority of abortions) do exactly that.

 

imagine a world without Social Security, Medicare, govt. funded EMS.

 

Because instinct causes us to do all manner of illogical things.

 

in a world without democrats... read 1984, give you a good idea of what a republican run country would be like

 

"America 2: Now With More Freedom - Glenn Beck's Utopia"

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/t...--now-with-more-freedom---glenn-beck-s-utopia

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/t...-now-with-more-freedom---a-glenn-beck-holiday
.

 

This thread and the majority of replies to it are really dumb.

I often find it hard to believe that there is a sizable amount of people here who honestly believe that all crime, poverty, economic stress and other problems are solely, 100% the fault of liberals and/or Democrats. That is a mindnumbingly stupid point of view.

 

They seem to have short memories or have rewritten history in their minds.