Hear Hear!

Well said good sir...

I showed these videos to my girl, wh is a L&D Nurse Practioner (Masters of Science in Nursing), and she said that the part about the crushing of the head was completely bogus, and most likely added to make it more dramatic.

I think it is also made obvious that this guy is really biased because he keeps refering to the fetus as 'the child'.

Tadpole,

You keep referring to parasitic organisms in this debate. So here's a something to ponder. Those people who rely upon welfare are parasitic organisms. They depend upon the work and taxes of others in order to receive money. Do we have the right to kill them??? Think of the money we could save, since 1960 we have spent almost 7 trillion dollars on the War on Poverty. Since these people really have no quality of life to begin with, and seeing how the Courts in the Teri Schiavo case weighed heavily upon her supposed quality of life, it seems like the perfect solution to ending poverty.

Hev,

You are always looking for an argument from someone who oppose abortion that is not based on our morality because of our religious beliefs. How about this:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It would seem that the Constitution was established to protect the liberties of even those who had not yet been born. All too often we forget that the Constitution was established with an understanding that it established a social contract between the living, the dead, and those yet to be born. Since the Constitution was ordained to secure the blessings of liberty, and the 5th Amendment guarantees the no one should be deprived of life without due process, I could argue that abortion is therefore illegal under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, and furthermore, through the incorporation of the 14th Amendment due process clause this protection extends to the States.

How about that, a Constitutional argument against abortion without the use of morality.

dmk

Bad bad argument.

An infant is a parasytic organism inside an individual's body. That individual has the right to nurture it or remove it as she sees fit. People on welfare may be parasites on society (your opinion, not mine) but that is an entirely different issue. I am speaking from a clinical medical position, you are speaking from a philosophical one. Your argument just holds no water at all.

That wouldn't work in court and it doesn't work here. If our Constitution truly addressed the rights of a fetus it wouldn't be vague about the matter. You are grasping for something that isn't there.

Videos like that always display worst case scenerios (see anything by PETA). But there is some truth behind what is shown, I'll give you that.

Is one human fetus equal to a million fully-developed animals, facing the butcher or laying down on the vivisection table? I'd most definately say no, but no one thinks of animals as anything other than food. And where does half of that 'food' end up by the end of the day? The dumpster; you want to talk about a waste of innocent life?

Every woman heading for the clinic has the power to make her own decisions, and you are in absolutely no position (nor is anyone else) to tell any woman what is right or wrong when it comes to how she deals with her body, no matter how she uses it, and no matter what she harbors in it.

What God said doesn't matter to anyone who doesn't follow that belief.

par·a·site n.

Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.

One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.

A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.

My argument is just the next logical evolution of your very own argument. I used the medical definition of parasite, very clinical in its form and appliance. My application of the word also utilized the definitions of the word outside of its clinical usage. You just don't like the argument now. The fact is that it is not a bad argument, but used properly just shows the fallacy of your own.

dmk

Really, then explain how the right of privacy can be found in the pneumbras of the Constitution. By your very argument, the so-called right of privacy does not exist, that being the case, the right to choice is also null and void, and this debate would not be occuring. We can find the liberal rights in the pneumbras, but when a conservative uses the same pneumbras we are being vague and grasping at something that isn't there, talk about hypocrisy. This just goes to prove the point, if its not there, its not there and henceforth does not exist.

dmk

Wow, I really thought you were smarter than that. I have given you way too much credit on this argument.

Your argument IS a bad one, not because I don't like it, but because it has little to no relevance to my argument. It is NOT the logical evolution of my argument. You see my argument is based on the idea that the individual mother has the right to chose what she allows to happen to her own body. We as a society do not have the right to kill people who are a drain, that's just wrong, because those people have rights themselves. I am arguing that a fetus, is not a person and has no rights. In my opinion until you have emerged from the womb, you have no rights that your mother does not grant you. Period.

I'm not sure why you switched the argument to the right of privacy, but I have a few theories.

The right for a woman to choose what to do with her body isn't going anywhere in this country, no matter how much Christians whine about it, or how much you try to twist the constitution.