Law School Discussion

Is abortion safer than childbirth?

brown

  • ****
  • 161
    • View Profile
Re: Is abortion safer than childbirth?
« Reply #40 on: April 12, 2007, 10:52:30 PM »
Life is hell.  Nonexistence is arguably more pleasant than existence even in the best of circumstances. 

clearly, you don't believe that.

Clearly?  False.  I do believe that.  What's your evidence to the contrary?



Here's the difference:  For a very long time, many, many fetuses have been viable since day one (in the womb).  This is the case today.  I'm not aware of any current asexual human reproduction.

Cite one instance that a viable baby was born after one day. 

Why?

Because you said many fetuses have been viable since day one.

Yes, in the womb (is what I said).

That's not what viability means.

1. My evidence is that you haven't killed yourself.  If you really believed it, you'd be gone by now.

2. The phrase, "viable outside the womb" is a used quite often.  I don't see why I can't say a fetus is viable inside the womb.

wannaB1L

  • ****
  • 752
  • Mike Nifong '08
    • View Profile
Re: Is abortion safer than childbirth?
« Reply #41 on: April 12, 2007, 10:55:38 PM »
Life is beautiful. I have come to look on pain, sorrow and heartache as being a fundamental and a beautiful part of life as happiness, and love and joy. I can remember as a young man being destroyed by something. But none of it mattered when I surfed until night. Saw that red sunset change colors a dozen times. I saw colors that have no names. I dropped in frontside and drove down the line. I saw the stars come out. And I knew that I had life, and there was a future. There were going to be years to come.

I don't believe in the liberal lie that all civilizations are equal. Also the Islamo-Fascists would first cut the throuts/ toss off of minarets the Liberals, communists, femminists, hippies, gays- and because I am a Republican and an American and a human- I think this would be wrong. Thus I have had enough of them- I say "Israel- bomb 'em into the stone age as they seem to have a stone age mentality. You cannot make peace with them- you tried and failed. So now it is time to beat them at their own game and fight fire with fire.

red herring indeed. apples and oranges. surgar and spice. there was a woman in Israel hit by a rocket on her balcony. Why shouldn't have Israel knocked out power and bridges and roads that helped their enemies? If someone came into my house and attacked me I would try to destroy them. Maybe an argument can be made against the nuking of Japan. that might be akin to killing the attacker, by firebombing his house while his children are home. But one must be able to do something. One must take a stand. What would you have done? Have the UN condemn the attacks on Israel? Now back to the topic (put red herring back into the freezer).

brown

  • ****
  • 161
    • View Profile
Re: Is abortion safer than childbirth?
« Reply #42 on: April 12, 2007, 11:01:57 PM »
Life is hell.  Nonexistence is arguably more pleasant than existence even in the best of circumstances. 

clearly, you don't believe that.

Clearly?  False.  I do believe that.  What's your evidence to the contrary?

My evidence is that you haven't killed yourself.  If you really believed it, you'd be gone by now.

False.

1.  See "arguably."
2.  Still doesn't follow.  Why not?  Because (a) it would be painful (and there is no guarantee of success--this is often the case, and tends to be disastrous) and (b) nonexistence can't be isolated (i.e. because I exist my future nonexistence through suicide, even if qualifying as nonexistence, would cause suffering for people I don't care to cause to suffer).

1. Well, if you really want to emphasize "arguably", then you're not saying much since most things are arguable.

2. Then you're back to my point where, at best, you can only decide that for yourself.

wannaB1L

  • ****
  • 752
  • Mike Nifong '08
    • View Profile
Re: Is abortion safer than childbirth?
« Reply #43 on: April 12, 2007, 11:10:54 PM »

red herring indeed. apples and oranges. surgar and spice. there was a woman in Israel hit by a rocket on her balcony. Why shouldn't have Israel knocked out power and bridges and roads that helped their enemies? If someone came into my house and attacked me I would try to destroy them. Maybe an argument can be made against the nuking of Japan. that might be akin to killing the attacker, by firebombing his house while his children are home. But one must be able to do something. One must take a stand. What would you have done? Have the UN condemn the attacks on Israel? Now back to the topic (put red herring back into the freezer).

Because you're a nazi fucktard?  That works for me.

So what's the difference if a baby dies in Iraq because of our ahem, help, compared to a few cells going flush?
enough red herrings- stick with the topic- but I will humor you one more time before me and my dog take our pisses. To stop a greater evil that gassed Kurdish villages, had women raped in front of their husbands, childrens ears cut off in front of parents, mass killing if Shia, Soccer teams shot for losing a game, paying Palestinian suicide bombers families, supporting terrorist like the one they found in Bagdad who was responsible for Achille Laurel, that had invaded his neighbors in the past, to stopp people that blow up families in market places. And Americans don't purposefully kill children. And when we do, we cry and we send them to our medics, and we even help the sick ones we find.

You see my friend killing is not the same as purposeful, willful murder. Now my dog and I are going outside for a pee, as we love life and the out of doors and nature...and we hate things unatural like killing babies just because.

there was a quote forgot by who something like this "There is nothing worse than war except for the mind that thinks that there is nothing worth fighting for."


brown

  • ****
  • 161
    • View Profile
Re: Is abortion safer than childbirth?
« Reply #44 on: April 12, 2007, 11:15:57 PM »
So if death is the worst possible outcome (which I don't buy) how does this weigh in against the answer to the initial question posed?   

Also, what's safer:  abortion or Aslan?

wannaB1L

  • ****
  • 752
  • Mike Nifong '08
    • View Profile
Re: Is abortion safer than childbirth?
« Reply #45 on: April 12, 2007, 11:18:23 PM »
and how many future babies will live because no more gassing villages, genocide against the Marsh Arabs, killing Kuwaiti children in hospitals, suicide bombings, no vicious uday and khusay to kill for another generation. We killed some innocent civilians in Germany, but we saved so many Jews and English babies. And in the long run we saved the Germans. PWND  

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Is abortion safer than childbirth?
« Reply #46 on: April 12, 2007, 11:30:14 PM »
and how many future babies will live because no more gassing villages, genocide against the Marsh Arabs, killing Kuwaiti children in hospitals, suicide bombings, no vicious uday and khusay to kill for another generation. We killed some innocent civilians in Germany, but we saved so many Jews and English babies. And in the long run we saved the Germans. PWND  

Oh, the veneration of human life!  Glory in God!

Good luck Israel and kick some a$$.



Quote
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
Indiscriminate Bombardment
By Kenneth Roth, Executive Director Human Rights Watch, published in Jerusalem Post

Why did so many Lebanese civilians lose their lives to Israeli bombing? The government line is that the IDF was doing the best it could, but these deaths were the result of Hizbullah hiding its rockets and fighters among civilians. But that assertion doesn't stand up to the facts.

Of course Hizbullah did sometimes hide among civilians, breaching its duty to do everything feasible to protect civilians and possibly committing the war crime of deliberate shielding, but that's not the full story.  
 
Human Rights Watch investigated some two dozen bombing incidents in Lebanon involving a third of the civilians who by then had been killed. In none of those cases was Hizbullah anywhere around at the time of the attack.  
 
How do we know? Through the same techniques we use in war zones around the world to cut through people's incentive to lie. We probed and cross-checked multiple eyewitnesses, many of whom talked openly of Hizbullah's presence elsewhere but were adamant that Hizbullah was not at the scene of the attack. We examined bombing sites for evidence of military activity such as trenches, destroyed rocket launchers and military equipment, or dead or wounded fighters. If we were unsure, we gave the IDF the benefit of the doubt.  
 
The case of Kana shows how this works. After two Israeli missiles killed 28 civilians in a house there on July 30, the IDF initially charged that Hizbullah had been firing rockets from the vicinity of the targeted house. But Human Rights Watch investigators who visited Kana found that there had been no Hizbullah presence near the bomb site at the time of the attack. IDF sources later admitted to an Israeli military correspondent that Hizbullah wasn't shooting at all from Kana that day.  
 
In some cases, the IDF trotted out video of Hizbullah firing rockets from a village. But it has yet to show that Hizbullah was in a civilian building or vehicle at the time of an Israeli attack that killed civilians. Blaming Hizbullah is simply not an honest explanation for why so many Lebanese civilians died. And without honest introspection, the IDF can't meet its duty and self-professed goal to do everything possible to spare civilians.  
 
Hizbullah certainly should not be let off the hook. Human Rights Watch has conducted detailed investigations of the militia's obvious war crimes - its deliberate efforts to kill Israeli civilians by indiscriminately targeting Israeli cities. Israel had every right to try to stop Hizbullah from raining death and destruction on its people. But under international humanitarian law, just as Israeli abuses in Lebanon did not justify reprisals against Israeli civilians, so Hizbullah's war crimes did not justify Israel shirking its duty to protect Lebanese civilians.  
 
So what was the cause of so many civilian deaths? The IDF seemed to assume that, because it gave warnings to civilians to evacuate southern Lebanon, anyone who remained was a Hizbullah fighter. When the IDF saw a civilian home or vehicle that Hizbullah might use, it often bombed, even if, as in Kana, Srifa, Marwahin, or Aitaroun, there was no evidence that Hizbullah was in fact using the structure or vehicle at the time of attack. In weighing the military advantage of an attack against the civilian cost, the IDF seemed to assume no civilian cost, because all the "innocent" civilians had supposedly fled. Through these calculations, the IDF effectively turned southern Lebanon into a free-fire zone.  
 
But giving warning, as required by international humanitarian law, does not relieve the attacker of the duty to distinguish between civilians and combatants and to target only combatants. Otherwise, Palestinian militants might "warn" Israeli settlers to leave their West Bank settlements and then be justified in attacking anyone who remained. Hizbullah might have done the same in northern Israel.  
 
Nor does an evacuation warning mean that all civilians did in fact flee. Many remained in southern Lebanon because of age, infirmity, inability to afford exorbitant taxi fares charged for evacuation, or fear of becoming yet another roadside casualty of IDF bombing. As a result, the IDF's indiscriminate bombardment had devastating consequences for civilians.  
 
So how should the IDF fight such a war? By complying with international humanitarian law. That means not treating southern Lebanon as a free-fire zone. It means attacking civilian structures and vehicles only if there is evidence that Hizbullah is actually using them. Even then, it means making serious efforts to determine whether civilian structures and vehicles contain civilians, and attacking only if the definite military advantage is so powerful that it justifies their deaths.  
 
Above all, it means treating Lebanese civilians as human beings whose lives are as valuable as Israelis'. Protecting Israelis from Hizbullah's deadly rockets is vital, but it does not justify indifference to the taking of civilian lives on the other side of the border.  
 
August 20, 2006  

wannaB1L

  • ****
  • 752
  • Mike Nifong '08
    • View Profile
Re: Is abortion safer than childbirth?
« Reply #47 on: April 12, 2007, 11:32:37 PM »
I have lived in an orphanage overseas, in a country that makes Mexico look rich. I have a maternal grandfather that was an orphan. My uncle adopted a druggies 4 yr old child, my lil brother was adopted by my parents, my exgirlfriends mom was adopted by a super rich Stanford educated family, I worked on a poor Indian reservation with children whose parents were 50% druggies and alcoholics. All these people were happy to be alive. Life was not perfect for them all, but it was life!!! Life is precious. Abortion is murder.

wannaB1L

  • ****
  • 752
  • Mike Nifong '08
    • View Profile
Re: Is abortion safer than childbirth?
« Reply #48 on: April 12, 2007, 11:37:15 PM »
how many thousands of children died because we attacked the Fatherland? Again differant than purposeful willful murder. See post above for same answer that you cannot answer. PWND Good night 1136 on westcoast.

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Is abortion safer than childbirth?
« Reply #49 on: April 12, 2007, 11:37:59 PM »