ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Page 3 of 82 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 813

Thread: Wanted: Discussion Board Moderators

  1. #21
    The newest thing from the left? Afterbirth abortions. After the baby is born it's still not a person since it's not self sustaining and completely self aware.
    Where did you hear or read about this? Very disturbing!!!

  2. #22
    Mommy, please don't kill me. Not so far fetched after all





    Here is one write up on it.

    This concept is the logical conclusion of the so-called pro-choice stance. The choice, based on terms subject to what's convenient at the time, leave it open to place anyone but the most self sufficient within the scope of being disposed of.
    This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

  3. #23
    Originally posted by davdah:
    Mommy, please don't kill me. Not so far fetched after all





    Here is one write up on it.

    This concept is the logical conclusion of the so-called pro-choice stance. The choice, based on terms subject to what's convenient at the time, leave it open to place anyone but the most self sufficient within the scope of being disposed of.
    The article won't pull up on my computer. Was it based on facts or was it someone's opinion? Late stage abortion is bothersome enough, but this is really disturbing. I don't care for abortion of any kind, but I believe in the very early stages, it is a woman's right to terminate (and a man's right to oppose, btw). But after there is a clear heartbeat and no crucial defects detected, abortion should not be allowed. There are plenty of people who want to adopt. That is the OPTION.

  4. #24
    It was an article in Australian magazine. Somebody (to be precise, two Australian academics ) wrote article in the Medical Ethics journal where they question why should every born baby live.
    Why they call it abortion I don't know. May be they are two straw men, like Brit for instance, who wrote such article to generate outrage against abortion by invoking non existent parallels. Or , could be just couple of Nietzsche fans that took his Zarathustra few steps further. Whatever it might be, it's not about abortion or right to choose.

  5. #25
    It is precisely about abortion. The entire article is about extending the 'right' to choose to beyond the moment of birth.

    Here are more links to articles on it.

    one

    two

    three

    four

    These sorts of things are how arguments are built upon for the most horrific of acts to be made acceptable. If any supporters of abortion could witness up close and first hand what it is they feel so passionately supportive of and still do so after the fact, it would without a doubt reveal the fact they have no morals or conscience what so ever. Do what you want with your own body. That child is no more the mothers body inside or outside.
    This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

  6. #26
    Originally posted by davdah:
    It is precisely about abortion. The entire article is about extending the 'right' to choose to beyond the moment of birth.

    Here are more links to articles on it.

    one

    two

    three

    four

    These sorts of things are how arguments are built upon for the most horrific of acts to be made acceptable. If any supporters of abortion could witness up close and first hand what it is they feel so passionately supportive of and still do so after the fact, it would without a doubt reveal the fact they have no morals or conscience what so ever. Do what you want with your own body. That child is no more the mothers body inside or outside.
    davdah,

    What if Brit tomorrow writes an article about "aborting" elderly retired people , the age 65 and above?
    Will his calling it "abortion" equate it to and embody it with meaning we accord to word "abortion" as understood in the context of Roe v Wade ruling of SCOTUS ?
    If anything, one can take it upon Brit to substantiate his rationale and define his moral compass, but to equate it to what "abortion" actually is (as understood by overwhelming majority and defined by highest court) is dishonest, to say the least.

    Finally, the greatest irony of pro-life and anti-abortion crowd is that they are the first in line to advocate for cutting any aid (including the hospital aid to give birth) when it comes to rearing the said child yet they want to force it down the throats of people to give birth and raise their children EVEN if there is clear understanding that the means to do so are lacking and child, if born, will not be given normal environment upon which it could grow into fully mature member of society.

    The abortion, as it takes place, should not be allowed past the point where , as Proud said, heart beats and child is already formed (and both parents have enough time ,before such stage is reached, to make a decision whether they are to keep the child or not). Abortion may also be necessary at any stage where there is a threat to the life of child bearing woman. What human being in his sound mind would argue against this? What man would want the woman dead for the sake of saving a fetus that hasn't been born yet ?

  7. #27
    Brit isn't consulted for policy. People like this group are. Their opinion shouldn't be so quickly disregarded.

    Show me where anti-baby killers are first in line to withdraw aid? That couldn't be further from the truth. An old an untrue argument. Not only that, what about the time period when there wasn't the level of medical care that exists now? Should all children have been aborted because medicine was absent? That's the conclusion of that point.

    A child is a child regardless where it is on the developmental path. The identifying features are vague early on but they are there. It is clearly human since no woman ever gave birth to something other than a person. Using that argument is like seeing a car accident from several blocks away. Not much is discernible and the impact of the carnage isn't apparent. It's not an accident because you can't see anything from where you're at. Removing the distance as a factor and the argument holds just as ignoring the natural development of a child to birth. That's the fallacy of the logic. Does it mean there is no accident or child? Of course not and just as ridiculous is the argument that it isn't a person.

    Pro-baby killers should at least have the conviction to accept on it's face what it is they favor. Watering down the result or diverting the motivation for their cause shows that it is plainly objectionable and illustrates their lack of humanity. It's not about a choice over what you do with your body. They know that and is why they use the terms they do to hide the truth further showing their inhumane conscience. It's not as if your getting a tattoo. Also disreputable but is unto the person themselves. It's a separate body and you're not destroying yourself. Killing children as a matter of convenience is what it is in 98% of the cases.
    This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

  8. #28
    Originally posted by davdah:
    Brit isn't consulted for policy. People like this group are. Their opinion shouldn't be so quickly disregarded.
    The dispute is not about who they are, but that what they are calling an abortion is anything but what anyone familiar with term knows it to be.

    I repeat: They (two Australian ) academics talk about something that they chose to call "abortion", but for all practical purposes what they talk about in an article is not what they call it.

    Let me give you an analogy:
    You support the right of people to bear arms.
    Someone decides to write an article about the right to kill for the fun of aggression and calls it
    "the right to self defense" in his article.
    You can't then use that article as a basis upon which to argue against right to bear arms or second amendment.

    Capiche?


    Show me where anti-baby killers are first in line to withdraw aid? That couldn't be further from the truth. An old an untrue argument.

    As far as I know so called anti-baby-killers are never supporting those who support for medical care or social care of people in need.

    Moreover, there is a new proposal out there which, if becomes law, will refuse any prenatal and hospital care to pregnant women. You can easily Google which group supports it. You will see how the group supporting this latest action is not much alienated from those who vehemently oppose any type of abortion , even if pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or may result in death of a woman.

    Not only that, what about the time period when there wasn't the level of medical care that exists now? Should all children have been aborted because medicine was absent? That's the conclusion of that point.
    But nobody said that kids in ancient times should all have been aborted since they had no modern medical care back then (which we, btw, have in our times).

    What I pointed out is the evident self-contradiction where one and same group will passionately oppose any kind of abortion, while just as passionately opposing for providing any means to raise the child they so strongly wish to be born and not aborted. It is inconsistent position, to say the least.


    A child is a child regardless where it is on the developmental path. The identifying features are vague early on but they are there. It is clearly human since no woman ever gave birth to something other than a person.
    Look, as far as I know nobody out there who supports Roe v Wade carries the banners with "Let's exterminate fetuses! Let's kill all babies before they are born!" That picture simply isn't born out of reality and belongs rather to fiction world.

    Two Australian article writers are just that - two Australian article writers (and who knows, they could even be setting up a straw man argument, just as Brit often does here).

    But as far as people who support woman's right to chose abortion on early stages of pregnancy or in emergency , none of these people (as far as I know) ever advocated giving a birth to a child in order to kill it.
    That just isn't there.


    Using that argument is like seeing a car accident from several blocks away. Not much is discernible and the impact of the carnage isn't apparent. It's not an accident because you can't see anything from where you're at. Removing the distance as a factor and the argument holds just as ignoring the natural development of a child to birth. That's the fallacy of the logic. Does it mean there is no accident or child? Of course not and just as ridiculous is the argument that it isn't a person.
    Macabre, gore or Gothic images do nothing to negate the fact that you are arguing against straw man argument and as Scooter would say "Gothic doesn't exist" I say that straw man argument of yours doesn't exist in circles of people who support Roe v Wade

    Here, som good ole song fer ya to chilax

    <span class="flash-video"><object codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0"
    classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"
    height="360"
    width="640"
    ><param name="allowScriptAccess"
    value="never"
    ></param><param name="wmode"
    value="transparent"
    ></param><param value="http://www.youtube.com/v/neqFpWDQ61w?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"
    name="movie"
    /><param value="true"
    /><param value="always"
    /><embed allowScriptAccess="never"
    pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"
    type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
    wmode="transparent"
    height="360"
    width="640"
    src="http://www.youtube.com/v/neqFpWDQ61w?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"
    /></object></span>


    Pro-baby killers should at least have the conviction to accept on it's face what it is they favor. Watering down the result or diverting the conclusion of their cause shows that it is plainly objectionable and illustrates their lack of humanity. Killing children as a matter of convenience. That's what provokes 98% of all abortions.
    See above.

  9. #29
    Look, as far as I know nobody out there who supports Roe v Wade carries the banners with "Let's exterminate fetuses! Let's kill all babies before they are born!" That picture simply isn't born out of reality and belongs rather to fiction world.

    Does the result have to be all encompassing before being realized a bad thing? Does 100 of 100 have to drop dead eating arsenic before you realize it's poison? Let's not dilute the potion. Roe v Wade is abortion which is killing babies at will. Why obfuscate the fact of what it is?


    Let me give you an analogy:
    You support the right of people to bear arms.
    Someone decides to write an article about the right to kill for the fun of aggression and calls it
    "the right to self defense" in his article.
    You can't then use that article as a basis upon which to argue against right to bear arms or second amendment.

    Capiche?

    The two are no where near connected. It's the purpose and result of the act that matters. To have a weapon doesn't presume a drive to exterminate for pleasure. It's primary purpose is to protect us from an encroaching government. To abort is the willful desire and act of killing children, nothing more or less. They merely want to extend the time line.

    That time period has been the subject of a push right up to partial birth. How much more in the way of word gymnastics would it take to go a little bit beyond that? Not much and once done, we're all at risk of being aborted. Does it make much of a difference between being in or out of the birth canal? Is the baby that much more a person after the trip? By making the moment inconsequential they can prolong the dehumanization. In my mind, it's the opposite. It's been a person since day one. Woman are supposed to be the guardians of that fragile young life. Not the destroyers of it.



    Capiche?
    This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

  10. #30
    Originally posted by davdah:
    Does the result have to be all encompassing before being realized a bad thing? Does 100 of 100 have to drop dead eating arsenic before you realize it's poison? Let's not dilute the potion. Roe v Wade is abortion which is killing babies at will. Why obfuscate the fact of what it is?
    This is a mere diversion and a straw man argument.
    Roe v Wade has "viability" embedded in the language of ruling and it doesn't come anywhere even remotely close to be associated with abortion after the live birth.


    The two are no where near connected. It's the purpose and result of the act that matters. To have a weapon doesn't presume a drive to exterminate for pleasure. It's primary purpose is to protect us from an encroaching government. To abort is the willful desire and act of killing children, nothing more or less. They merely want to extend the time line.
    The analogy hits the target and is right on point. Both use straw man argument technique.

    That time period has been the subject of a push right up to partial birth. How much more in the way of word gymnastics would it take to go a little bit beyond that? Not much and once done, we're all at risk of being aborted. Does it make much of a difference between being in or out of the birth canal? Is the baby that much more a person after the trip? By making the moment inconsequential they can prolong the dehumanization. In my mind, it's the opposite. It's been a person since day one. Woman are supposed to be the guardians of that fragile young life. Not the destroyers of it.
    The fact is that the two Australian academics talk about something that has nothing to do with abortion as understood in the context of Roe v Wade.

    Capiche?
    Capiche.

    <span class="flash-video"><object codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0"
    classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"
    width="640"
    height="360"
    ><param name="wmode"
    value="transparent"
    ></param><param name="allowScriptAccess"
    value="never"
    ></param><param value="transparent"
    /><param value="never"
    /><param name="movie"
    value="http://www.youtube.com/v/D3zhILf4IdY?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"
    /><param value="true"
    /><param value="always"
    /><embed allowScriptAccess="never"
    wmode="transparent"
    pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"
    type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
    src="http://www.youtube.com/v/D3zhILf4IdY?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"
    width="640"
    height="360"
    /></object></span>

Similar Threads

  1. May this discussion board
    By Don Fernandez in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-14-2012, 12:09 PM
  2. Discussion Board Changes
    By Webmaster@ILW.COM in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: 10-05-2006, 12:07 PM
  3. need for new discussion board???
    By in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-26-2003, 11:18 AM
  4. New discussion board
    By in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-21-2003, 05:53 AM
  5. Moderators please clean up this board.
    By in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-23-2002, 09:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: