A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Faun]

Yet, when it comes to viability, you completely ignore the science.

Because there is no scientific formula for viability. It's totally subjective and abstract. The forum is totally open for you to make your case... so far, all you've presented is the medical definition of "viable" which is also subjective and abstract.

Which is just another reason we leave that determination to be left up to the woman facing that choice.

 

[Rambunctious]

no one has the right to dictate to others that they behave in accordance with one's personal moral opinions.

dictate? no persuade yes....you won't do much persuading by watering down the event. Call it as it is.

Except you guys don't want to "persuade". You want to pass laws dictating behaviour.

The only thing you want to "persuade" anyone of is the moral appropriateness of your dictates.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I'm not you guys....

 

[Boss]

Yet, when it comes to viability, you completely ignore the science.

Because there is no scientific formula for viability. It's totally subjective and abstract. The forum is totally open for you to make your case... so far, all you've presented is the medical definition of "viable" which is also subjective and abstract.

Which is just another reason we leave that determination to be left up to the woman facing that choice.

Sorry, not a good enough reason for me. There is another human being involved and someone needs to speak for them because they can't speak for themselves. It might help if you think of me as the Frederick Douglass of the unborn.

Women shouldn't ever have the choice to arbitrarily kill another human being. We don't allow anyone else in society to have that choice... why is that acceptable here? Because of a little inconvenience? Because of vanity? Because you've justified it by using arbitrary and abstract concepts that have nothing to do with what constitutes a human being and human life?

Or... maybe it's because you think that you're "helping" someone by enabling this despicable human activity? You have developed some fake stereotype in your mind that you apply to every abortion case... it's always the poor unfortunate soul who shouldn't be burdened by force of law to do something they don't want to do.... it's NEVER considering the millions of women who suffer life-long depression and sometimes suicide, coping (or not) with what they did in the heat of the moment as you cheered them on.

 

[Faun]

Yet, when it comes to viability, you completely ignore the science.

Because there is no scientific formula for viability. It's totally subjective and abstract. The forum is totally open for you to make your case... so far, all you've presented is the medical definition of "viable" which is also subjective and abstract.

Which is just another reason we leave that determination to be left up to the woman facing that choice.

Sorry, not a good enough reason for me.

That's ok -- you don't matter.

Your opinion is not heard and no woman has to consider it. As I said -- the woman carrying the child gets to make that choice. You? Well you get to bitch and moan about it.

 

[Boss]

That's ok -- you don't matter.

Your opinion is not heard and no woman has to consider it. As I said -- the woman carrying the child gets to make that choice. You? Well you get to bitch and moan about it.

But I DO matter... just as everyone in America matters. As I said, if you want to reduce this debate to what current laws and SCOTUS rulings allow then you win every time. I can't refute that argument. Just because it's legal for women to kill their babies now doesn't mean it always will be or that it's right for it to be. You don't get the exclusive on right and wrong here.. we're a civil society, we make these decisions as a whole.

I would like to thank you for demonstrating why people with your mindset should never be allowed to have any political power. You turn into a control freak, you can't handle it. You want to dictate what everyone must tolerate and refuse to acknowledge their opinions.

 

[Boss]

Guys, you can defend this shit all you like but you'll not change my mind about it. I had a close personal friend who committed suicide a few years ago. She went through about 12 years of painful depression following an abortion she had at age 16. She was pressured into the decision by her parents. Her dad was a city manager and her mom was the town socialite. They couldn't bear the "scandal" of their young daughter being "knocked up" and they convinced her that it was best she have an abortion.

We talked frequently about it. She agonized over what she did and it didn't matter how much anyone tried to console her or help her cope. She couldn't cope with what she did. Her life spiraled out of control as her friends and family watched in horror and she eventually ended it. I think to myself, if it hadn't been so easy to get the abortion... if she had to undergo some counselling or even have counselling with her parents... if people could have somehow prepared her for how she was going to feel about this afterward... if someone could have reasoned with her mom and dad... but no... the laws were clear, she had the choice and nothing was there to stop her or give her pause. Her mom rushed her in, wham-bam-thank-you-mam... no more pregnancy... and she was left to deal with it.

You have no idea how much of this sort of thing you are causing and frankly, I don't think any of your really give two shits. This is one of your little liberal sacred "causes" and you'll die on this mountain before you ever see the light. All that matters to you is that you remain defiant and refuse to see any other side to this issue. Consequences be damned!

 

[Chuz Life]

Tell us again, how it is liberals who ignore science, and medicine?

It is liberals who ignore science and medicine. They deny that a fetus or embryo is even a human being. They want to apply caveats and artificial abstract concepts to the human being to make it less than human. They want to deny the most basic human rights to the most precious and innocent human life of all... and simply, for the sake of vanity and convenience.

Yet, when it comes to viability, you completely ignore the science. Why do you hate science?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Our fetal homicide laws make it a crime of murder to kill a prenatal child in a criminal act. The laws says absolutely nothing about viability.

Proof positive that the whole viability aspect is a red herring.

Except except every one of those laws specifically exclude abortion, and specifically restrict their definitions to be only applicable during the course of a violent crime, making the fetal homicide laws the red herring.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Why does the Oxford Dictionary use "with child" to refer to a pregnancy?

And as for viability. . .

As another posted earlier. It's all relative and it's still a red herring.

As for the exceptions that our fetal homicide laws (for now) make to keep abortions legal. . . Think about what precedent that sets for a minute or two. That a fetal HOMICIDE law has to make and EXCEPTION to keep abortions legal.

Your house of cards is falling.

 

[Czernobog]

LMAO... there is nothing "metaphysical" about physical state of being.

Bullshit! It's like defining Red as "The essence of redness". While that may be a definition, it is a definition without substance, or meaning. It is a definition of a four-year-old.

Okay. A fetus is genetically human. It is "in a state of being". A cancer cluster is both of those things. Should we call a cancer cluster a "human being", and determine that it is murder to destroy it?

 

[Czernobog]

Tell us again, how it is liberals who ignore science, and medicine?

It is liberals who ignore science and medicine. They deny that a fetus or embryo is even a human being. They want to apply caveats and artificial abstract concepts to the human being to make it less than human. They want to deny the most basic human rights to the most precious and innocent human life of all... and simply, for the sake of vanity and convenience.

Yet, when it comes to viability, you completely ignore the science. Why do you hate science?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Our fetal homicide laws make it a crime of murder to kill a prenatal child in a criminal act. The laws says absolutely nothing about viability.

Proof positive that the whole viability aspect is a red herring.

Except except every one of those laws specifically exclude abortion, and specifically restrict their definitions to be only applicable during the course of a violent crime, making the fetal homicide laws the red herring.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Why does the Oxford Dictionary use "with child" to refer to a pregnancy?

And as for viability. . .

As another posted earlier. It's all relative and it's still a red herring.

As for the exceptions that our fetal homicide laws (for now) make to keep abortions legal. . . Think about what precedent that sets for a minute or two. That a fetal HOMICIDE law has to make and EXCEPTION to keep abortions legal.

Your house of cards is falling.

Of course you insist that it is relative, because you want to believe that a cluster of cells no bigger than the thumb, completely indistinguishable - that is what a two-week old fetus is - is synonymous with a living, breathing child. You guys like visual aids so much:

Tell us again how this:

is synonymous with this:

?

And, tell us, again, how this:

is even capable of, let alone deserves, the right of "self-determination"?

Sorry. I have said before, and will always maintain, I will always, put the rights of an actual person over those of a potential person, every time.

 

[Chuz Life]

LMAO... there is nothing "metaphysical" about physical state of being.

Bullshit! It's like defining Red as "The essence of redness". While that may be a definition, it is a definition without substance, or meaning. It is a definition of a four-year-old.

Okay. A fetus is genetically human. It is "in a state of being". A cancer cluster is both of those things. Should we call a cancer cluster a "human being", and determine that it is murder to destroy it?

The fatal flaw in your imagined dilemma is that you ignore the fact that scientists, doctors, lawmakers and even most high school grads can determine the differences between an actual human organism created in a reproductive process and a clump of cancer cells.

 

[Chuz Life]

It is liberals who ignore science and medicine. They deny that a fetus or embryo is even a human being. They want to apply caveats and artificial abstract concepts to the human being to make it less than human. They want to deny the most basic human rights to the most precious and innocent human life of all... and simply, for the sake of vanity and convenience.

Yet, when it comes to viability, you completely ignore the science. Why do you hate science?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Our fetal homicide laws make it a crime of murder to kill a prenatal child in a criminal act. The laws says absolutely nothing about viability.

Proof positive that the whole viability aspect is a red herring.

Except except every one of those laws specifically exclude abortion, and specifically restrict their definitions to be only applicable during the course of a violent crime, making the fetal homicide laws the red herring.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Why does the Oxford Dictionary use "with child" to refer to a pregnancy?

And as for viability. . .

As another posted earlier. It's all relative and it's still a red herring.

As for the exceptions that our fetal homicide laws (for now) make to keep abortions legal. . . Think about what precedent that sets for a minute or two. That a fetal HOMICIDE law has to make and EXCEPTION to keep abortions legal.

Your house of cards is falling.

Of course you insist that it is relative, because you want to believe that a cluster of cells no bigger than the thumb, completely indistinguishable - that is what a two-week old fetus is - is synonymous with a living, breathing child. You guys like visual aids so much:

Tell us again how this:

is synonymous with this:

?

And, tell us, again, how this:

is even capable of, let alone deserves, the right of "self-determination"?

Sorry. I have said before, and will always maintain, I will always, put the rights of an actual person over those of a potential person, every time.

Though it is not actually possible that all those are images of the same child.

Conceptually, they "could" be.

The older child that is pictured was just like those in the earlier stages.

Just as you were and so was I.

 

[Conservative65]

It's word for word what you said.

No it's not. Quote me, complete with the post link.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Post #591 -

What we believe is that the responsibility of each citizen of a nation to share in the funding of the government of that nation

These are your words.

Yup. Go back and read my last post. I discovered my error, and even offered you an apology. I'll wait...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your position is still false. You say "who have an income". Low INCOME workers still have an income. Based on your corrected statement, should they be responsible for helping fund the government of the nation. If they get back everything at the end of the year, they aren't paying taxes. The end result is zero tax liability. If you buy something, meaning you spent money, then return it and get back the same amount you paid, you didn't pay anything. If you have money taken out in taxes but get it all back in the end, you didn't pay anything. On top of that, not only do they get it all back, many get more back than they had taken out.

A family of four doesn't pay a dime in income taxes until the gross family income is near $50,000 and that's twice what is considered the poverty rate for that size family. They don't have to do anything but be a family of 4 in order to not pay. Hardly poor.

I addressed that. They are fulfilling their obligation. Just because the government decided they needed that money more than the government did, that does not negate their meeting their obligation as citizens.

Incidentally, I'm now kinda curious what your annual income is. Because, speaking as one of those families under 50 grand, I can tell you that 50 grand annually isn't a great deal of money. We make 30+ (how much, specifically, is irrelevant), and we are still living paycheck to paycheck...barely.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

If, as you say, they have a responsibility to help fund the government of the nation and they aren't helping fund it, they aren't being doing what you say they should do. When the result of their funding is zero, they provide nothing to society, something you say each citizen, with the added part about with an income, should do.

I noticed you didn't address the fact that many of those not paying a dime get more back than they had taken out. Who do you think pays that?

I see, you're one of those not paying a dime to help fund the government of the nation, yet believes you actually are doing your part. Since what you put in is nothing, the amount of your contribution to society is nothing.

Whether or not 50 grand is enough is a matter of opinion. That's not the issue. 50 grand is over 2x the level of what is considered poverty and still no income taxes are paid.

Not my problem your financial situation isn't the best. However, since you make an income and YOU said those making an income have the responsibility of helping fund the government of the nation, when are you going to start doing what YOU said should be done?

 

[Faun]

That's ok -- you don't matter.

Your opinion is not heard and no woman has to consider it. As I said -- the woman carrying the child gets to make that choice. You? Well you get to bitch and moan about it.

But I DO matter... just as everyone in America matters. As I said, if you want to reduce this debate to what current laws and SCOTUS rulings allow then you win every time. I can't refute that argument. Just because it's legal for women to kill their babies now doesn't mean it always will be or that it's right for it to be. You don't get the exclusive on right and wrong here.. we're a civil society, we make these decisions as a whole.

I would like to thank you for demonstrating why people with your mindset should never be allowed to have any political power. You turn into a control freak, you can't handle it. You want to dictate what everyone must tolerate and refuse to acknowledge their opinions.

Despite your diatribe, your opinion still doesn't matter. Women have the right to choose for themselves. They always have and they always will. You lose this argument every time because you never will be able to tell women what to do with their own bodies. Being a conservative means you're too fucked in the head to not grasp that reality.

So you bleat on.

 

[Czernobog]

No it's not. Quote me, complete with the post link.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Post #591 -

What we believe is that the responsibility of each citizen of a nation to share in the funding of the government of that nation

These are your words.

Yup. Go back and read my last post. I discovered my error, and even offered you an apology. I'll wait...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your position is still false. You say "who have an income". Low INCOME workers still have an income. Based on your corrected statement, should they be responsible for helping fund the government of the nation. If they get back everything at the end of the year, they aren't paying taxes. The end result is zero tax liability. If you buy something, meaning you spent money, then return it and get back the same amount you paid, you didn't pay anything. If you have money taken out in taxes but get it all back in the end, you didn't pay anything. On top of that, not only do they get it all back, many get more back than they had taken out.

A family of four doesn't pay a dime in income taxes until the gross family income is near $50,000 and that's twice what is considered the poverty rate for that size family. They don't have to do anything but be a family of 4 in order to not pay. Hardly poor.

I addressed that. They are fulfilling their obligation. Just because the government decided they needed that money more than the government did, that does not negate their meeting their obligation as citizens.

Incidentally, I'm now kinda curious what your annual income is. Because, speaking as one of those families under 50 grand, I can tell you that 50 grand annually isn't a great deal of money. We make 30+ (how much, specifically, is irrelevant), and we are still living paycheck to paycheck...barely.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

If, as you say, they have a responsibility to help fund the government of the nation and they aren't helping fund it, they aren't being doing what you say they should do. When the result of their funding is zero, they provide nothing to society, something you say each citizen, with the added part about with an income, should do.

I noticed you didn't address the fact that many of those not paying a dime get more back than they had taken out. Who do you think pays that?

I see, you're one of those not paying a dime to help fund the government of the nation, yet believes you actually are doing your part. Since what you put in is nothing, the amount of your contribution to society is nothing.

Whether or not 50 grand is enough is a matter of opinion. That's not the issue. 50 grand is over 2x the level of what is considered poverty and still no income taxes are paid.

Not my problem your financial situation isn't the best. However, since you make an income and YOU said those making an income have the responsibility of helping fund the government of the nation, when are you going to start doing what YOU said should be done?

I do...ya know what? How about you tell me what taxes have to do with abortion, and I'll be happy to continue following this rabbit trail. Otherwise, how about you get back on the topic.

You wanna discuss the tax code? Start a thread. This discussion is about abortion.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Yet, when it comes to viability, you completely ignore the science. Why do you hate science?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Our fetal homicide laws make it a crime of murder to kill a prenatal child in a criminal act. The laws says absolutely nothing about viability.

Proof positive that the whole viability aspect is a red herring.

Except except every one of those laws specifically exclude abortion, and specifically restrict their definitions to be only applicable during the course of a violent crime, making the fetal homicide laws the red herring.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Why does the Oxford Dictionary use "with child" to refer to a pregnancy?

And as for viability. . .

As another posted earlier. It's all relative and it's still a red herring.

As for the exceptions that our fetal homicide laws (for now) make to keep abortions legal. . . Think about what precedent that sets for a minute or two. That a fetal HOMICIDE law has to make and EXCEPTION to keep abortions legal.

Your house of cards is falling.

Of course you insist that it is relative, because you want to believe that a cluster of cells no bigger than the thumb, completely indistinguishable - that is what a two-week old fetus is - is synonymous with a living, breathing child. You guys like visual aids so much:

Tell us again how this:

is synonymous with this:

?

And, tell us, again, how this:

is even capable of, let alone deserves, the right of "self-determination"?

Sorry. I have said before, and will always maintain, I will always, put the rights of an actual person over those of a potential person, every time.

Though it is not actually possible that all those are images of the same child.

Conceptually, they "could" be.

The older child that is pictured was just like those in the earlier stages.

Just as you were and so was I.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked. This isn't about abstract concepts; it is about reality. And the reality is that a fetus is not a baby, as the images clearly demonstrate.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

LMAO... there is nothing "metaphysical" about physical state of being.

Bullshit! It's like defining Red as "The essence of redness". While that may be a definition, it is a definition without substance, or meaning. It is a definition of a four-year-old.

Okay. A fetus is genetically human. It is "in a state of being". A cancer cluster is both of those things. Should we call a cancer cluster a "human being", and determine that it is murder to destroy it?

The fatal flaw in your imagined dilemma is that you ignore the fact that scientists, doctors, lawmakers and even most high school grads can determine the differences between an actual human organism created in a reproductive process and a clump of cancer cells.

They also define the difference between viable, and non-viable. You want to ignore those definitions, so why shouldn't I ignore yours?

By your standards cancer has just as much right to live as a fetus.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Jack4jill]

Non-person (without luck and time)

Person. Congrats, baby, you made it. Common sense.

 

[chikenwing]

LMAO... there is nothing "metaphysical" about physical state of being.

Bullshit! It's like defining Red as "The essence of redness". While that may be a definition, it is a definition without substance, or meaning. It is a definition of a four-year-old.

Okay. A fetus is genetically human. It is "in a state of being". A cancer cluster is both of those things. Should we call a cancer cluster a "human being", and determine that it is murder to destroy it?

Still grasping desperately at this point,your an idiot if you think you can compare a cancer tumor ,with a developing human .there you got called a name again you earned it.you should stop,your not winning

 

[Chuz Life]

Our fetal homicide laws make it a crime of murder to kill a prenatal child in a criminal act. The laws says absolutely nothing about viability.

Proof positive that the whole viability aspect is a red herring.

Except except every one of those laws specifically exclude abortion, and specifically restrict their definitions to be only applicable during the course of a violent crime, making the fetal homicide laws the red herring.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Why does the Oxford Dictionary use "with child" to refer to a pregnancy?

And as for viability. . .

As another posted earlier. It's all relative and it's still a red herring.

As for the exceptions that our fetal homicide laws (for now) make to keep abortions legal. . . Think about what precedent that sets for a minute or two. That a fetal HOMICIDE law has to make and EXCEPTION to keep abortions legal.

Your house of cards is falling.

Of course you insist that it is relative, because you want to believe that a cluster of cells no bigger than the thumb, completely indistinguishable - that is what a two-week old fetus is - is synonymous with a living, breathing child. You guys like visual aids so much:

Tell us again how this:

is synonymous with this:

?

And, tell us, again, how this:

is even capable of, let alone deserves, the right of "self-determination"?

Sorry. I have said before, and will always maintain, I will always, put the rights of an actual person over those of a potential person, every time.

Though it is not actually possible that all those are images of the same child.

Conceptually, they "could" be.

The older child that is pictured was just like those in the earlier stages.

Just as you were and so was I.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked. This isn't about abstract concepts; it is about reality. And the reality is that a fetus is not a baby, as the images clearly demonstrate.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Again even the dictionary and legal definitions already refute your denials.

This is why you get absolutely no respect from your opponents. You can not or will not even concede the points that have long been established in simple things like dictionary definitions.

 

[Czernobog]

LMAO... there is nothing "metaphysical" about physical state of being.

Bullshit! It's like defining Red as "The essence of redness". While that may be a definition, it is a definition without substance, or meaning. It is a definition of a four-year-old.

Okay. A fetus is genetically human. It is "in a state of being". A cancer cluster is both of those things. Should we call a cancer cluster a "human being", and determine that it is murder to destroy it?

Still grasping desperately at this point,your an idiot if you think you can compare a cancer tumor ,with a developing human .there you got called a name again you earned it.you should stop,your not winning

Neither are you. Kinda the point. You are absolutely convinced of your position. So am I. Neither of us are going to convince the other.

My only point is, and always has been that the government should not pass laws based on either of our opinions. Government should stay out of it, and let each individual come to their own conclusion.

I am not suggesting that you do not have a right to try to convince someone who is considering an abortion that they are, in your opinion, making a mistake. Only that you should not be able to use laws to force them to comply with your position.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk