Let us argue about abortion

[NYcarbineer]

The mother of the abortion movement believed in Eugenics.....getting rid of blacks and other unwanted people in this country. This isn't on the Planned Parenthood brochures....

That's not only nonsense but irrelevant. Abortion was legal in the colonies in the 18th century.

They didn't have laws making it illegal because they didn't conceive of women aborting themselves en masse. Plus very few people got pregnant before they were married.

Adultery was a crime, and women were punished for it.

They made it illegal in the 19th century for fear that the 19th century wave of Catholic immigration was going to overrun the country.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Democraps always claim the GOP is going to ban abortion.....Bush is more right-wing than Romney and didn't ban abortion.

Abortion will be limited to incest, rape and major medical problems...but never banned. The morning after pill will be legal forever.

Pro-life people want abortions for "convenience" stopped.

Uh, BS.....obamination won because he promised free stuff and the scum want obamacare to come save them in their demented minds.

Most people knew Romney would not ban abortion, he would limit taxpayer funding of it but he wasn't going to ban it.

Partly. He also won because the simple-minded out there believe that Romney was coming after their wombs. There are many many millions of "undecideds" that only chose democrats because of the abortion issue. Fact.

Nonsense. The GOP is actively trying to ban abortion at the state level, with real measures and real legislation.

 

[PredFan]

Democraps always claim the GOP is going to ban abortion.....Bush is more right-wing than Romney and didn't ban abortion.

Abortion will be limited to incest, rape and major medical problems...but never banned. The morning after pill will be legal forever.

Pro-life people want abortions for "convenience" stopped.

Partly. He also won because the simple-minded out there believe that Romney was coming after their wombs. There are many many millions of "undecideds" that only chose democrats because of the abortion issue. Fact.

Nonsense. The GOP is actively trying to ban abortion at the state level, with real measures and real legislation.

Incorrect. Some members of the GOP are trying to.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A kidney is not a "life".

Neither is a formless mass of cells. But you seem to like those an awful lot.

Actually, I just like science and truth. When you show me a kidney that, left in its natural environment, eventually becomes what even you admit is a breathing human being you will force me to concede that you won this particular debate on points. Until then, I will stick to the incontrovertible fact that a kidney is not a human being, and a fetus is.

An unborn child is a complete individual human being.

At what point does this come to pass?

You tell me, you are the one that thinks there is a difference between a child in the womb of a woman who "chooses" not to keep it and one who does. Personally, I think it is easier to treat both of the exactly the same.

It has everything it will need to move through each stage of its life. It takes an outside force to kill it once its life begins.

Okay, I'm not going any farther than this. You apparently need to learn some biology 101.[/QUOTE]

What part of biology 101 taught you that life is not life simply because you are incapable of admitting you are wrong?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What have the pro abortion crowd at Slate been worrying about lately? They have decided to admit the pro life crowd is right, and declare that it doesn't matter if abortion is murder because the babies aren't important.

Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

So what if abortion ends life? - Salon.com

a plant has life. a fetus is not a fully developed human being. it's not fully human

What makes a fetus that the mother decides to abort at, say, 25 weeks different from a premature baby born at the same time? The only real difference, other than the mother being selfish, is one of location, not science, since babies as young as 22 weeks have proven themselves viable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What have the pro abortion crowd at Slate been worrying about lately? They have decided to admit the pro life crowd is right, and declare that it doesn't matter if abortion is murder because the babies aren't important.

Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

So what if abortion ends life? - Salon.com

"A fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides".

This is a true statement. Do you have the same rights as a 10 year old? No. Do you have the same rights as a person on death row? No.
Even if fetuses were people, they still wouldn't have the same rights.

If your friend gets pregnant after a long struggle, and ends up having a miscarriage, would you tell her it wasn't really a baby? If not, your argument is based on situational ethics, not reality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The "host" argument is a canard*. A kidney is not a "life". An unborn child is a complete individual human being. It has everything it will need to move through each stage of its life. It takes an outside force to kill it once its life begins. That force can be organic or it can be inorganic. But either way it is no mere piece of living tissue- GAWD but you people are brutal wicked killers aren't you.

A child without a caretaker cannot survive outside the womb either*.

If an unborn fetus were a complete individual human being, it wouldn't require a biological link to an actual complete human being to survive. If it were complete it could go wireless.

Welcome back dumber than dirt.

If we were to apply your argument to everything then computers would be the property of the electric company, not the people who fork over the money to purchase them. There are numerous real life examples of organisms that exist in symbiosis or parasitic environments. The mere existence of such a bond does not support the point you are trying to make.

Which is why progressives have no problem with killing young children. You won't ever see them get worked up over children dying. It's always a price they're willing to pay. They wouldn't care if gunmen walked into every school and stated they were targeting unarmed schools before shooting all the kids down...they still would refuse to allow us to protect our children.

So you can see, the age has nothing to do with it.

You're rather moronic if you think any political group in this country believes children dying is acceptable. The fact that you even went to such terrible and ridiculous extremes reveals your blindness.

Remember that the next time you try to argue that someone who doesn't agree with you about something is killing the children.

Forget it, I would rather rub your nose in your stupidity when you forget.

Your kidney is not human life.

Nor will it ever form into a living, breathing, eating, thinking human being....The forming begins at the moment of conception.....It IS human life.

You can claim the forming begins when the sperm and egg begin to mature. Really, what other American rights do you feel should be bestowed upon a 2 celled clump? Do fetuses have freedom of speech? How bout the right to bear arms? What if someone steals from a fetus like when there are twins and one takes all the nutrients in the womb? Should the little fetus be able to sue the bigger one? What are your criteria for defining a human life? The idea of conception seems rather arbitrary.

When do you think it happens? What is the scientific difference between a child inside a placenta and one in the process of transiting the birth canal? If you can't explain that, you are the one that is hedging your bets in order to justify your disregard of human life.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think the witnessed consent form is sufficient proof.

You must be used to be wrong by now.

False premise. She doesn't have to prove that. You have to prove she isn't.

Self evident truth does not need to be proven.

Believe it or not, a signed consent form is not proof of free will. In fact, it doesn't even prove a lack of coercion, if it did there would be no history of any contract ever being overturned because of coercion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You must be used to be wrong by now.

False premise. She doesn't have to prove that. You have to prove she isn't.

prove free will exists.

I don't have to.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Democraps always claim the GOP is going to ban abortion.....Bush is more right-wing than Romney and didn't ban abortion.

Abortion will be limited to incest, rape and major medical problems...but never banned. The morning after pill will be legal forever.

Pro-life people want abortions for "convenience" stopped.

Nonsense. The GOP is actively trying to ban abortion at the state level, with real measures and real legislation.

Incorrect. Some members of the GOP are trying to.

The official position of the national GOP party is the desire to ban all abortion with a constitutional amendment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The fact that you want someone to play the role of salon whoever over here.

I'll argue with you. You invented a false premise, i.e., that if someone agrees that the fetus is human life they have agreed with the pro-lifers.

There are hundreds of comments on that particular blog, many of which are being moderated in an attempt to hide the fact that far less than 80% of the people in the US support abortion under most circumstances.

Do you want to explain how agreeing that a fetus is a human life is not agreeing that a fetus is a human life?

I explained it below. The tactic you use of trying to make everyone you disagree with restate their positions multiple times is very unproductive.

You explained it below? Below what? If it was below your computer screen it doesn't count.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A 2 celled human zygote is not a complete human being.

It's dna seems to think it is.

DNA doesn't think.

Don't tell Dawkins that, he will prove you wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A kidney is not a "life".

Neither is a formless mass of cells. But you seem to like those an awful lot.

Actually, I just like science and truth. When you show me a kidney that, left in its natural environment, eventually becomes what even you admit is a breathing human being you will force me to concede that you won this particular debate on points. Until then, I will stick to the incontrovertible fact that a kidney is not a human being, and a fetus is.



You tell me, you are the one that thinks there is a difference between a child in the womb of a woman who "chooses" not to keep it and one who does. Personally, I think it is easier to treat both of the exactly the same.

It has everything it will need to move through each stage of its life. It takes an outside force to kill it once its life begins.

Okay, I'm not going any farther than this. You apparently need to learn some biology 101.

What part of biology 101 taught you that life is not life simply because you are incapable of admitting you are wrong?[/QUOTE]

For a guy who believes we don't need any government you sure seem keen on using government to ban abortion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's dna seems to think it is.

DNA doesn't think.

Don't tell Dawkins that, he will prove you wrong.

Why don't you prove me wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

who gives a shit what word you used? You insert your own words all the time that people never use.

Now you have a problem? I see you are a hypocrite.

People do not use the word argue? Since when?

what? Thats not even what i said.
Its very tiring how you don't just stick to the topic at hand, and make up your own shit.

The topic at hand is arguing about abortion, that makes you the one off topic, not me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

DNA doesn't think.

It does not need to think, it is programmed to act. It cannot help itself. EVERYTHING that you have, biologically speaking, was present the moment your mother's ova and father's sperm joined.

Your deliberate ignorance aside, there is no biologic element that needs to be added to the zygote (also know as a stage of development) for it to be more human or more complete. At that point all it needs is a safe environment to continue developing in.

A potential person is not a person.

The world will not be a better place if we go back to putting women to death for having abortions.

Define person scientifically in such a way that it is actually possible to have a living human that is not human.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Uh....sane Americans, which doesn't include you, don't support 1 human killing another human out of convenience.

The criminal believes it is convenient to kill the bank workers to get all the money, so I guess you support him killing just like a woman killing off her unborn human so she can avoid missing college, etc.

I think discussing the value of life is difficult, the article is right, pro-choice people( at least the honest ones) understand that a fetus is a human life, they(me included) simply place more value on the mothers life, than the fetus'.

Murder is crime committed against a person, under the law. The first trimester fetus is not a person under the law, so it cannot be murdered. That's what 'personhood' amendments are all about;

their supporters/advocates are effectively conceding that the fetus is not a person, so they are trying to make it one.

That is the legal definition, not the only definition.

By the way, so called personhood amendments are designed to force the courts to accept the rule of the people instead of legislating from the bench.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You mean my opinion to not have my son go to school in prison? And that we need to start treating our mentally ill different?
I think it is my business what goes on at my son's school, and I work with the mentally ill. So your point again?

Get the schools back in control of the parents instead of the feds and you will have a lot more say about what happens at your sons school. Unfortunately, for you, you actually think having the feds in charge of your son's school makes sense.

You have no clue how schools are run. Which is evident by your post here.

Schools are run by state and local boards.

You are so right, schools never have to accept dictates from the federal government just because they get money from them. I am so sorry I implied that "race to the Top" and "No child left Behind" were dictated by the feds instead of voluntarily implemented by schools across the nation as part of a massive grass roots movement where parents rose up and got involved in their schools.









As Sheldon would say here, Bazinga.

 

[AmyNation]

Personhood amendments are designed to take away a woman's rights over her own body and hand control over to the state. I would think you would be opposed to such huge government overreach. Banning abortion is one thing, personhood bills are a whole different set of totalitarianism.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Get the schools back in control of the parents instead of the feds and you will have a lot more say about what happens at your sons school. Unfortunately, for you, you actually think having the feds in charge of your son's school makes sense.

You have no clue how schools are run. Which is evident by your post here.

Schools are run by state and local boards.

Windbag is on record saying we don't need any government whatsoever, so take him seriously at your own peril.

How is that position less serious than yours that government needs to be involved in every day decisions people make about their own lives?