Not the view you were looking for: A conservative woman's view on abortion

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Hello? Can you read at all? Do you know what the following English words mean: MY ARGUMENT DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE DEFINITION OF LIFE ? Can you comprehend that? Do we need to go through the sentence word by word to make sure you can understand it? Will you please, for the love of your woman hating God, STOP BEING A FUCKING MORON.

Your claim that the fetus constitutes a "separate life" is wrong regardless of how life is defined because it is not separate. Whether we use your definition of life, mine, or Santa Claus's - your claim is still not true.

If you want the definition of life, look it up. It's not relevant to this discussion. That, is in fact, the entire problem with the anti-woman argument - you think its about the definition of life. Its not.

No, my point is that they are not SEPARATE, regardless of how life is defined. Fucks sakes how many times do I have to repeat myself? Are you dumb?

You originally used the term. I asked you to define it before you use it. You've refused point blank to do so. Instead, you've opted to tell me that I'm a moron and a sexist for asking and imply that I'm a Christian, since clearly those are the only people who would ever disagree with anything you say. Any other possibility, such as you actually (gasp) being incorrect about something isn't so much distasteful to you as it is inconceivable at a very basic level. You really do seem like you fundamentally cannot grasp the concept of someone disagreeing with anything you say - or even posing an inconvenience to you such as requiring you to be honest - who isn't the antithesis of everything you believe to good and true. You clearly need to mature before involving yourself in discussions like this.

 

[Spare_change]

I
“Well, look abortion is obviously a very delicate subject, she replied. "I happen to believe that science is proving us right. The DNA in a zygote is the same as the DNA the day you die, we do have common ground on this issue now.”

So identical twins only count as one person?

I don't get the argument. Is Fiorina saying that a human being is nothing more than a strand of DNA?

I shouldn't expect more than a stupid response from you but shit man.

Do identical twins not have identical DNA? Were they not once part of the same fertilized embryo - and hence - by your logic - one person?


That's an interesting change in the definition of personhood. I never thought that a person could split into two different people.

No.....

Uhh, yeah. If being an embryo and having DNA makes you a 'person', then the 0.2% of the population that are identical twins are all legally only half people. It also means the up to 10% of the population that have a "vanishing twin" inside them somewhere are legally, two people. That is, if you choose to define a "person" as beginning at conception.

The supposedly pro-science right wing refuses to admit the plasticity of personhood within the womb that, in the vanishing twin case, can occur even through the end of the first trimester without complication. How the heck can something be a "person" when you can't even reliably count how many "persons" it is?

In fact, when you consider that the majority of pregnancies that start as twins wind up being singletons, its kinda hard to argue that even God values early fetal life very much. If He did, why the Hell would He kill most of them?

Now THERE is a piece of liberal logic ---- and they wonder why we laugh at them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I know, I know, The View is nothing more than a liberal echo chamber, but Carly Fiorina chose to jump into the lions den despite that fact. In a feature segment involving Fiorina, Whoopi Goldberg during the segment decided to ambush the former Hewlett-Packard CEO with a rather pointed question on the issue of abortion, while also questioning her Christian values..

“Are you going to run as a person who’s going to govern for everyone, or are you running on your Christian beliefs?” Goldberg asked. “Because you said some wonderful things and it made me beg the question ... if you feel that women should have the choices ... why do you think choice is not a good thing?”

Fiorina promptly flattened Goldberg with an equally pointed and scientific answer.

“Well, look abortion is obviously a very delicate subject, she replied. "I happen to believe that science is proving us right. The DNA in a zygote is the same as the DNA the day you die, we do have common ground on this issue now.”

“The majority of women, the majority of young people, the majority of Americans now think that late-term abortion for any reason at all is a problem,” Fiorina continued. “So what I say is, let’s go find that common ground.”

You're asking us to endure 9 minutes of Carly Fiorina? For free?

Do us a favor, sum it up in writing. There's a good lad.

You know, you didn't have to comment in this thread.

Waaaaa

Ya know, that's the sound a newborn makes, when you don't abort it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And that supports the right-to-control-others-lives arguments how?

What gave you the power to commit murder? Your vagina?

Funny how you speak ill of controlling someone, yet being the big government liberal you are the phrase "controlling others" is a purely subjective term.

Yet, who watches the watchers?

 

[Dragonlady]

Likewise, the people demanding that women must carry out an unwanted pregnancy from conception to birth falter when it comes to inacting the death penalty. Choosing life or death.

Yet, you pro-choice liberals overwhelmingly choose death.

We play God all the time when we decide what creations will live or die for often the most frivolous reasons.

Is having abortion for no reason the most frivolous reason of them all?

Women don't have abortions "for no reason". That's a fallacy. The primary reason women have abortions is financial. They cannot afford to have a baby. It is the primary reason behind 75% of abortions.

Women don't have abortions for frivolous reasons or without thought. Having a baby is a lifelong commitment. If you are not financially capable of making that commitment, you shouldn't have the child.

Paid maternity leave, and other supports for women having children reduce the need for abortions but right wingers don't want to talk about these things. They're big on family values but they don't value families.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you are not financially capable of making that commitment, you shouldn't have the child.

What if, even still, not being financially capable, I chose to have a child, who are you to tell me not to have it?

The primary reason women have abortions is financial. They cannot afford to have a baby.

That depends. I admit this Guttmacher study is 11 years old, but its the best we have:

This table represents what went into the decision making process behind having an abortion

http://www.guttmacher.org/tables/370305/3711005t2.pdf

This represents the actual reasons why the woman had the abortion.

http://www.guttmacher.org/tables/370305/3711005t3.pdf

It turns out that in Table 2, the most important reason for having the abortion was the woman not being ready for a(nother) child. Financial reasons drove roughly a quarter of the women to have an abortion. You have to learn to read polls, Dragonlady.

but right wingers don't want to talk about these things.

And lefties like you don't want to talk about the fact its murder. You know full well what happens when a woman has an abortion, yet the reasons YOU come up with are "it's just a clump of cells!" So, you'll forgive me if the impression I got was "they do it for the sake of convenience.

 

[mdk]

Of course zygotes have DNA. Who the hell said they didn't?

You did. The specific phrase was "a clump of cells" if I recall.

No one ever said that clump of cells (which it is, by the way) didn't have DNA.

Of course zygotes have DNA. Who the hell said they didn't?

You did. The specific phrase was "a clump of cells" if I recall.

Just checking to see if you have the stones to admit you were incorrect about your recollections. The honorable thing to do would admit your error but I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

And lefties like you don't want to talk about the fact its murder. You know full well what happens when a woman has an abortion, yet the reasons YOU come up with are "it's just a clump of cells!" So, you'll forgive me if the impression I got was "they do it for the sake of convenience.

If it's murder then the only proper approach from a criminal justice perspective is to make it the crime of murder,

and punish women who have abortions as murderers.

Is that your position? If it isn't then you're admitting that it's not murder.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And that supports the right-to-control-others-lives arguments how?

What gave you the power to commit murder? Your vagina?

Funny how you speak ill of controlling someone, yet being the big government liberal you are the phrase "controlling others" is a purely subjective term.

Yet, who watches the watchers?

You will never get the American people to make abortion the crime of murder.

 

[NYcarbineer]

but legally speaking

That's the problem. The law doesn't speak for concrete science.

The fetus as defined by science is the undeveloped offspring of its respective species. Science has a way of attributing that "fetus" to the species that spawned it. The law is an entirely different matter completely.

I'll stick with the scientific definitions of life, if you don't mind.

Science is not law. Science does not dictate morality.

 

[2aguy]

You're kind of mashing things together and claiming things I've neither said nor suggested.

Funny you use that reasoning to define what is or isn't a human being.

I have not defined what is or isn't a human being.

It would help us all if you would just stop with the bullshit word parsings and tell us what you actually believe. Or do you need these excuses in order to support murder of the innocent?

I won't stop with the "word parsings" until you (or rather TK) stops assuming I'm saying things I haven't said simply because I'm pro-choice and therefor must be saying it.

I believe that only the woman has the right to make decisions regarding her own body. That right is primary. Secondary comes the right of her fetus. I don't support elective abortions in the last trimester of pregnancy except under certain conditions: the mother's health or life is indangered or severe fetal deformaties. No one argues that it is not a "human being". But whether it is a person to be granted all rights is another argument entirely.

If you believe the woman has the right to make decisions for her own body...why limit that right after last trimester? Wrong...the sole argument is that the baby is not a human being, it is the only way they can kill it without guilt.

 

[2aguy]

but legally speaking

That's the problem. The law doesn't speak for concrete science.

The fetus as defined by science is the undeveloped offspring of its respective species. Science has a way of attributing that "fetus" to the species that spawned it. The law is an entirely different matter completely.

I'll stick with the scientific definitions of life, if you don't mind.

Science is not law. Science does not dictate morality.

You obviously don't understand history.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

but legally speaking

That's the problem. The law doesn't speak for concrete science.

The fetus as defined by science is the undeveloped offspring of its respective species. Science has a way of attributing that "fetus" to the species that spawned it. The law is an entirely different matter completely.

I'll stick with the scientific definitions of life, if you don't mind.

Science is not law. Science does not dictate morality.

You obviously don't understand history.....

lol, I'll bet you think you've said something substantive there.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're kind of mashing things together and claiming things I've neither said nor suggested.

Funny you use that reasoning to define what is or isn't a human being.

I have not defined what is or isn't a human being.

It would help us all if you would just stop with the bullshit word parsings and tell us what you actually believe. Or do you need these excuses in order to support murder of the innocent?

I won't stop with the "word parsings" until you (or rather TK) stops assuming I'm saying things I haven't said simply because I'm pro-choice and therefor must be saying it.

I believe that only the woman has the right to make decisions regarding her own body. That right is primary. Secondary comes the right of her fetus. I don't support elective abortions in the last trimester of pregnancy except under certain conditions: the mother's health or life is indangered or severe fetal deformaties. No one argues that it is not a "human being". But whether it is a person to be granted all rights is another argument entirely.

If you believe the woman has the right to make decisions for her own body...why limit that right after last trimester? Wrong...the sole argument is that the baby is not a human being, it is the only way they can kill it without guilt.

If it's human being then any abortion has to be treated as murder, with the appropriate penalties.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the fetus is a human being, or more precisely a person for legal purposes, then it would be entitled to constitutional equal protection under the law.
That protection includes the protection provided by laws against harm to its person, including fatal harm, which is what an abortion would be.
The fetus as a person would have the constitutional right not to be murdered, and that right is enforced by law.

Therefore aborting a fetus would have to be treated as murder, with all that implies. Any other treatment would be unconstitutional.

 

[2aguy]

Funny you use that reasoning to define what is or isn't a human being.

I have not defined what is or isn't a human being.

It would help us all if you would just stop with the bullshit word parsings and tell us what you actually believe. Or do you need these excuses in order to support murder of the innocent?

I won't stop with the "word parsings" until you (or rather TK) stops assuming I'm saying things I haven't said simply because I'm pro-choice and therefor must be saying it.

I believe that only the woman has the right to make decisions regarding her own body. That right is primary. Secondary comes the right of her fetus. I don't support elective abortions in the last trimester of pregnancy except under certain conditions: the mother's health or life is indangered or severe fetal deformaties. No one argues that it is not a "human being". But whether it is a person to be granted all rights is another argument entirely.

If you believe the woman has the right to make decisions for her own body...why limit that right after last trimester? Wrong...the sole argument is that the baby is not a human being, it is the only way they can kill it without guilt.

If it's human being then any abortion has to be treated as murder, with the appropriate penalties.

Except in the case where giving birth would kill one or both the mother or the child. Then you are trying to save a life and it is triage, not murder. Saving a life is the only exception that is moral and isn't murder.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have not defined what is or isn't a human being.

It would help us all if you would just stop with the bullshit word parsings and tell us what you actually believe. Or do you need these excuses in order to support murder of the innocent?

I won't stop with the "word parsings" until you (or rather TK) stops assuming I'm saying things I haven't said simply because I'm pro-choice and therefor must be saying it.

I believe that only the woman has the right to make decisions regarding her own body. That right is primary. Secondary comes the right of her fetus. I don't support elective abortions in the last trimester of pregnancy except under certain conditions: the mother's health or life is indangered or severe fetal deformaties. No one argues that it is not a "human being". But whether it is a person to be granted all rights is another argument entirely.

If you believe the woman has the right to make decisions for her own body...why limit that right after last trimester? Wrong...the sole argument is that the baby is not a human being, it is the only way they can kill it without guilt.

If it's human being then any abortion has to be treated as murder, with the appropriate penalties.

Except in the case where giving birth would kill one or both the mother or the child. Then you are trying to save a life and it is triage, not murder. Saving a life is the only exception that is moral and isn't murder.

America is never going to start locking women up for life for having had an abortion. You're dreaming.

 

[2aguy]

If the fetus is a human being, or more precisely a person for legal purposes, then it would be entitled to constitutional equal protection under the law.
That protection includes the protection provided by laws against harm to its person, including fatal harm, which is what an abortion would be.
The fetus as a person would have the constitutional right not to be murdered, and that right is enforced by law.

Therefore aborting a fetus would have to be treated as murder, with all that implies. Any other treatment would be unconstitutional.

Wow...you do get it. The baby is a human being and humans have rights, including the right to not be murdered. Killing a baby is murder. Sadly, too many people hide it behind words like "fetus."

 

[2aguy]

It would help us all if you would just stop with the bullshit word parsings and tell us what you actually believe. Or do you need these excuses in order to support murder of the innocent?

I won't stop with the "word parsings" until you (or rather TK) stops assuming I'm saying things I haven't said simply because I'm pro-choice and therefor must be saying it.

I believe that only the woman has the right to make decisions regarding her own body. That right is primary. Secondary comes the right of her fetus. I don't support elective abortions in the last trimester of pregnancy except under certain conditions: the mother's health or life is indangered or severe fetal deformaties. No one argues that it is not a "human being". But whether it is a person to be granted all rights is another argument entirely.

If you believe the woman has the right to make decisions for her own body...why limit that right after last trimester? Wrong...the sole argument is that the baby is not a human being, it is the only way they can kill it without guilt.

If it's human being then any abortion has to be treated as murder, with the appropriate penalties.

Except in the case where giving birth would kill one or both the mother or the child. Then you are trying to save a life and it is triage, not murder. Saving a life is the only exception that is moral and isn't murder.

America is never going to start locking women up for life for having had an abortion. You're dreaming.

I am stating the truth and reality. What Americans decide should be the law is hardly ever the truth and hardly ever addresses reality.

 

[JoeB131]

“Well, look abortion is obviously a very delicate subject, she replied. "I happen to believe that science is proving us right. The DNA in a zygote is the same as the DNA the day you die, we do have common ground on this issue now.”

“The majority of women, the majority of young people, the majority of Americans now think that late-term abortion for any reason at all is a problem,” Fiorina continued. “So what I say is, let’s go find that common ground.”

The only "Abortion" Carly ever had was her management of HP.

Okay, seriously. The point about DNA is irrelevent.

The point about "Late term" abortions is also disingenuous. Less than 1% of abortions are performed after the 20th week, and they are performed either because there is a severe health threat to the mother or the fetus is so horribly deformed that it won't have anything resembling a normal life.

In fact, the words "Late term" is wrong. A pregnancy that is brought to term is completed. There isn't a "term" during the pregnancy, "Term" is the end of the pregnancy. A more technically accurate term would would be "Third Trimester abortion"

Here's the reality that Wingnuts don't get. The People who run your party, people like Carly who shipped thousands of Good Paying American Jobs to China don't give a flip if women have an abortion or not. They just use that to keep people like you mad when you watch Faux News and listen to Hate Radio.

If the GOP were bound and determined to undo Roe v. Wade, they'd have done it by now. But SCOTUS was dominated by Republican Appointed Justices when Roe was decided (Five of the seven justices voting for it were appointed by Nixon or Ike) and has been upheld by the Justices appointed by Republicans since (Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter)