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

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Duhhh. No, she's saying that a fetus is the person at the time of conception that he's going to be at the time of death.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

The pro life argument is that the fetus is a separate life and not part of the woman's body.

Well that's a pretty stupid argument, considering science shows otherwise.

Science? Science?! What is this "science" you dipshits have that proves a fetus is part of his mother's body? Is it anything like the "science" that tells you Bruce Jenner's biology completely changed simply because he took hormones and put on makeup?

Please, show me this "science".

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You could have stopped with "I never thought", and been completely accurate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is an accurate phrase.

In what way? We're a clump of cells at this very moment! Our entire bodies are made of cells. Yet now, as a clump of cells, we are considered as life, as human beings. But curiously, an unborn child doesn't get that distinction.

No. It doesn't. Neither do dolphins, chimpanzees or dogs even though they are far more sentient and feeling than a blastocyst.

Let me ask a couple of questions:

What do you see here? What does this fetus more closely resemble? A dog? A cat? A human being perhaps? The human features are easily distinguishable at three months as you can see here, yet you call this unborn child a "clump of cells." The child has human DNA, but you call the child a "clump of cells."

What does this resemble?

It resembles a human being at that stage of development. Probably because that's what it IS. That's what YOU looked like at that age, that's what I looked like at that age, that's what every human being who has ever lived on Earth looked like at that age.

Stop being so ageist.

Are you prepared to put women in prison for life for having abortions?

As you can see by the stunned silence, no, she isn't prepared to put women in prison for life for having an abortion, which means,

no, she really doesn't believe that fetuses are human beings.

 

[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.

The pro life argument is that the fetus is a separate life and not part of the woman's body.

Well that's a pretty stupid argument, considering science shows otherwise.

Science? Science?! What is this "science" you dipshits have that proves a fetus is part of his mother's body? Is it anything like the "science" that tells you Bruce Jenner's biology completely changed simply because he took hormones and put on makeup?

Please, show me this "science".

If a fetus is a human being, then killing one is murder. Therefore all women caught having abortions go to prison for life.

Or do you take some other inane position?

 

[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.

The pro life argument is that the fetus is a separate life and not part of the woman's body.

Well that's a pretty stupid argument, considering science shows otherwise.

Science? Science?! What is this "science" you dipshits have that proves a fetus is part of his mother's body? Is it anything like the "science" that tells you Bruce Jenner's biology completely changed simply because he took hormones and put on makeup?

Please, show me this "science".

The proof that you don't believe a fetus is a person is that you don't believe that women should be convicted of murder for killing one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well that's a pretty stupid argument, considering science shows otherwise.

Let's start from the beginning. How are you defining "life"? We can't really discuss the issue of whether someone is alive without knowing we're using the same criteria.

Let's go even further back. How do you define "separate"? The fetus and the mother share a fucking organ, its called the "placenta" - maybe you heard of it. That's quite a strange definition of "separate".

*sigh* And the lack of science becomes ever greater.

I don't normally use Wikipedia, but since they're quoting a reliable site and I'm concerned that you may not understand THIS, let alone anything more complicated, here you go:

Placenta - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Basically, your position - as usual - depends on oversimplifying something to the point where you become completely incorrect and erroneous.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Where? When were you not uttering "blastocyst" every other word?

They think that using the technical terminology shows that they're clearly so much smarter than everyone else than we should take their opinion as fact like they do. Basically it boils down to "I'm better than you because I am so neenerneenerneener."

What's really funny is how badly they misuse the technical terminology, and think it means something it doesn't.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Seeing she is the only person capable of housing it, her refusal (if, for the moment we consider it a separate life) is tantamount to murder.

No one can be forced to house another in their body against their will. To force it otherwise is tantamount to slavery. If people really cared so much - why aren't they crying for research into finding alternatives? They aren't.

Only a liberal could equate the basic functions of parenthood with slavery.

You do know that reproductive science IS, in fact, working every day on ways to do exactly that, right? Primarily for the benefit of women who can't carry a child, but with secondary benefits for children who were created by selfish twats.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

That's because you're a conservative, and science and reality actually mean something to you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well that's a pretty stupid argument, considering science shows otherwise.

Let's start from the beginning. How are you defining "life"? We can't really discuss the issue of whether someone is alive without knowing we're using the same criteria.

Let's go even further back. How do you define "separate"? The fetus and the mother share a fucking organ, its called the "placenta" - maybe you heard of it. That's quite a strange definition of "separate".

"Separate" is just a modifier of "life" in the question of whether they have a separate life. Please give me the definition you are using for "life". What defines whether something is alive or not? There is a correct answer, but I want yours.

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.

It's separate, moron. Just because you don't know a fact doesn't mean it isn't still a fact.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No. You just ASSumed to know what another is thinking

You know, come to think of it, it's probably not a good idea to argue with a mod. The last time I argued science with one I got a lifelong ban from Conservapedia.

You can argue with us - we post as members. You can insult us, flame us, or blow raspberries at us.

I'll at least give you credit for that. You do keep your moderating separate from your posting.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I've yet to make a claim about that yet. I asked for your definition of the term we're arguing about. You're still failing to provide this. Please tell me what you think it is.

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.

"I don't want to answer, because I know it contradicts my worldview and makes me sound stupid, so 'look it up'".

I think this is going to be my new favorite leftist position, though:

"It's anti-woman to think this is about facts!"

Classic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, again - you're assuming I'm saying or implying something I'm not. I say exactly what I mean here. You've argued that a fetus has rights. I'm going along with that argument. I think ALL living things have rights but not all rights are equal

I'm only working off of what I'm reading Coyote.

Then stop inserting your words into it.

The moment the vascular endothelial cells fully form and begin to pulsate within the fetus, that constitutes a heart, and a heartbeat. We normally associate a heartbeat with life.

A brain dead person can be kept artificially alive by a machine that keeps the heart pumping. Is it "alive"?

Is a fetus the same as a brain-dead person?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It will not become a human being. It might

It WILL become a human being, if given the chance.

No. It might. Just like an acorn might grow into an oak, or might rot, or might become squirrel food.

Sorry, in this case, you and Templar are BOTH off the beam. A fetus will become an adult just like an acorn will grow into an oak. He already IS a human being. And yes, he might die first, or he might be killed. Doesn't change what he is.

It's very important to shake off the temptation for sloppiness and Libthink and be precise.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What you call it is irrelevant. The idea that there is no material difference between you as you are today and a 5 day old human blastocyst is absurd.

Ahhh by your logic, what you say is irrelevant.

Your opinion is just that.
Opinions are like assholes everyone's got one and most stink.

The law defines humans as persons only when they fit the legal requirements. A fetus is not a person, 'human being' or not.

Science will prove that wrong eventually. Then you will be known as a murderer.

Science doesn't determine the concept of personhood.

It will, or you one of those science deniers?

The problem is you and others on the right are deniers of facts of Constitutional law, where as a fact of Constitutional law abortion is not 'murder,' where as a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and where as a fact of Constitutional law absent those protections to refer to abortion as 'murder' is ignorant idiocy.

Murder is a legal term, precisely defined and understood in the context of the law, you and others on the right can't contrive your own ridiculous and wrong definition of 'murder' to suit your political agenda hostile to the privacy rights of women.

Issues of the law are addressed with a comprehensive examination of all the facts and evidence, where scientific evidence is not the sole determining factor concerning the issue of abortion; the protected liberty of the woman must also taken into account, along with settled and accepted precedent as to when individuals are recognized as such in accordance with Constitutional jurisprudence.

You may not like the law, you may disagree with the law, you may believe that the law is 'wrong,' but you must accept the fact that as a matter of law abortion is not 'murder,' that abortion is legal, and that women enjoy a right to privacy safeguarding them from the state seeking to compel them to give birth against their will.

There was a time when conservatives understood this, and were advocates of limiting government authority in support of individual liberty – sadly those conservatives are long gone, replaced with the bane of the social right and its hostility toward individual liberty.

 

[kaz]

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.”

How does being female mean you have any say over what other females do with their bodies?

 

[Cecilie1200]

A brain dead person can be kept artificially alive by a machine that keeps the heart pumping. Is it "alive"?

Really? Nice. Not even the best kicker in the NFL can kick a football through those goalposts.

It's not as big a stretch as you think.

What the end of life? What defines the beginning of life?

*sigh* It would be nice if leftists had felt compelled to attend JUST ONE high-school biology class, instead of yoinking off behind the boys' gym.

The Definition of Life

1) Chemical uniqueness. Living systems demonstrate a unique and
complex molecular organization.
2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. Living systems
demonstrate a unique and complex hierarchical organization.
3) Reproduction. Living systems can reproduce themselves.
4) Possession of a genetic program. A genetic program provides fidelity
of inheritance.
5) Metabolism. Living organisms maintain themselves by obtaining
nutrients from their environments.
6) Development. All organisms pass through a characteristic life cycle.
7) Environmental reaction. All animals interact with their environment.

By the way, for the record, all living organisms interact with their environment, not just animals.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I've yet to make a claim about that yet. I asked for your definition of the term we're arguing about. You're still failing to provide this. Please tell me what you think it is.

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.

I do know the definition of life. I asked you to definite it because your point was that there are not two separate lives. You made it about life. I'm just trying to force you to be honest about what you're talking about and define your terms.

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?



I would like to know one thing, though. If I can prove I'm one of many people with a "vanishing twin" inside of me, would that mean I get two votes in your fucked up world?

No, you THINK your point is that they're not separate. Since you're wrong, your point is ACTUALLY that you're an uneducated dimwit. Funny how often that's your point.

And no, retard. Killing and absorbing your twin doesn't make you two people. Hell, if we're going off of IQ and personality, you're not even ONE person.

 

[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.”

How does being female mean you have any say over what other females do with their bodies?

Well, from what I can see, those "other females" think they own the issue of abortion. Well they don't. It's like this: liberal women think they have a monopoly on the issue of abortion, they treat any conservative pro-life woman as an outlier, or someone who doesn't know what's good for them.

So, my question to you is, how does being a liberal woman give her any say over what another conservative woman does with her body?