Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No. It might. Just like an acorn might grow into an oak, or might rot, or might become squirrel food.
Your fantastic logic has no base in reality. Your use of the word "might" is a convenient cover, but when a woman gets pregnant, the becoming a human being is almost a certainty, unless that process is interrupted.
I have shoes with no soles, does that mean my shoes are no longer shoes?
Oh for gosh sakes. Let's look at actual numbers:
Making Sense of Miscarriage Statistics
As many as 75% of all conceptions miscarry.
This statistic is an estimate for the percentage of fertilized eggs that do not go on to result in a full-term pregnancy, factoring in miscarriages but also failed implantations that usually pass without the mother ever missing a period.
You see why it's "might"?
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.It will, or you one of those science deniers?Science will prove that wrong eventually. Then you will be known as a murderer.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 doesn't determine the concept of personhood.
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.
You've stated multiple times that you don't believe they are separate lives. Your entire case in that post revolved around the mother and child not being separate lives. You've adamantly refused to define what you define a life to be in the first place. As far as I can tell, you have no idea what the term even means. You really don't see the intellectual dishonesty there?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?
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.
millions of innocent babies are killed every year, mostly by libs and we don't hear a peep about it.
Actually most unborn babies that are killed are killed by God.
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.
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.
I would like to respond to the idea that a 2 day old fertilized egg will become a human being. That's not true. That the egg will develop normal and eventually become a human being isn't a certainty, only a possibility.
One third of all pregnancies end in miscarriages. When abortion is banned, women who miscarry become suspects.
You know, you imply a good point. This whole subject could be a non-issue if men as a whole were simply careful and found out whether she equated pregnancy with slavery or children with parasites before trying to knock her up. It'd be a win/win situation for everyone involved. You could remain childless and happy and safe from the horrors of parental responsibility. I wouldn't have to wonder every day whether she was going to kill our children. The feticide industry would collapse with the dearth of clients, which even your crowd claims to believe would be a good thing ("safe, legal, and rare" being the motto and all).]A fetus is a possibility of life. What kind of life they will have, if any, is dependent on their host and it is her decision and hers alone whether they will have life at all.
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.It will, or you one of those science deniers?Science will prove that wrong eventually. Then you will be known as a murderer.The law defines humans as persons only when they fit the legal requirements. A fetus is not a person, 'human being' or not.
Science doesn't determine the concept of personhood.
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.
Ah, yes. Appeal to legality. The last refuge of a leftist trying to argue a question of morality, and failing badly.
A fetus fails to meet the standard you set for yourself. They fail all of the standards you set except #4. Absent the nurturing environment of the womb, they cannot live.
I would like to respond to the idea that a 2 day old fertilized egg will become a human being. That's not true. That the egg will develop normal and eventually become a human being isn't a certainty, only a possibility.
One third of all pregnancies end in miscarriages. When abortion is banned, women who miscarry become suspects.
Okay, you responded. Congratulations. It was stupid and uninformed. Congratulations again.
Moving on . . .
A fetus fails to meet the standard you set for yourself. They fail all of the standards you set except #4. Absent the nurturing environment of the womb, they cannot live.
Ahh, this is where your logic fails. A baby is just as helpless outside of the womb as it is inside. Technically, after they are born, they don't meet most of those criteria either. You leave a baby alone, and it is just as helpless as it was inside the womb. By your logic, the newborn baby is still not alive.
However, I see the fetus meets 1, 4,5,6, and 7.
1) Even during the process of cell division, you can easily see the complexity of the human genome. One can only glean the fact that at full development, the "fetus" will demonstrate complex molecular organization.
4) Naturally, the fetus possesses the genetic programming provided by its parents.
5) Even in the womb, the child metabolizes the nutrients provided by the mother.
6) Quite obviously due to the genetic programming, the child develops, from embryo to full term; easily matching this requirement.
7) When a baby kicks, it is practicing its walking and crawling reflexes, it is constantly changing position in order to prepare for birth. This constitutes interaction with the environment.
Then go beyond words - offer to carry a fetus, don't make the poor woman do it for you.
You really are quite facetious tonight aren't you? Why don't you volunteer to be the fetus, then?
And your refusal to want to provide or even mention the supports women receive from the state to carry their child to term and to care for them once they are born in other first world countries, speaks volumes
That's called hypocrisy.
No. It might. Just like an acorn might grow into an oak, or might rot, or might become squirrel food.
Your fantastic logic has no base in reality. Your use of the word "might" is a convenient cover, but when a woman gets pregnant, the becoming a human being is almost a certainty, unless that process is interrupted.
I have shoes with no soles, does that mean my shoes are no longer shoes?
Oh for gosh sakes. Let's look at actual numbers:
Making Sense of Miscarriage Statistics
As many as 75% of all conceptions miscarry.
This statistic is an estimate for the percentage of fertilized eggs that do not go on to result in a full-term pregnancy, factoring in miscarriages but also failed implantations that usually pass without the mother ever missing a period.
You see why it's "might"?
Yeeeah, "conceptions" not births. Please, kindly, find your nearest dictionary and read it. I'm talking about the fertilized eggs that DO result in a full term pregnancy.
Religion, however, is a non-factor in the discussion. Any intentions of "God" has nothing to do with real life outside of the storybook.From a religious standpoint, if God had intended every fetus to be sacred and to result in a new life, women wouldn't have the ability to miscarry, to expel those attempts which go awry. The fetus wouldn't die, or fail to develop properly. They wouldn't be so very vulnerable.
We're not talking about miscarriages either. We're talking about a woman going into a clinic and spreading her legs so the doctor can chemically burn or tear apart the child growing inside of her, vacuum it out, and have the nurse dump it in the trash.Women have the ability to miscarry for good and valid reasons, one of which is, not every fetus has the ability to become a new life.
Women can and do receive support from the state. There are many of us who would happily see those supports be increased and protected.And your refusal to want to provide or even mention the supports women receive from the state to carry their child to term and to care for them once they are born in other first world countries, speaks volumes.
Please see above. You want birth control? Fuck, I'll pay for it if you're not willing to buy your own. I'm serious. We can privately arrange a monthly transfer plan through my bank if that's what it takes to keep you from killing the child whom you only conceived to dispose of.Where is your concern for the children once they are outside the womb. Conservatives only care about the unborn. The living breathing children of the poor are a problem you refuse to address.
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?
Then go beyond words - offer to carry a fetus, don't make the poor woman do it for you.
You really are quite facetious tonight aren't you? Why don't you volunteer to be the fetus, then?
Unfortunately that is impossible. My suggestion IS possible. Why is it no one seems to want to expand research in that direction? Maybe because men don't like the idea of having someone else controlling their bodies?
A fetus fails to meet the standard you set for yourself. They fail all of the standards you set except #4. Absent the nurturing environment of the womb, they cannot live.
Ahh, this is where your logic fails. A baby is just as helpless outside of the womb as it is inside. Technically, after they are born, they don't meet most of those criteria either. You leave a baby alone, and it is just as helpless as it was inside the womb. By your logic, the newborn baby is still not alive.
However, I see the fetus meets 1, 4,5,6, and 7.
1) Even during the process of cell division, you can easily see the complexity of the human genome. One can only glean the fact that at full development, the "fetus" will demonstrate complex molecular organization.
4) Naturally, the fetus possesses the genetic programming provided by its parents.
5) Even in the womb, the child metabolizes the nutrients provided by the mother.
6) Quite obviously due to the genetic programming, the child develops, from embryo to full term; easily matching this requirement.
7) When a baby kicks, it is practicing its walking and crawling reflexes, it is constantly changing position in order to prepare for birth. This constitutes interaction with the environment.
Then you agree that by your own argument a woman who has an abortion is guilty of murder?
