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

[NYcarbineer]

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?

I agree with what you said about liberal women Basically they are like all liberals in every subject, only people who agree with them have a valid point of view.

Since when do people you disagree with have valid points of view?

 

[Coyote]

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.

I think you are mixing up some very different things.

Science has created a means of identifying and defining species. There is no argument that the unborn child, at any stage of development is homo sapiens. That is as far as science goes in the matter. There is no moral compass, there is only fact - it's what we choose to do with knowledge that brings in issues of ethics and morality. Those issues aren't addressed by science but by philosophy, religion, ethics.

So yes, what is growing inside a pregnant woman is human species and it has the potential to become a human being if it survives pregnancy and birth. That's the science.

What's it's value? Why is it valuable? Does it have value at all stages? Is it's value dependent on who carries it? Can science answer those questions?

 

[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?

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?

I agree with what you said about liberal women Basically they are like all liberals in every subject, only people who agree with them have a valid point of view.

Since when do people you disagree with have valid points of view?

Loaded question. If you ask me without the word "since" I'll answer it though

 

[Coyote]

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.

Because once the fetus is viable, then it has some rights to life. It's no longer just part of her body.

 

[kaz]

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.

I think you are mixing up some very different things.

Science has created a means of identifying and defining species. There is no argument that the unborn child, at any stage of development is homo sapiens. That is as far as science goes in the matter. There is no moral compass, there is only fact - it's what we choose to do with knowledge that brings in issues of ethics and morality. Those issues aren't addressed by science but by philosophy, religion, ethics.

So yes, what is growing inside a pregnant woman is human species and it has the potential to become a human being if it survives pregnancy and birth. That's the science.

What's it's value? Why is it valuable? Does it have value at all stages? Is it's value dependent on who carries it? Can science answer those questions?

So if someone punches a woman in the stomach and the fetus dies, you oppose charging the attacker with murder?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm not sure I understand the last question though since I'm pro-choice, I don't think anyone has a say over what anyone else does with their body

I just wanted to clear some things up, kaz. Nothing personal against you, buddy.

What I meant with the last question was this: what makes a person believe, that with their political ideology about their body, they have power to dictate what others do with their bodies?

I'm not saying that Fiorina's opinion gives her power to control anything. She is just one woman who breaks that liberal monopoly on abortion.

 

[kaz]

I'm not sure I understand the last question though since I'm pro-choice, I don't think anyone has a say over what anyone else does with their body

I just wanted to clear some things up, kaz. Nothing personal against you, buddy.

What I meant with the last question was this: what makes a person believe, that with their political ideology about their body, they have power to dictate what others do with their bodies?

I'm not saying that Fiorina's opinion gives her power to control anything. She is just one woman who breaks that liberal monopoly on abortion.

I watched the clip, they never let her answer the question. I agree with your point that liberals believe only liberal women are entitled to a say. Liberal men are good with that because they already know what liberal women will say

 

[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.

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. The are life in development, but they don't obtain nutrition from their environment, they obtain it from their host.

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.

And that's an incredibly meaningful scientific analysis, coming from you. (Yes, that was sarcasm.)

1) Fetuses do, obviously, possess chemical uniqueness. They are different and unique from every other organism on Earth right down to the molecular and genetic level.

2) While a fetus is more basic on the heirarchical scale than an older human organism, it certainly does possess both of these qualifications.

3) Before you start quacking at me about how fetuses can't reproduce (meaning having children by sexual reproduction), please keep in mind that any pre-pubescent child and post-menopausal woman shares that particular description. I presume you do not wish to say that either of those is, therefore, not a living organism. A fetus shares the same reproductive capacity as a newborn baby does.

Furthermore, fetuses DO have the ability to reproduce themselves by twinning, although obviously, the vast majority of them do not do so.

4) You are, at least, aware of the fact that fetuses have genes.

5) Obviously, a fetus does, indeed, have a metabolism and ingest nutrients from his environment.

6) A fetus certainly develops through a life cycle standardized across every organism of his species, barring death.

7) Fetuses are known to react to sounds outside the womb, such as music, the mother's heartbeat, the father's voice, etc. Furthermore, changes in the environment, such as toxins entering the amniotic fluid, can and will affect the development of the fetus.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Science has created a means of identifying and defining species. There is no argument that the unborn child, at any stage of development is homo sapiens.

Then, why not call it what it is? Life? By rights, saying it isn't alive means it isn't human until its alive (yeah, that's the logic I'm seeing on display here).

There is no moral compass, there is only fact - it's what we choose to do with knowledge that brings in issues of ethics and morality. Those issues aren't addressed by science but by philosophy, religion, ethics.

Spare me the anecdotes, Coyote. This is my moral compass:

Murder bad; life good.

So yes, what is growing inside a pregnant woman is human species and it has the potential to become a human being if it survives pregnancy and birth. That's the science.

So, it's no longer a clump of cells, then? What changed?

Is it's value dependent on who carries it?

Not really. Life has no value, since it is invaluable.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And when I consider the statement "there is no moral compass" a bit further, I'm quite disturbed by the dismissive attitude implied by it. By saying so, the originator of the statement feels empowered to take innocent life. "No moral compass" means no responsibility, no answering to anyone, and no regrets.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I did that a couple pages back. Even made a thread about it.

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.

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).

It's legal not to have sex with someone. There isn't a moral problem with it. The only flaw is that it's impractical to expect the average person to have a sufficient level of personal responsibility to actually (decline) to do it.

 

[Coyote]

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?

Sleep well?

Yes but not nearly enough (I get fascicious when I'm tired).

There's no need to be a misandrist, Coyote.

I have no hatred or dislike of men. My suggestion is that pregnancy is a shared responsibility but for most part - the shame, burden and risk fall on the woman. How many times have you heard she should just close her legs? How many times have you hears he should zip his pants? I guarantee you hear the former far more often.

Your suggestion is possible, but unnatural. Why don't they expand research in that direction? Because, giving birth is gender specific. Whereas contributing to the processes that cause birth is a coequal interaction.

It might be "unnatural" but we do many things that are unnatural. We create embryos in a laboratory to artificialy impregnate infertile couples. That's hardly "natural". Come to think of it - that is another example of the fundamental hypocrisy of the "pro-life" movement. There is little outcry or legislative pressure to do anything about all those surplus embryos which are eventually destroyed. There is no ethical difference between an abortion and destroying those embryos yet where is the outcry and the charge of "baby killers" directed? The pregnant woman who chooses to have an abortion.

If there were enough desire, we could create the means to safely implant an embryo in a male (The Science of Male Pregnancy

Perhaps then, if a woman did not want to carry a pregnancy to term, then the man would have to. Then the woman would have to provide child support. But that likely wouldn't fly. What man would want to be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?

Maybe, it's because women like you don't want to consider the role a man plays. In my personal opinion, I see the man's role as a far more critical role in instigating the chain reaction. You can't start the car without the keys. You can't start a fire without a spark, and so on and so on. You can't begin to think about having a baby unless a man, or his sperm are present to initiate the reaction.

As for "control" see my response to Dragonlady.

 

[Coyote]

And when I consider the statement "there is no moral compass" a bit further, I'm quite disturbed by the dismissive attitude implied by it. By saying so, the originator of the statement feels empowered to take innocent life. "No moral compass" means no responsibility, no answering to anyone, and no regrets.

You're misconstruing what I said. You keep doing that by adding in your own words.

SCIENCE has no moral compass. It provides the information. That is all.

Other disciplines explore the morality and ethics of new discoveries.

You keep throwing "science" into the ring and implying that science is proving or providing the morality. It isn't. That simple statement of fact has no bearing on my own moral compass at all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I get women wanting the choice I just wish they would they wouldn't make light of the fact that an abortion ends a human life.

Just know that when you choose to abort your clump of cells you are taking a human life.

No one is 'making light' of abortion.

The right to privacy ensures that each person remain at liberty to make personal, private decisions without being compelled by the state to adhere to a particular subjective opinion through force of law.

You believe abortion is the taking of a human life, others may not – each position is just as valid and just as entitled to Constitutional protections and immune from attack by the state.

Moreover, one may believe that abortion is wrong, that as a fact of science it's the taking of a human life, while at the same time understanding that as a fact of law abortion is not 'murder,' and respect the privacy rights of others to decide for themselves the issue in the context of their own good faith and good conscience, as intended by the Framers of the Constitution.

 

[Coyote]

Science has created a means of identifying and defining species. There is no argument that the unborn child, at any stage of development is homo sapiens.

Then, why not call it what it is? Life? By rights, saying it isn't alive means it isn't human until its alive (yeah, that's the logic I'm seeing on display here).

Ok, it's "life". But where do you go from there? Life is valuable in and of itself, I agree. I don't restrict it to just human life.

What makes it valuable?

What makes it so valuable you would strip the rights from another human being?

You have competing rights at play here - who's rights supercede the other's and at what point?

There is no moral compass, there is only fact - it's what we choose to do with knowledge that brings in issues of ethics and morality. Those issues aren't addressed by science but by philosophy, religion, ethics.

Spare me the anecdotes, Coyote. This is my moral compass:

Murder bad; life good.

Oh quit being so pompous. Murder bad; life good. Yet you support capital punishment.

I truly respect those who apply those ethics across the board to include both the unborn and the condemned. I'm not at that point yet. I don't think you are either.

Even more, I respect those who attempt to include the non-human in that equation.

So yes, what is growing inside a pregnant woman is human species and it has the potential to become a human being if it survives pregnancy and birth. That's the science.

So, it's no longer a clump of cells, then? What changed?

Absolutely nothing changed. At a certain portion of it's development it is nothing more than a clump of cells. That is ALL it is.

Is it's value dependent on who carries it?

Not really. Life has no value, since it is invaluable.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you here.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't get it? Why do you want men to become pregnant? Such an idea is abominable...

Come to think of it - that is another example of the fundamental hypocrisy of the "pro-life" movement. There is little outcry or legislative pressure to do anything about all those surplus embryos which are eventually destroyed.

Yet there is no outcry from you when a developing fetus is destroyed in the womb. No remorse. Thusly, you don't have room to talk.

There is no ethical difference between an abortion and destroying those embryos yet where is the outcry and the charge of "baby killers" directed?

Yet as you can see here, there is quite a large ethical difference. It has been possible for nearly a decade to not to destroy the embryo at all in the process of stem cell research. Scientists have already acknowledged the immorality of destroying embryos. So, the charge of "baby killers" is directed at people with your viewpoint on abortion.

Embryonic and extraembryonic stem cell lines derived from single mouse blastomeres Article Nature

 

[Coyote]

I get women wanting the choice I just wish they would they wouldn't make light of the fact that an abortion ends a human life.

Just know that when you choose to abort your clump of cells you are taking a human life.

No one is 'making light' of abortion.

The right to privacy ensures that each person remain at liberty to make personal, private decisions without being compelled by the state to adhere to a particular subjective opinion through force of law.

You believe abortion is the taking of a human life, others may not – each position is just as valid and just as entitled to Constitutional protections and immune from attack by the state.

Moreover, one may believe that abortion is wrong, that as a fact of science it's the taking of a human life, while at the same time understanding that as a fact of law abortion is not 'murder,' and respect the privacy rights of others to decide for themselves the issue in the context of their own good faith and good conscience, as intended by the Framers of the Constitution.

I don't know anyone that takes it lightly - it's a difficult decision to make and no one has the right to make that decision but the woman herself.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And when I consider the statement "there is no moral compass" a bit further, I'm quite disturbed by the dismissive attitude implied by it. By saying so, the originator of the statement feels empowered to take innocent life. "No moral compass" means no responsibility, no answering to anyone, and no regrets.

You're misconstruing what I said. You keep doing that by adding in your own words.

SCIENCE has no moral compass. It provides the information. That is all.

Other disciplines explore the morality and ethics of new discoveries.

You keep throwing "science" into the ring and implying that science is proving or providing the morality. It isn't. That simple statement of fact has no bearing on my own moral compass at all.

Correct.

And again, science is not the sole determining factor concerning abortion as a matter of law, what legally defines murder, and where the privacy rights of the woman end and the interests of the state begin.

 

[RosieS]

There is nothing anyone can actually do about it. All the words over the last 40 years from men about morality and a tiny embryo misidentified as a "baby" (it isn't) have not talked any woman out of having an abortion.

And those whose convictions are like Coyote's have never talked a pregnant woman into having an abortion.

The sperm donor has very limited influence over the woman he impregnated.

It is all bloviation; worthless blather.

It is between a doctor and a woman. No one else gets a say that amounts to more than a bucket of warm spit.

And yet the stream of worthless words goes on......

Regards from Rosie