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

[Ernie S.]

Accurate meaning what? What will that so called clump become? As opposed to other "clumps" that won't become anything viable?

You people use the term "clump of cells" like it's universal to every aspect of the human body. Some cells become special things if you don't kill it. Other clumps are actually trying to kill the person they are in. You can't seem to see the difference.

In the earliest stages of development it is nothing more than a clump of cells with potential. That is it.

And what does a cancer clump of cells have the chance to become? You want to treat them both the same but they aren't. Cancer would be easy to cure if all you had to do was not go have sex with someone and not get it. A child deserves a bit more respect and consideration than that don't you think? Cancer is a clump of cells you have no control over. A child is the result of your own actions and can never happen without your consent and participation.

That's actually not true.

How often is it not true? one in 10 million births, perhaps?

I don't know - but it's not relevant. His statement was flat out wrong.

His statement was only right 99.999% of the time. Hardly flat out.

 

[Coyote]

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

What are you trying to say....? The death of a violent criminal is not the same as sparing the life of an unborn baby. I am for the death penalty and against abortion...the thing that sets them apart is innocence. The baby has done nothing wrong, the killer has murdered someone else...is that so hard to see?

I'm saying either human life has a consistent value or it has an arbritrary value. It's clear in your mind that human life has an arbritrary value.

Human life has consistent value from conception through death.That value only becomes arbitrary as a result of its own actions.
No fetus, to my knowledge, has ever been convicted of a capitol offense.

Human life is either valued or it is not irregardless of actions. Most of that value comes out of religion and, at least in Catholic theology there is no difference between ending the life of a fetus or ending the life of a murderer - it's equally wrong. There's no subjective "innocence" interjected into it - it's human life. And considering that more and more we find innocent people have been convicted under the death penalty - the whole innocence thing is a mess.

 

[jknowgood]

no, a baby is a human being and shouldn't be murdered.....and when the baby is born the woman can give up the baby and live her life...without killing another human being.......

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?

 

[Coyote]

In the earliest stages of development it is nothing more than a clump of cells with potential. That is it.

And what does a cancer clump of cells have the chance to become? You want to treat them both the same but they aren't. Cancer would be easy to cure if all you had to do was not go have sex with someone and not get it. A child deserves a bit more respect and consideration than that don't you think? Cancer is a clump of cells you have no control over. A child is the result of your own actions and can never happen without your consent and participation.

That's actually not true.

How often is it not true? one in 10 million births, perhaps?

I don't know - but it's not relevant. His statement was flat out wrong.

His statement was only right 99.999% of the time. Hardly flat out.

You have statistics to support that?

 

[Coyote]

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?

"Personhood" is a philosophical construct - it's not based on science. Science has nothing to do with it.

 

[2aguy]

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?

"Personhood" is a philosophical construct - it's not based on science. Science has nothing to do with it.

All the killers in history appreciate your defense of them......

 

[candycorn]

Not surprised or saddened. Carly is playing the hand she is dealt and she may end up getting a VP nod out of it by the eventual loser.

 

[2aguy]

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

What are you trying to say....? The death of a violent criminal is not the same as sparing the life of an unborn baby. I am for the death penalty and against abortion...the thing that sets them apart is innocence. The baby has done nothing wrong, the killer has murdered someone else...is that so hard to see?

I'm saying either human life has a consistent value or it has an arbritrary value. It's clear in your mind that human life has an arbritrary value.

Human life has consistent value from conception through death.That value only becomes arbitrary as a result of its own actions.
No fetus, to my knowledge, has ever been convicted of a capitol offense.

Human life is either valued or it is not irregardless of actions. Most of that value comes out of religion and, at least in Catholic theology there is no difference between ending the life of a fetus or ending the life of a murderer - it's equally wrong. There's no subjective "innocence" interjected into it - it's human life. And considering that more and more we find innocent people have been convicted under the death penalty - the whole innocence thing is a mess.

No, there is truth and reality....there are actual murderers on death row, in fact all of them but a few. According to your post socialism, which rejects religion, therefore rejects the value of human life, therefore ending a human life is no more wrong than stepping on flowers. That shows how all the mass graves in history were filled by socialists....

 

[TemplarKormac]

Don't assume you know what it is to me.

I already do. Your arguments make that crystal clear.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No. I'm placing born, existing creatures in higher regard than a blastocyst.

Given what you know what that blastocyst is going to be, it would be easy to know that it is life, and thusly an unborn child. You have to be willfully ignorant to suggest that even during the very moments before birth, that a fully developed child is still a "clump of cells" until he or she exits the womb. Your definition is flawed for one reason:

The child is as fully developed in the womb as it is the moment the child leaves the womb.

Now, during birth, you have the head of the baby in your hands. What do you call what the head is attached to? A "clump of cells," still?

 

[TemplarKormac]

They call it being pregnant. A pregnancy. That is what it is.

Pregnant with what? A dog?

 

[Coyote]

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

What are you trying to say....? The death of a violent criminal is not the same as sparing the life of an unborn baby. I am for the death penalty and against abortion...the thing that sets them apart is innocence. The baby has done nothing wrong, the killer has murdered someone else...is that so hard to see?

I'm saying either human life has a consistent value or it has an arbritrary value. It's clear in your mind that human life has an arbritrary value.

Human life has consistent value from conception through death.That value only becomes arbitrary as a result of its own actions.
No fetus, to my knowledge, has ever been convicted of a capitol offense.

Human life is either valued or it is not irregardless of actions. Most of that value comes out of religion and, at least in Catholic theology there is no difference between ending the life of a fetus or ending the life of a murderer - it's equally wrong. There's no subjective "innocence" interjected into it - it's human life. And considering that more and more we find innocent people have been convicted under the death penalty - the whole innocence thing is a mess.

No, there is truth and reality....there are actual murderers on death row, in fact all of them but a few.

A few? No one really knows how many. Are you willing to sacrifice even one innocent life?

According to your post socialism, which rejects religion, therefore rejects the value of human life, therefore ending a human life is no more wrong than stepping on flowers. That shows how all the mass graves in history were filled by socialists....

My post has nothing to do with socialism and, you'll be disappointed to know that socialism is not the cause of all or even most mass graves. People were and they continue to be.

I actually don't think ending human life is no more wrong than stepping on flowers.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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

It is an accurate phrase.

Accurate meaning what? What will that so called clump become? As opposed to other "clumps" that won't become anything viable?

You people use the term "clump of cells" like it's universal to every aspect of the human body. Some cells become special things if you don't kill it. Other clumps are actually trying to kill the person they are in. You can't seem to see the difference.

In the earliest stages of development it is nothing more than a clump of cells with potential. That is it.

And what does a cancer clump of cells have the chance to become? You want to treat them both the same but they aren't. Cancer would be easy to cure if all you had to do was not go have sex with someone and not get it. A child deserves a bit more respect and consideration than that don't you think? Cancer is a clump of cells you have no control over. A child is the result of your own actions and can never happen without your consent and participation.

That's actually not true.

How is that not true?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Too bad the unborn child in the womb can't pull a Bruce Jenner and identify itself as a human being.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

no, a baby is a human being and shouldn't be murdered.....and when the baby is born the woman can give up the baby and live her life...without killing another human being.......

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.

Science determines everything in the world other than life? Are you serious?

 

[Coyote]

No. I'm placing born, existing creatures in higher regard than a blastocyst.

Given what you know what that blastocyst is going to be, it would be easy to know that it is life, and thusly an unborn child. You have to be willfully ignorant to suggest that even during the very moments before birth, that a fully developed child is still a "clump of cells" until he or she exits the womb. Your definition is flawed for one reason:

The child was as fully developed in the womb as it is when the child leaves the womb.

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

 

[Coyote]

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?

"Personhood" is a philosophical construct - it's not based on science. Science has nothing to do with it.

All the killers in history appreciate your defense of them......

What does that have to do with the concept of personhood?

 

[Coyote]

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.

Science determines everything in the world other than life? Are you serious?

You were talking about personhood - not life. Two completely different things.

Personhood - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law and is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.[1]

 

[Noomi]

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.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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

What are you trying to say....? The death of a violent criminal is not the same as sparing the life of an unborn baby. I am for the death penalty and against abortion...the thing that sets them apart is innocence. The baby has done nothing wrong, the killer has murdered someone else...is that so hard to see?

I'm saying either human life has a consistent value or it has an arbritrary value. It's clear in your mind that human life has an arbritrary value.

Human life has consistent value from conception through death.That value only becomes arbitrary as a result of its own actions.
No fetus, to my knowledge, has ever been convicted of a capitol offense.

Human life is either valued or it is not irregardless of actions. Most of that value comes out of religion and, at least in Catholic theology there is no difference between ending the life of a fetus or ending the life of a murderer - it's equally wrong. There's no subjective "innocence" interjected into it - it's human life. And considering that more and more we find innocent people have been convicted under the death penalty - the whole innocence thing is a mess.

So by your own admission we can't have the death penalty for a grown person that killed someone because that is against God's will. So how do you square that same concept with an unborn child and arrive at that is an acceptable murder?