The abortion issue troubles me mightily

[RWNJ]

By definition, life begins at conception.

By your definition maybe. Life began 4 billion years ago. That sperm and that egg are alive before and after conception.

That sperm and egg are not alive. Look at the definition again.

 

[RWNJ]

Those who support the legality of abortion do not seek to force anything on anyone.

Those who are against the legality actively seek to control others, and the full heat of their wrath falls on the poor and working class.

Bullshit.

I have to ask myself why those who support abortion get all bent out of shape when a woman decides NOT to have an abortion. I thought they were pro CHOICE.

 

[alang1216]

By definition, life begins at conception.

By your definition maybe. Life began 4 billion years ago. That sperm and that egg are alive before and after conception.

That sperm and egg are not alive. Look at the definition again.

Again, YOUR definition only. Conception is but one step in the reproductive process. Science attaches no more significance to it than it does to any other step. I don't impose my definition on you, why do you get to impose your definitions on me?

 

[RWNJ]

By definition, life begins at conception.

By your definition maybe. Life began 4 billion years ago. That sperm and that egg are alive before and after conception.

That sperm and egg are not alive. Look at the definition again.

Again, YOUR definition only. Conception is but one step in the reproductive process. Science attaches no more significance to it than it does to any other step. I don't impose my definition on you, why do you get to impose your definitions on me?

It's not my definition. It's the one you'll find in the dictionary.

 

[alang1216]

That sperm and egg are not alive. Look at the definition again.

Again, YOUR definition only. Conception is but one step in the reproductive process. Science attaches no more significance to it than it does to any other step. I don't impose my definition on you, why do you get to impose your definitions on me?

It's not my definition. It's the one you'll find in the dictionary.

What definition of 'alive' says that sperm and egg are not alive? If they're not alive what are they? Dead?

 

[RWNJ]

That sperm and egg are not alive. Look at the definition again.

Again, YOUR definition only. Conception is but one step in the reproductive process. Science attaches no more significance to it than it does to any other step. I don't impose my definition on you, why do you get to impose your definitions on me?

It's not my definition. It's the one you'll find in the dictionary.

What definition of 'alive' says that sperm and egg are not alive? If they're not alive what are they? Dead?

Exactly! Once conception begins, the cell begins to divide. That's the ability to change. It's alive. But liberals don't care. In fact, there are many liberals who believe that post birth abortions should be legal. Another example of liberal hypocrisy. They say that it's not alive until it's born, then they want to kill it.

 

[alang1216]

What definition of 'alive' says that sperm and egg are not alive? If they're not alive what are they? Dead?

Exactly! Once conception begins, the cell begins to divide. That's the ability to change. It's alive. But liberals don't care. In fact, there are many liberals who believe that post birth abortions should be legal. Another example of liberal hypocrisy. They say that it's not alive until it's born, then they want to kill it.

I have no idea what questions you answered but they certainly weren't my questions.

An example of 'conservative' hypocrisy, equating all science with politics. What liberals believe that post birth abortions should be legal? Another example of 'conservative' hypocrisy, making up straw man arguments?

 

[RWNJ]

What definition of 'alive' says that sperm and egg are not alive? If they're not alive what are they? Dead?

Exactly! Once conception begins, the cell begins to divide. That's the ability to change. It's alive. But liberals don't care. In fact, there are many liberals who believe that post birth abortions should be legal. Another example of liberal hypocrisy. They say that it's not alive until it's born, then they want to kill it.

I have no idea what questions you answered but they certainly weren't my questions.

What liberals believe that post birth abortions should be legal? Another example of 'conservative' hypocrisy, making up straw man arguments?

Since you asked... Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

 

[alang1216]

What liberals believe that post birth abortions should be legal? Another example of 'conservative' hypocrisy, making up straw man arguments?

Since you asked... Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

An academic exercise which I'd bet is not favored even by the authors let alone the vast majority. Also, I don't see any evidence of them as 'liberal' or 'conservative', why do you think they are liberal, besides the fact you don't like what they wrote?

 

[ding]

And that matters how to the determination that science tells us it is a human being. And not just any human being, but a very specific human being. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

I don't give a rat's ass how YOU interpret "science" as to the origin of a human life. What matters is how the law interprets it, and the law does not outlaw early term abortions, which, incidentally, agrees with MY interpretation of my rights, no matter how much you want to take that away from me. Meantime, all your self righteous morality would do nothing but throw a few doctors in prison, while abortion continued, just like it did before Roe Vs. Wade.

They didn't make this argument then. If it were made today, Roe v Wade would be reversed and it would be up for the states to decide.

If, If, and If. If pigs could fly. Get back to me when you are appointed to sit on the bench and reverse the decision of the court. In the meantime, the religious Right has not yet turned this country into a christian version of a muslim nation.

It was the central question.

Don't be so overly emotional. It would just go back to letting the states decide.

Relax.

I grew up in the South during the civil rights struggle. I am not interested in watching Texas, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana trample all over the people's rights again in my lifetime. They would do it again in a New York second, if allowed to.

Some would argue that the civil rights of new and genetically distinct human beings are being trampled on today.

 

[TNHarley]

meh, doesnt bother me.
I dont consider unborn fetuses a "human" "baby" or anything.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I don't give a rat's ass how YOU interpret "science" as to the origin of a human life. What matters is how the law interprets it, and the law does not outlaw early term abortions, which, incidentally, agrees with MY interpretation of my rights, no matter how much you want to take that away from me. Meantime, all your self righteous morality would do nothing but throw a few doctors in prison, while abortion continued, just like it did before Roe Vs. Wade.

They didn't make this argument then. If it were made today, Roe v Wade would be reversed and it would be up for the states to decide.

If, If, and If. If pigs could fly. Get back to me when you are appointed to sit on the bench and reverse the decision of the court. In the meantime, the religious Right has not yet turned this country into a christian version of a muslim nation.

It was the central question.

Don't be so overly emotional. It would just go back to letting the states decide.

Relax.

I grew up in the South during the civil rights struggle. I am not interested in watching Texas, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana trample all over the people's rights again in my lifetime. They would do it again in a New York second, if allowed to.

Some would argue that the civil rights of new and genetically distinct human beings are being trampled on today.

...and some would be wrong, because legally, a fetus is not a human being, at least until it is a viable life outside the womb.

 

[Natural Citizen]

If someone kills a fetus in a car accident, they have to answer to it. An obstetrician has a legal responsibility for a fetus. If they do any harm to it they can be sued. A fetus has legal inheritance rights. And one could offer other examples.

So why is it life one time but not another time?

 

[ding]

They didn't make this argument then. If it were made today, Roe v Wade would be reversed and it would be up for the states to decide.

If, If, and If. If pigs could fly. Get back to me when you are appointed to sit on the bench and reverse the decision of the court. In the meantime, the religious Right has not yet turned this country into a christian version of a muslim nation.

It was the central question.

Don't be so overly emotional. It would just go back to letting the states decide.

Relax.

I grew up in the South during the civil rights struggle. I am not interested in watching Texas, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana trample all over the people's rights again in my lifetime. They would do it again in a New York second, if allowed to.

Some would argue that the civil rights of new and genetically distinct human beings are being trampled on today.

...and some would be wrong, because legally, a fetus is not a human being, at least until it is a viable life outside the womb.

DNA says they are new and genetically distinct human beings.

Viability does not determine humanity. If it did then anyone who was not viable due to injury or illness would not be human.

 

[TNHarley]

If someone kills a fetus in a car accident, they have to answer to it. An obstetrician has a legal responsibility for a fetus. If they do any harm to it they can be sued. A fetus has legal inheritance rights. And one could offer other examples.

So why is it life one time but not another time?

The "choice" comes into play with that circumstance.

 

[Natural Citizen]

If someone kills a fetus in a car accident, they have to answer to it. An obstetrician has a legal responsibility for a fetus. If they do any harm to it they can be sued. A fetus has legal inheritance rights. And one could offer other examples.

So why is it life one time but not another time?

The "choice" comes into play with that circumstance.

This is why I say let the states handle it and treat it as a violent crime similar to armed robbery. The constitution allows the states to write their laws and to take away jurisdiction by a majority vote in the congress. That'll end RvW overnight.

 

[RWNJ]

If someone kills a fetus in a car accident, they have to answer to it. An obstetrician has a legal responsibility for a fetus. If they do any harm to it they can be sued. A fetus has legal inheritance rights. And one could offer other examples.

So why is it life one time but not another time?

The "choice" comes into play with that circumstance.

Too bad that innocent baby doesn't get a choice.

 

[TNHarley]

If someone kills a fetus in a car accident, they have to answer to it. An obstetrician has a legal responsibility for a fetus. If they do any harm to it they can be sued. A fetus has legal inheritance rights. And one could offer other examples.

So why is it life one time but not another time?

The "choice" comes into play with that circumstance.

Too bad that innocent baby doesn't get a choice.

i dont see it as a baby so..

 

[buttercup]

If someone kills a fetus in a car accident, they have to answer to it. An obstetrician has a legal responsibility for a fetus. If they do any harm to it they can be sued. A fetus has legal inheritance rights. And one could offer other examples.

So why is it life one time but not another time?

The "choice" comes into play with that circumstance.

Do you not see the illogic there? Here's a different example… showing two women doing the same exact thing, however one killing took place outside the womb and the other took place inside.

We have certain inalienable rights because we are human beings… not because of our location. Our humanity has nothing to do with location. If I was on the moon right now, I would still be a person. lol. Two babies at the exact same age, one outside the womb and one in are the same, except for location. It is illogical and absurd to think that one is a human being and the other one isn't. Can you admit that?

 

[TNHarley]

If someone kills a fetus in a car accident, they have to answer to it. An obstetrician has a legal responsibility for a fetus. If they do any harm to it they can be sued. A fetus has legal inheritance rights. And one could offer other examples.

So why is it life one time but not another time?

The "choice" comes into play with that circumstance.

Do you not see the illogic there? Here's a different example… showing two women doing the same exact thing, however one killing took place outside the womb and the other took place inside.

We have certain inalienable rights because we are human beings… not because of our location. Our humanity has nothing to do with location. If I was on the moon right now, I would still be a person. lol. Two babies at the exact same age, one outside the womb and one in are the same, except for location. It is illogical and absurd to think that one is a human being and the other one isn't. Can you admit that?

No lol
Being in the womb, my opinion and definitions, doesn't constitute a human.
Besides, you don't have an "age" until you are outside the womb