The Political View of Abortion

[PoliticalChic]

1. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Thomas Jefferson.

a. And based on the above, every conservative is pro-choice.

2. Our nation was founded on the premise that each individual has the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But they don’t become rights by virtue of birth…we are endowed with these rights by our Creator, at the moment of creation.

a. This is a political argument: the form of the Creator invoked by the Founders is irrelevant to the debate. Morality is not a consideration here, so there is no mention of contraception as being right or wrong; one’s use of contraceptives does not infringe on anyone else’s rights.

b. The fact is that our nation, at its very founding, acknowledged that, by virtue of being created, of being conceived, the unborn child, has a right to live. It is not a right that is alienable….even by the child’s mother.





3. Conservatism embraces this brand of pro-choice sentiment: we fully acknowledge a woman’s ability to make choices about her own body, and to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
The choice that operates is this: contraceptives may fail…the decision to engage in sexual intercourse is to accept the possibility that pregnancy may occur. This means the decision to accept all of the responsibilities that may become necessary.

a. When deciding to buy a house, there is the implicit acceptance of future mortgage payments, upkeep, insurance, etc.

b. The choice to which an individual has the right of decision is to have sex or not, rather than to abort or not.

c. No unjust intrusion on the unborn child’s right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is allowed.






4. Based on this position, the obligation of government is to protect the lives of the unborn by restricting access to abortion only to those situations in which the mother’s life is in danger, or to cases of rape or incest.

5. The vast majority of abortions performed in the United States are carried out for reasons that can be broadly categorized as “matters of convenience.” In a study of 27 nations, reasons for abortion services were found to be the following:

a. “Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons.”
Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries

b. A 2004 study of American women yielded similar results: “The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.”
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

c. We reject the view that inconvenience of a mother’s informed choice outweighs the unalienable right to life of the child she bears by virtue of that choice.






On-demand abortion is antithetical to the ideas and ideals upon which America was built.
Based on “Voices of the Damned,” found in “Reinventing the Right,” by Robert Wheeler, pp. 89-99.

stop posting, its really annoying. Abortion should be legal so people like you who their mom is their sister dont exist, oh wait thats right your politics agree with rape and incest, my bad.

"stop posting, its really annoying."

There is the prime directive of the Liberal: shut down, shout down, marginalize all opposing voices.

The reason, as are you, is simple: you cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas.

 

[PoliticalChic]

For you people who don't believe there's a constitutional right of privacy,

do you therefore find nothing unconstitutional in the idea of requiring all gun purchases to be registered and the information therein to be available to the public?

Would that violate your right to privacy, or doesn't that right exist?

The OP insists it doesn't exist, constitutionally. Is she full of shit?

When one has connaturalized the definition of God and assigned it to government, then one believes as you do.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Barack Obama has appointed Professor Peter Singer as a 'science' adviser. He chose Singer.

2."Obama has chosen preference utilitarians to plan and regulate our healthcare (and many other aspects of our lives). One of those personnel choices is Peter Singer who well expresses Obama’s chilling secular ideology. If you don’t know what this theory is, you need to!
Preference utilitarianism rejects religious-based morality. Its guiding principle makes the President’s war on religion very understandable. The principle allows for freedom of religion until the government says it is not in the interests of the common good."
Obamacare Will Not Value Human Life ? Proof Lies In A Killer Theory | Independent Sentinel

.

The raving fuktard that wrote that article writes in the same article:

"Peter Singer served as the director of the Brookings Institution’s 21st Century Defense Initiative and as the coordinator of President Barack Obama’s defense policy task force (there you go, that’s going well). He is also close to John Holdren, science czar."

That would be:

P. W. Singer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOT

Peter Singer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. “…the Jesuit college Fordham University welcomed infanticide and bestiality advocate Peter Singer for a panel discussion on Friday.

2. According to Fordham’s media relations website, Singer, a tenured Princeton bioethics professor, spoke from 4 to 6 p.m. in a panel the university promised “will provoke Christians to think about other animals in new ways.”

3. Singer has long lamented the societal stigma against having sex with animals. “Not so long ago,” Singer wrote in one essay, “any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. But … not every taboo has crumbled.”

4. In the essay, titled “Heavy Petting,” Singer concluded that “sex across the species barrier,” while not normal, “ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings.” “Occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop” when humans have sex with their pets, he claimed.

5. In addition to supporting bestiality and immediately granting equal legal rights to animals, Singer has also advocated euthanizing the mentally ill and aborting disabled infants on utilitarian grounds.

6. In his 1993 essay “Taking Life,” Singer, in a section called “Justifying Infanticide and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia,” wrote that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.”

7. “Very often it is not wrong at all,” he added, noting that newborns should not be considered people until approximately a month after their birth.

8. Both Singer and his supporters maintain that ethics experts must often confront taboo topics to arrive at greater philosophical truths.”
Fordham University, after barring Ann Coulter from campus, welcomes infanticide advocate Peter Singer | The Daily Caller




Peter Singer Joins Obama's Health Care Administrators
http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Am-Not-A-Fan-Of-Peter-Singer/657290

 

[jknowgood]

Why do people who claim not to look to the government for rights want to amend the Constitution to give rights to fetuses?

Just because lberals manipulated science to call a baby a fetus, doesn't take a baby's right not to be killed by his mother. If a woman wants a right to choose, maybe she should choose not to have unprotected sex, that's not the baby's fault.

 

[Agit8r]

1. Barack Obama has appointed Professor Peter Singer as a 'science' adviser. He chose Singer.

2."Obama has chosen preference utilitarians to plan and regulate our healthcare (and many other aspects of our lives). One of those personnel choices is Peter Singer who well expresses Obama’s chilling secular ideology. If you don’t know what this theory is, you need to!
Preference utilitarianism rejects religious-based morality. Its guiding principle makes the President’s war on religion very understandable. The principle allows for freedom of religion until the government says it is not in the interests of the common good."
Obamacare Will Not Value Human Life ? Proof Lies In A Killer Theory | Independent Sentinel

.

The raving fuktard that wrote that article writes in the same article:

"Peter Singer served as the director of the Brookings Institution’s 21st Century Defense Initiative and as the coordinator of President Barack Obama’s defense policy task force (there you go, that’s going well). He is also close to John Holdren, science czar."

That would be:

P. W. Singer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOT

Peter Singer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. “…the Jesuit college Fordham University welcomed infanticide and bestiality advocate Peter Singer for a panel discussion on Friday.

2. According to Fordham’s media relations website, Singer, a tenured Princeton bioethics professor, spoke from 4 to 6 p.m. in a panel the university promised “will provoke Christians to think about other animals in new ways.”

3. Singer has long lamented the societal stigma against having sex with animals. “Not so long ago,” Singer wrote in one essay, “any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. But … not every taboo has crumbled.”

4. In the essay, titled “Heavy Petting,” Singer concluded that “sex across the species barrier,” while not normal, “ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings.” “Occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop” when humans have sex with their pets, he claimed.

5. In addition to supporting bestiality and immediately granting equal legal rights to animals, Singer has also advocated euthanizing the mentally ill and aborting disabled infants on utilitarian grounds.

6. In his 1993 essay “Taking Life,” Singer, in a section called “Justifying Infanticide and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia,” wrote that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.”

7. “Very often it is not wrong at all,” he added, noting that newborns should not be considered people until approximately a month after their birth.

8. Both Singer and his supporters maintain that ethics experts must often confront taboo topics to arrive at greater philosophical truths.”
Fordham University, after barring Ann Coulter from campus, welcomes infanticide advocate Peter Singer | The Daily Caller

wow, you are a strawman absolutist.

I pointed out the QUITE OBVIOUS FACT that there are TWO PETER SINGERS and that only one of them worked for Obama, and you double-down on trashing the OTHER PETER SINGER!

FUCKING AMAZING!

but of course you are just trying to bury the even more obvious fact that abortion took place in 1776 and it wasn't even remotely a political issue.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why do people who claim not to look to the government for rights want to amend the Constitution to give rights to fetuses?

Just because lberals manipulated science to call a baby a fetus, doesn't take a baby's right not to be killed by his mother. If a woman wants a right to choose, maybe she should choose not to have unprotected sex, that's not the baby's fault.

And that is the essential point of the OP.

 

[NYcarbineer]

For you people who don't believe there's a constitutional right of privacy,

do you therefore find nothing unconstitutional in the idea of requiring all gun purchases to be registered and the information therein to be available to the public?

Would that violate your right to privacy, or doesn't that right exist?

The OP insists it doesn't exist, constitutionally. Is she full of shit?

When one has connaturalized the definition of God and assigned it to government, then one believes as you do.

Once again your response has nothing to do with my post, but at least you were brief, and for that you have my thanks.

Now reread the post. You claimed earlier there was no constitutional right to privacy. Setting aside the absurdity of that notion,

do you then agree that if your view were correct, then gun owners could not claim any right to privacy of their gun purchases, their gun permitting or licensing, and their gun ownership?

Another chance for you to add to the long list of questions you have dodged.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do people who claim not to look to the government for rights want to amend the Constitution to give rights to fetuses?

Just because lberals manipulated science to call a baby a fetus, doesn't take a baby's right not to be killed by his mother. If a woman wants a right to choose, maybe she should choose not to have unprotected sex, that's not the baby's fault.

So liberals in the 14th century started calling the unborn 'fetuses'? lol, I don't think you're up to this conversation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

For you people who don't believe there's a constitutional right of privacy,

do you therefore find nothing unconstitutional in the idea of requiring all gun purchases to be registered and the information therein to be available to the public?

Would that violate your right to privacy, or doesn't that right exist?

The OP insists it doesn't exist, constitutionally. Is she full of shit?

When one has connaturalized the definition of God and assigned it to government, then one believes as you do.

Once again your response has nothing to do with my post, but at least you were brief, and for that you have my thanks.

Now reread the post. You claimed earlier there was no constitutional right to privacy. Setting aside the absurdity of that notion,

do you then agree that if your view were correct, then gun owners could not claim any right to privacy of their gun purchases, their gun permitting or licensing, and their gun ownership?

Another chance for you to add to the long list of questions you have dodged.

1. " Setting aside the absurdity of that notion,///"
Not absurd.....correct.


2."Another chance for you to add to the long list of questions you have dodged."

I always refrain from unraveling your ...what was your term?...oh...'absurd'... equivalences.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Thomas Jefferson.

a. And based on the above, every conservative is pro-choice.

2. Our nation was founded on the premise that each individual has the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But they don’t become rights by virtue of birth…we are endowed with these rights by our Creator, at the moment of creation.

a. This is a political argument: the form of the Creator invoked by the Founders is irrelevant to the debate. Morality is not a consideration here, so there is no mention of contraception as being right or wrong; one’s use of contraceptives does not infringe on anyone else’s rights.

b. The fact is that our nation, at its very founding, acknowledged that, by virtue of being created, of being conceived, the unborn child, has a right to live. It is not a right that is alienable….even by the child’s mother.





3. Conservatism embraces this brand of pro-choice sentiment: we fully acknowledge a woman’s ability to make choices about her own body, and to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
The choice that operates is this: contraceptives may fail…the decision to engage in sexual intercourse is to accept the possibility that pregnancy may occur. This means the decision to accept all of the responsibilities that may become necessary.

a. When deciding to buy a house, there is the implicit acceptance of future mortgage payments, upkeep, insurance, etc.

b. The choice to which an individual has the right of decision is to have sex or not, rather than to abort or not.

c. No unjust intrusion on the unborn child’s right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is allowed.






4. Based on this position, the obligation of government is to protect the lives of the unborn by restricting access to abortion only to those situations in which the mother’s life is in danger, or to cases of rape or incest.

5. The vast majority of abortions performed in the United States are carried out for reasons that can be broadly categorized as “matters of convenience.” In a study of 27 nations, reasons for abortion services were found to be the following:

a. “Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons.”
Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries

b. A 2004 study of American women yielded similar results: “The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.”
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

c. We reject the view that inconvenience of a mother’s informed choice outweighs the unalienable right to life of the child she bears by virtue of that choice.






On-demand abortion is antithetical to the ideas and ideals upon which America was built.
Based on “Voices of the Damned,” found in “Reinventing the Right,” by Robert Wheeler, pp. 89-99.

stop posting, its really annoying. Abortion should be legal so people like you who their mom is their sister dont exist, oh wait thats right your politics agree with rape and incest, my bad.

"stop posting, its really annoying."

There is the prime directive of the Liberal: shut down, shout down, marginalize all opposing voices.

The reason, as are you, is simple: you cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas.

That's an ironic post coming from one of USMB's leading practitioners of the gratuitous personal insult.

 

[jknowgood]

In the 14 century did they call a fetus a useless mass and kill it for any reason?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why do people who claim not to look to the government for rights want to amend the Constitution to give rights to fetuses?

Just because lberals manipulated science to call a baby a fetus, doesn't take a baby's right not to be killed by his mother. If a woman wants a right to choose, maybe she should choose not to have unprotected sex, that's not the baby's fault.

So liberals in the 14th century started calling the unborn 'fetuses'? lol, I don't think you're up to this conversation.

"liberals in the 14th century"
Incorrect usage.


Be clear. There were conservatives, known earlier as classical liberals.

Modern liberals were known as socialists before John Dewey had the.....concupiscence...to change the name to what is now the modern liberal.

 

[Agit8r]

stop posting, its really annoying. Abortion should be legal so people like you who their mom is their sister dont exist, oh wait thats right your politics agree with rape and incest, my bad.

"stop posting, its really annoying."

There is the prime directive of the Liberal: shut down, shout down, marginalize all opposing voices.

The reason, as are you, is simple: you cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas.

That's an ironic post coming from one of USMB's leading practitioners of the gratuitous personal insult.

It's sad that in the marketplace of ideas, facts are treated with so little value. The fact is that by placing authority in founding principal, she has nullified her own argument completely, because abortion existed in colonial America, and was not a political issue. I can't even understand why there is anything more to discuss here.

 

[jknowgood]

Why do people who claim not to look to the government for rights want to amend the Constitution to give rights to fetuses?

Just because lberals manipulated science to call a baby a fetus, doesn't take a baby's right not to be killed by his mother. If a woman wants a right to choose, maybe she should choose not to have unprotected sex, that's not the baby's fault.

So liberals in the 14th century started calling the unborn 'fetuses'? lol, I don't think you're up to this conversation.

What your saying there wasn't science in the 14 century?

 

[PoliticalChic]

stop posting, its really annoying. Abortion should be legal so people like you who their mom is their sister dont exist, oh wait thats right your politics agree with rape and incest, my bad.

"stop posting, its really annoying."

There is the prime directive of the Liberal: shut down, shout down, marginalize all opposing voices.

The reason, as are you, is simple: you cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas.

That's an ironic post coming from one of USMB's leading practitioners of the gratuitous personal insult.

Guilty as charged....except that the insults I use are more correctly described as accurate descriptions.
Nor are they gratuitous...they have been earned.

Now....what does your charge have to with the post to which you were ostensibly replying?

I don't believe I've demanded that any stop posting.
Have I?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"stop posting, its really annoying."

There is the prime directive of the Liberal: shut down, shout down, marginalize all opposing voices.

The reason, as are you, is simple: you cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas.

That's an ironic post coming from one of USMB's leading practitioners of the gratuitous personal insult.

It's sad that in the marketplace of ideas, facts are treated with so little value. The fact is that by placing authority in founding principal, she has nullified her own argument completely, because abortion existed in colonial America, and was not a political issue. I can't even understand why there is anything more to discuss here.

OK.

See ya'....

 

[NYcarbineer]

In the 14 century did they call a fetus a useless mass and kill it for any reason?

I don't know. The Romans practiced abortion at the time of Jesus, and he never complained about it.

18th century American colonists generally considered abortion legal until the time of quickening, which corresponds roughly to the first trimester.

 

[Agit8r]

That's an ironic post coming from one of USMB's leading practitioners of the gratuitous personal insult.

It's sad that in the marketplace of ideas, facts are treated with so little value. The fact is that by placing authority in founding principal, she has nullified her own argument completely, because abortion existed in colonial America, and was not a political issue. I can't even understand why there is anything more to discuss here.

OK.

See ya'....

You are not going to admit that you are 100% wrong even when the PROOF is dragged out for everyone to see? That tells me that your personal integrity is zero.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just because lberals manipulated science to call a baby a fetus, doesn't take a baby's right not to be killed by his mother. If a woman wants a right to choose, maybe she should choose not to have unprotected sex, that's not the baby's fault.

So liberals in the 14th century started calling the unborn 'fetuses'? lol, I don't think you're up to this conversation.

What your saying there wasn't science in the 14 century?

I'm saying that the idea that 'liberals' manipulated science to use a scientific term to identify the unborn is so stupid that if this board had even the most minimal standards prohibiting stupidity,

with only the most extremely stupid posts comprising only the top one percent of all things stupid qualifying as sufficiently stupid,

you would be banned for saying that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's sad that in the marketplace of ideas, facts are treated with so little value. The fact is that by placing authority in founding principal, she has nullified her own argument completely, because abortion existed in colonial America, and was not a political issue. I can't even understand why there is anything more to discuss here.

OK.

See ya'....

You are not going to admit that you are 100% wrong even when the PROOF is dragged out for everyone to see? That tells me that your personal integrity is zero.

Rightwingers almost never admit to being wrong. I think they take some sort of oath to that when they join the cult.

What I like to say to them is, proving you wrong is the cake, watching you squirm to avoid admitting it is the icing.