The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[Derideo_Te]

Life does begin at conception (scientifically speaking):

""Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)."

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo s Conception

I would agree with you as to when human development begins. If all goes well that development will eventually lead to a human being. Building a house may begin with a the laying of a single brick but that doesn't make that brick a house. It is impossible to say when the construction of a house results in a "house" just as it is impossible to say when biological development results in a human being. The line will be arbitrary and different people will view where that line lies differently. None of them are wrong but they have no basis to say that everyone else must accept their line as the only correct view.

No, it's already a human being. In the early stages of development.
Just as a teen is a human (but isn't an adult) and a child is a human, and an elder is a human, and a baby is a human.

It's exactly the same thing, just at a different developmental stage.

In your ideal world, would the death penalty be appropriate for a woman caught using the morning after pill?

Wouldn't that fall under intent to commit murder? And can't they charge the clerk in the drug store with conspiracy to commit murder?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Based on the life begins at conception theory,

if a woman has an abortion, she has murdered her baby. Why do none of you who claim to support the premise refuse to support the logical consequence?

Because abortion is legal.

Yes, but you want to make abortion illegal, because you believe its murder.

If abortion is murder it's no different than drowning your 2 year old in the bath tub.

 

[BlindBoo]

Life does begin at conception (scientifically speaking):

""Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)."

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo s Conception

BZZZT Wrong!

According to your own link "human development" begins at conception.

However it is not yet a human being at conception, merely a potential human being.

That's a value judgment. The very fact that it multiplies, specializes, and creates a human form through no other force of will but it's own is a compelling indicator of humanity that can't be set aside.

Yes everyone who is alive today began life as a simple fertilized egg. That doesn't mean every fertilized egg is a human life. Many never implant and simply get flushed away.

So you don't agree with the science.

Got it.

""Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)."

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo s Conception

That not every fertilized egg develops into a live human being and many get flushed out of the woman's body before implanting is completely supported by science.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Life does begin at conception (scientifically speaking):

""Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)."

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo s Conception

I would agree with you as to when human development begins. If all goes well that development will eventually lead to a human being. Building a house may begin with a the laying of a single brick but that doesn't make that brick a house. It is impossible to say when the construction of a house results in a "house" just as it is impossible to say when biological development results in a human being. The line will be arbitrary and different people will view where that line lies differently. None of them are wrong but they have no basis to say that everyone else must accept their line as the only correct view.

No, it's already a human being. In the early stages of development.
Just as a teen is a human (but isn't an adult) and a child is a human, and an elder is a human, and a baby is a human.

It's exactly the same thing, just at a different developmental stage.

In your ideal world, would the death penalty be appropriate for a woman caught using the morning after pill?

Wouldn't that fall under intent to commit murder? And can't they charge the clerk in the drug store with conspiracy to commit murder?

It would be the equivalent of murder for hire. If you paid someone to abort your fetus it would be no different than paying someone to kill your husband.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Once again Don PoliticalSpice Quixote is on her futile crusade to tear down the wall of separation between church and state.

There is no such "wall, " you uneducated dunce.

The KKKer, Hugo Black, FDR's first Supreme Court nominee, inserted it and dopes like you believe that the concept was not anathema to the view of the Founders.

1. The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting ... First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Once again PoliticalSpice exposes her woeful ignorance of American history.

The KKKer, Hugo Black, FDR's first Supreme Court nominee, inserted it and dopes like you believe that the concept was no anathema to the view of the Founders.

Try reading Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists.

Jefferson s Letter to the Danbury Baptists June 1998 - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson​

Jan. 1. 1802.

It was Jefferson himself who first used the phrase to describe the intent of the 1st Amendment.

Once again you have made a fool of yourself!

And once again the OP exhibits her ignorance of the Constitution and its case law.

The Constitution and case law are two very different things. Can you guess which one is the law of the land?

Incorrect

The Constitution and its case law are one in the same.

Wrong because then the Supreme Court could never be wrong and the Constitution becomes meaningless. Your argument is illogical.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Once again Don PoliticalSpice Quixote is on her futile crusade to tear down the wall of separation between church and state.

There is no such "wall, " you uneducated dunce.

The KKKer, Hugo Black, FDR's first Supreme Court nominee, inserted it and dopes like you believe that the concept was not anathema to the view of the Founders.

1. The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting ... First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Once again PoliticalSpice exposes her woeful ignorance of American history.

The KKKer, Hugo Black, FDR's first Supreme Court nominee, inserted it and dopes like you believe that the concept was no anathema to the view of the Founders.

Try reading Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists.

Jefferson s Letter to the Danbury Baptists June 1998 - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson​

Jan. 1. 1802.

It was Jefferson himself who first used the phrase to describe the intent of the 1st Amendment.

Once again you have made a fool of yourself!

And once again the OP exhibits her ignorance of the Constitution and its case law.

The Constitution and case law are two very different things. Can you guess which one is the law of the land?

Incorrect

The Constitution and its case law are one in the same.

No, actually not.

"Case law" is the attempt by Liberals to alter the Constitution without an amendment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They meet my argument with stunned silence which is more than enough proof that none of these idiots believe the inflammatory rhetoric they're spewing.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Based on the life begins at conception theory,

if a woman has an abortion, she has murdered her baby. Why do none of you who claim to support the premise refuse to support the logical consequence?

Because abortion is legal.

Yes, but you want to make abortion illegal, because you believe its murder.

If abortion is murder it's no different than drowning your 2 year old in the bath tub.

You are catching on. That's exactly what many people are saying. People qualify under your definition of real humans.

Although the doctor would actually commit the murder and the mother would be an accomplice.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no such "wall, " you uneducated dunce.

The KKKer, Hugo Black, FDR's first Supreme Court nominee, inserted it and dopes like you believe that the concept was not anathema to the view of the Founders.

1. The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting ... First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Once again PoliticalSpice exposes her woeful ignorance of American history.

The KKKer, Hugo Black, FDR's first Supreme Court nominee, inserted it and dopes like you believe that the concept was no anathema to the view of the Founders.

Try reading Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists.

Jefferson s Letter to the Danbury Baptists June 1998 - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson​

Jan. 1. 1802.

It was Jefferson himself who first used the phrase to describe the intent of the 1st Amendment.

Once again you have made a fool of yourself!

And once again the OP exhibits her ignorance of the Constitution and its case law.

The Constitution and case law are two very different things. Can you guess which one is the law of the land?

Incorrect

The Constitution and its case law are one in the same.

No, actually not.

"Case law" is the attempt by Liberals to alter the Constitution without an amendment.

You believe that the Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review?

 

[Carib Gyal]

Life does begin at conception (scientifically speaking):

""Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)."

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo s Conception

I would agree with you as to when human development begins. If all goes well that development will eventually lead to a human being. Building a house may begin with a the laying of a single brick but that doesn't make that brick a house. It is impossible to say when the construction of a house results in a "house" just as it is impossible to say when biological development results in a human being. The line will be arbitrary and different people will view where that line lies differently. None of them are wrong but they have no basis to say that everyone else must accept their line as the only correct view.

No, it's already a human being. In the early stages of development.
Just as a teen is a human (but isn't an adult) and a child is a human, and an elder is a human, and a baby is a human.

It's exactly the same thing, just at a different developmental stage.

In your ideal world, would the death penalty be appropriate for a woman caught using the morning after pill?

Wouldn't that fall under intent to commit murder? And can't they charge the clerk in the drug store with conspiracy to commit murder?

It would be the equivalent of murder for hire. If you paid someone to abort your fetus it would be no different than paying someone to kill your husband.

The government pays to kill your unborn babies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Based on the life begins at conception theory,

if a woman has an abortion, she has murdered her baby. Why do none of you who claim to support the premise refuse to support the logical consequence?

Because abortion is legal.

Yes, but you want to make abortion illegal, because you believe its murder.

If abortion is murder it's no different than drowning your 2 year old in the bath tub.

You are catching on. That's exactly what many people are saying. People qualify under your definition of real humans.

Although the doctor would actually commit the murder and the mother would be an accomplice.

And you would support what? The death penalty for both? Life in prison? What?

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. A plank in the secular platform is that one must never speak from a religious perspective in the public arena: that would be imposing ones views on another. But is this the case? Hardly…it seems that way only because many fail to recognize the dualistic and subjective view of human nature, that divides the human into a mechanical body, separate from a moral, value-prone consciousness; this fragmented view treats the body as expendable, thus abortion, assisted suicide, ‘pulling the plug.’
And this secular liberal ideology is imposed on the entire society. Rather than seeing the existence of two conflicting worldviews, we speak of religion versus science, or faith versus fact.


8. Every social practice is the expression of fundamental assumptions about what it means to be human. When a society accepts, endorses, and approves any practice, it implicitly commits itself to the accompanying worldview- even more so if the practice is enshrined in law, which tells us what society considers morally acceptable. One should be very careful of acceptance of worldviews that endorse a low view of human life. The secular view that separates humanity into segments, rather than integrates, does that.
Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three

 

[Carib Gyal]

Based on the life begins at conception theory,

if a woman has an abortion, she has murdered her baby. Why do none of you who claim to support the premise refuse to support the logical consequence?

Because abortion is legal.

Yes, but you want to make abortion illegal, because you believe its murder.

If abortion is murder it's no different than drowning your 2 year old in the bath tub.

You are catching on. That's exactly what many people are saying. People qualify under your definition of real humans.

Although the doctor would actually commit the murder and the mother would be an accomplice.

And you would support what? The death penalty for both? Life in prison? What?

I would support the same punishment for murder as I do now.

In this speculative discussion we're having, would you change your opinion of abortion if it was made to be illegal?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I would agree with you as to when human development begins. If all goes well that development will eventually lead to a human being. Building a house may begin with a the laying of a single brick but that doesn't make that brick a house. It is impossible to say when the construction of a house results in a "house" just as it is impossible to say when biological development results in a human being. The line will be arbitrary and different people will view where that line lies differently. None of them are wrong but they have no basis to say that everyone else must accept their line as the only correct view.

No, it's already a human being. In the early stages of development.
Just as a teen is a human (but isn't an adult) and a child is a human, and an elder is a human, and a baby is a human.

It's exactly the same thing, just at a different developmental stage.

In your ideal world, would the death penalty be appropriate for a woman caught using the morning after pill?

Wouldn't that fall under intent to commit murder? And can't they charge the clerk in the drug store with conspiracy to commit murder?

It would be the equivalent of murder for hire. If you paid someone to abort your fetus it would be no different than paying someone to kill your husband.

The government pays to kill your unborn babies.

That's just more mindless rhetoric. You either want to execute women who have abortions or you don't. You either want to put them in prison for life or you don't.

Notice that no one has a problem with the idea of convicting a woman of murder if she kills her 2 year old, if in fact the circumstances prove murder,

but no one in this thread wants to convict women who have abortions of the same crime,

even while they're blathering on and on about there being no difference between a day old embryo and a 2 year old child.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There is no such "wall, " you uneducated dunce.

The KKKer, Hugo Black, FDR's first Supreme Court nominee, inserted it and dopes like you believe that the concept was not anathema to the view of the Founders.

1. The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting ... First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Once again PoliticalSpice exposes her woeful ignorance of American history.

The KKKer, Hugo Black, FDR's first Supreme Court nominee, inserted it and dopes like you believe that the concept was no anathema to the view of the Founders.

Try reading Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists.

Jefferson s Letter to the Danbury Baptists June 1998 - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson​

Jan. 1. 1802.

It was Jefferson himself who first used the phrase to describe the intent of the 1st Amendment.

Once again you have made a fool of yourself!

And once again the OP exhibits her ignorance of the Constitution and its case law.

The Constitution and case law are two very different things. Can you guess which one is the law of the land?

Incorrect

The Constitution and its case law are one in the same.

Wrong because then the Supreme Court could never be wrong and the Constitution becomes meaningless. Your argument is illogical.

A puerile argument that only a blind theist would ever make!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Based on the life begins at conception theory,

if a woman has an abortion, she has murdered her baby. Why do none of you who claim to support the premise refuse to support the logical consequence?

Because abortion is legal.

Yes, but you want to make abortion illegal, because you believe its murder.

If abortion is murder it's no different than drowning your 2 year old in the bath tub.

You are catching on. That's exactly what many people are saying. People qualify under your definition of real humans.

Although the doctor would actually commit the murder and the mother would be an accomplice.

And you would support what? The death penalty for both? Life in prison? What?

I would support the same punishment for murder as I do now.

In this speculative discussion we're having, would you change your opinion of abortion if it was made to be illegal?

You would put women to death for using the morning after pill if you could have your way.

You don't even represent the opinion of the anti-abortionist 'abortion is murder' crowd on this forum.

Watch and see how many agree with you.

 

[Carib Gyal]

No, it's already a human being. In the early stages of development.
Just as a teen is a human (but isn't an adult) and a child is a human, and an elder is a human, and a baby is a human.

It's exactly the same thing, just at a different developmental stage.

In your ideal world, would the death penalty be appropriate for a woman caught using the morning after pill?

Wouldn't that fall under intent to commit murder? And can't they charge the clerk in the drug store with conspiracy to commit murder?

It would be the equivalent of murder for hire. If you paid someone to abort your fetus it would be no different than paying someone to kill your husband.

The government pays to kill your unborn babies.

That's just more mindless rhetoric. You either want to execute women who have abortions or you don't. You either want to put them in prison for life or you don't.

Notice that no one has a problem with the idea of convicting a woman of murder if she kills her 2 year old, if in fact the circumstances prove murder,

but no one in this thread wants to convict women who have abortions of the same crime,

even while they're blathering on and on about there being no difference between a day old embryo and a 2 year old child.

You have changed the topic from crime to punishment.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Because abortion is legal.

Yes, but you want to make abortion illegal, because you believe its murder.

If abortion is murder it's no different than drowning your 2 year old in the bath tub.

You are catching on. That's exactly what many people are saying. People qualify under your definition of real humans.

Although the doctor would actually commit the murder and the mother would be an accomplice.

And you would support what? The death penalty for both? Life in prison? What?

I would support the same punishment for murder as I do now.

In this speculative discussion we're having, would you change your opinion of abortion if it was made to be illegal?

You would put women to death for using the morning after pill if you could have your way.

You don't even represent the opinion of the anti-abortionist 'abortion is murder' crowd on this forum.

Watch and see how many agree with you.

In this speculative discussion we're having, would you change your opinion of abortion if it was made to be illegal?

 

[1751_Texan]

.

Much like a "belief" of the exact moment a "fetus" becomes a "human being." Even if that is your belief, the concept itself has been driven backwards by science and technology. The instant of viability has become a shorter amount of time in the womb. Your beliefs have caused the....what is the word that means murder but offends no one? Oh yes, abortion. Your beliefs have caused the abortion of millions of viable....what is the word that means not human? Oh yes, embryo. Your beliefs have caused the abortion of millions of viable embryos.

Viability was never used by the Court to "determine" when a fetus was a "human" being. That was not the question in Roe v. Wade. The Court was to determine whether a woman had a lawful right to terminate her pregnancy. Viability only gave concession to the state to limit abortion...on demand.

Abortion is lawful at all stages of gestation...abortion is more regulated after the 2nd trimester, but not banned.

Most abortions are performed in the 1st trimester...for politicians to fiddle with 2nd trimester "viability" numbers is inconsequential.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And this secular liberal ideology is imposed on the entire society.

No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion or pull the plug on granny, PoliticalSpice.