The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I haven't changed anything. Why all the obfuscation?

If abortion is murder, it's murder. What do we do about murder in this country, from a criminal justice perspective?

 

[koshergrl]

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.

And completely irrelevant to the conversation the grown-ups are having now. Adults die of natural causes every day, too. That doesn't mean you get to kill them for fun.

 

[Carib Gyal]

.

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.

I understand the reasoning behind the law. I also understand the reasoning behind lawful slavery. I don't agree with either.

Care to address the equal protection statutes?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Now you're trying to change the subject. Abortion should not be a crime of homicide until the fetus is constitutionally established as a person.

 

[Dana7360]

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

Please tell all of us what life exists in an ectopic pregnancy.

It's a fertilized egg. Tell me what life is in that fertilized egg.

Then tell me what happens to that fertilized egg if the woman doesn't have an abortion.

 

[Carib Gyal]

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.

I haven't changed anything. Why all the obfuscation?

If abortion is murder, it's murder. What do we do about murder in this country, from a criminal justice perspective?

The law could recognize mitigating circumstances in it's punishment, or not. The punishment for abortion is a different topic than the legality.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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?

Irrelevant to the discussion. If the unborn were given the same rights they deserve, punishing their murder would entail a trial and review of the evidence, mitigating or aggravating. Then an appropriate punishment would be decided. Can't see what you aim to achieve in that vein of discussion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

And completely irrelevant to the conversation the grown-ups are having now.

Women should be convicted of murder if they have abortions. Is that your desire?

Do you wish the fetus be declared, by law, to be a person with equal rights to you or me, so that women could be convicted of murder if they had an abortion?

You are too much of a coward to deal with that issue, which makes all of your rants irrational blather.

 

[Carib Gyal]

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?

Now you're trying to change the subject. Abortion should not be a crime of homicide until the fetus is constitutionally established as a person.

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I haven't changed anything. Why all the obfuscation?

If abortion is murder, it's murder. What do we do about murder in this country, from a criminal justice perspective?

The law could recognize mitigating circumstances in it's punishment, or not. The punishment for abortion is a different topic than the legality.

If the fetus has the same rights as you or me, which is what the life begins at conception crowd wants, there are no mitigating circumstances.

Having an abortion becomes the equivalent to killing any other human being.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

I haven't changed anything. Why all the obfuscation?

If abortion is murder, it's murder. What do we do about murder in this country, from a criminal justice perspective?

The law could recognize mitigating circumstances in it's punishment, or not. The punishment for abortion is a different topic than the legality.

If the fetus has the same rights as you or me, which is what the life begins at conception crowd wants, there are no mitigating circumstances.

Having an abortion becomes the equivalent to killing any other human being.

And why shouldn't it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Now you're trying to change the subject. Abortion should not be a crime of homicide until the fetus is constitutionally established as a person.

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

If the fetus is made a person, the women go to prison for aborting fetuses.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I haven't changed anything. Why all the obfuscation?

If abortion is murder, it's murder. What do we do about murder in this country, from a criminal justice perspective?

The law could recognize mitigating circumstances in it's punishment, or not. The punishment for abortion is a different topic than the legality.

If the fetus has the same rights as you or me, which is what the life begins at conception crowd wants, there are no mitigating circumstances.

Having an abortion becomes the equivalent to killing any other human being.

And why shouldn't it?

It won't because the extremism and irrationality of the personhood for fetuses argument prevents it.

 

[toxicmedia]

The real question is what does it mean to be 'human'?

And, it seems that the answer depends on where you reside on the political spectrum
For Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, a major selling point of their worldview is in allowing moral relativity, self-determined morality, and 'if it feels good, do it."

The corollary of same is that one must never, never be judgmental.
And with abortion, the right to kill "it" depends on how you define....or rationalize....what "it" is.

1. The abortion argument revolves around whether or not life begins at conception. For those who wish to see abortion as the mothers’ right, or decision, then there must be a separate understanding of the terms ‘life’ and ‘person:’ such a distinction is widely accepted today on the secular Left.

a. If life begins at one time, and ‘personhood’ comes into being some time later, then, clearly, they are two different things. The validation of this thinking can be found in Roe v. Wade, which found that a fetus is human from the beginning, but not a person until some time later, at 24 weeks, “the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person.”
Civil Rights of a Fetus - Law Philosophy and Religion

b. Dating back to antiquity, most cultures have assumed that a human being comprises both physical and spiritual elements: body and soul. Contemporary thought, it seems, has split these apart. In accordance with liberal or Postmodernist thinking, there is the autonomous self, the person versus the Modernist concept of a biochemical machine, the body.

1. 1. If one accepts this divided concept of human nature, i.e., person, and body, this aligns one with the liberal political view, which rejects moral limits on desire as a violation of its liberty.
   2. An interesting comment is that of Joseph Fletcher, founder of the theory of situational ethics: “What is critical is personal status, not merely human status.” In his view, fetuses and newborns are “sub-personal,” and therefore fail to qualify for the right to life. Joseph Fletcher, “Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics,” p. ll. "It struck me how similar this idea is to the Nazi concept of “untermenschen” for Jews, gypsies, slavs, any non-aryans." Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three

1. As for the response ‘If you’re against abortion, don’t have one,” it’s not quite that easy…this rebuttal sidesteps the fact that once one accepts this view, it entails acceptance of the worldview that justifies same. It is less a private matter than one that dictates how people can behave toward each other...e.g., "if you don’t agree with robbing banks, then don’t rob any.”

If one has that that view so common in Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, .....this means that anything....anything, no matter how heartless or diabolical....one chooses to do with/to the pre-person stage.....it's all good.

That's why Liberals/Progressives/Democrats were fine with electing a President who had no problem with infanticide.

I love this type of thread PC.....let me explain my position, in words pro lifers can understand

I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother, if that cute little human baby is in the first and second trimester of pregnancy

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The real question is what does it mean to be 'human'?

And, it seems that the answer depends on where you reside on the political spectrum
For Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, a major selling point of their worldview is in allowing moral relativity, self-determined morality, and 'if it feels good, do it."

The corollary of same is that one must never, never be judgmental.
And with abortion, the right to kill "it" depends on how you define....or rationalize....what "it" is.

1. The abortion argument revolves around whether or not life begins at conception. For those who wish to see abortion as the mothers’ right, or decision, then there must be a separate understanding of the terms ‘life’ and ‘person:’ such a distinction is widely accepted today on the secular Left.

a. If life begins at one time, and ‘personhood’ comes into being some time later, then, clearly, they are two different things. The validation of this thinking can be found in Roe v. Wade, which found that a fetus is human from the beginning, but not a person until some time later, at 24 weeks, “the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person.”
Civil Rights of a Fetus - Law Philosophy and Religion

b. Dating back to antiquity, most cultures have assumed that a human being comprises both physical and spiritual elements: body and soul. Contemporary thought, it seems, has split these apart. In accordance with liberal or Postmodernist thinking, there is the autonomous self, the person versus the Modernist concept of a biochemical machine, the body.

1. 1. If one accepts this divided concept of human nature, i.e., person, and body, this aligns one with the liberal political view, which rejects moral limits on desire as a violation of its liberty.
   2. An interesting comment is that of Joseph Fletcher, founder of the theory of situational ethics: “What is critical is personal status, not merely human status.” In his view, fetuses and newborns are “sub-personal,” and therefore fail to qualify for the right to life. Joseph Fletcher, “Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics,” p. ll. "It struck me how similar this idea is to the Nazi concept of “untermenschen” for Jews, gypsies, slavs, any non-aryans." Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three

1. As for the response ‘If you’re against abortion, don’t have one,” it’s not quite that easy…this rebuttal sidesteps the fact that once one accepts this view, it entails acceptance of the worldview that justifies same. It is less a private matter than one that dictates how people can behave toward each other...e.g., "if you don’t agree with robbing banks, then don’t rob any.”

If one has that that view so common in Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, .....this means that anything....anything, no matter how heartless or diabolical....one chooses to do with/to the pre-person stage.....it's all good.

That's why Liberals/Progressives/Democrats were fine with electing a President who had no problem with infanticide.

Life begins; like everything else... at the beginning. And the Beginning of human life is conception... and despite the Left's chronic attempt to debate, this is not even remotely debatable.

"Personhood" is a foolish rationalization which came about by a child. She was an anti-theist, a feminist and a fool who was attending Harvard and authored a paper which espoused the 'personhood' thesis.

As all rationalizations do... "Personhood" avoids reality... and specifically the reality that for there to be a right, that right must exists for everyone... and the exercise of that right cannot usurp the means of another to exercise their own rights. And Abortion strips a human being of its life, thus usurps the means of that human being to exercise it's right to its life.

And that is truly all there is to this...

A Woman's 'right to choose' is very real. It is exercised by the woman making the decision, thus the choice, in with whom, when and where she allows a man to enter her body through sexual intercourse. As long as the male is aroused, thus indicating his willingness to enter her... and BOTH are aware that the behavior in which they are about to engage is that which nature designed for procreation... and that the pleasure that is at hand is going to last a few minutes, but that the responsibility for the life that will likely be conceived is going to last for DECADES, at that point she has MADE her choice. At which time the right ends and the responsibilities BEGIN.

 

[Carib Gyal]

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.

I haven't changed anything. Why all the obfuscation?

If abortion is murder, it's murder. What do we do about murder in this country, from a criminal justice perspective?

The law could recognize mitigating circumstances in it's punishment, or not. The punishment for abortion is a different topic than the legality.

If the fetus has the same rights as you or me, which is what the life begins at conception crowd wants, there are no mitigating circumstances.

Having an abortion becomes the equivalent to killing any other human being.

Assisted suicide, euthanasia, etc are legally recognized mitigating circumstances. Dr Kevorkian assisted over 130 people on their way, and was only sentenced to 10-25 years in prison. Now gtfo with your stupidity.

 

[koshergrl]

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

Please tell all of us what life exists in an ectopic pregnancy.

It's a fertilized egg. Tell me what life is in that fertilized egg.

Then tell me what happens to that fertilized egg if the woman doesn't have an abortion.

Again, completely irrelevant to any conversation that is happening here.

But if you and that idiot boo want to have another conversation about how sometimes zygotes die naturally, you should start another thread.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

Abracadabra, spooky magic stuff for those who believe in stone age superstitions.



"Force of will" is utter nonsense when applied to cell division which a biochemical process controlled via DNA.

You might as claim that the app running on your cell phone has a "force of will" because it was programmed to send out your tweets.

Science is mystified by the force of life. The great philosophers have exalted its inscrutability. You don't even know that classes are held on it. How pathetic is that?

More Ooga-Booga superstition from the believer in sky bullies and talking snakes.

Getting a science lesson from you would be like listening to pond scum expound on what happens inside a black hole.

They don't even follow their own books.

The bible very clearly says that life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose. That can't happen inside a uterus surrounded by amniotic fluid.

It's right there in genesis 2-7. But then I don't expect any one of those so called christians to have actually read that book or if they did, actually understood it.

 

[Carib Gyal]

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?

Now you're trying to change the subject. Abortion should not be a crime of homicide until the fetus is constitutionally established as a person.

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

If the fetus is made a person, the women go to prison for aborting fetuses.

So your position is that your believe abortion to be acceptable because it is legal? And that it would not be acceptable if it was illegal?

 

[koshergrl]

The real question is what does it mean to be 'human'?

And, it seems that the answer depends on where you reside on the political spectrum
For Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, a major selling point of their worldview is in allowing moral relativity, self-determined morality, and 'if it feels good, do it."

The corollary of same is that one must never, never be judgmental.
And with abortion, the right to kill "it" depends on how you define....or rationalize....what "it" is.

1. The abortion argument revolves around whether or not life begins at conception. For those who wish to see abortion as the mothers’ right, or decision, then there must be a separate understanding of the terms ‘life’ and ‘person:’ such a distinction is widely accepted today on the secular Left.

a. If life begins at one time, and ‘personhood’ comes into being some time later, then, clearly, they are two different things. The validation of this thinking can be found in Roe v. Wade, which found that a fetus is human from the beginning, but not a person until some time later, at 24 weeks, “the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person.”
Civil Rights of a Fetus - Law Philosophy and Religion

b. Dating back to antiquity, most cultures have assumed that a human being comprises both physical and spiritual elements: body and soul. Contemporary thought, it seems, has split these apart. In accordance with liberal or Postmodernist thinking, there is the autonomous self, the person versus the Modernist concept of a biochemical machine, the body.

1. 1. If one accepts this divided concept of human nature, i.e., person, and body, this aligns one with the liberal political view, which rejects moral limits on desire as a violation of its liberty.
   2. An interesting comment is that of Joseph Fletcher, founder of the theory of situational ethics: “What is critical is personal status, not merely human status.” In his view, fetuses and newborns are “sub-personal,” and therefore fail to qualify for the right to life. Joseph Fletcher, “Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics,” p. ll. "It struck me how similar this idea is to the Nazi concept of “untermenschen” for Jews, gypsies, slavs, any non-aryans." Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three

1. As for the response ‘If you’re against abortion, don’t have one,” it’s not quite that easy…this rebuttal sidesteps the fact that once one accepts this view, it entails acceptance of the worldview that justifies same. It is less a private matter than one that dictates how people can behave toward each other...e.g., "if you don’t agree with robbing banks, then don’t rob any.”

If one has that that view so common in Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, .....this means that anything....anything, no matter how heartless or diabolical....one chooses to do with/to the pre-person stage.....it's all good.

That's why Liberals/Progressives/Democrats were fine with electing a President who had no problem with infanticide.

I love this type of thread PC.....let me explain my position, in words pro lifers can understand

I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother, if that cute little human baby is in the first and second trimester of pregnancy

Exactly!
They don't care, they approve of killing the offspring of humans.