The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[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.

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.

Premeditated murder of a child should get what sort of sentence?

...I'm enjoying the squirming by the way.

 

[Carib Gyal]

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.

That the way you read Genesis 2:7? lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Trust me if I had any idea what your ranting about I would deal with it.

A person is a person. If a fetus becomes a person, you have to punish its murderer the same as you would punish someone who murdered you, all else being equal.

Any divergence from that logic simply proves that the person diverging doesn't really think the fetus is a person.

 

[Carib Gyal]

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.

Premeditated murder of a child should get what sort of sentence?

...I'm enjoying the squirming by the way.

The same as having 130 abortions, I suppose.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

Then you are a murderer.

What you clearly do not understand is that there is no right to murder and as a result, there is no right to publicly advocate for murder.

The Reader should understand, that what you see in the cited contributor's comment, is the slippery slope which we went down, when we, as a culture allowed ROE to stand.

What it shared, was what every PRO-CHOICE person 'believes'. And it is evil personified. That they now feel comfortable stating such, merely indicates that we're at the point where tolerance of these people is no longer a viable alternative.

 

[Carib Gyal]

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?

Trust me if I had any idea what your ranting about I would deal with it.

A person is a person. If a fetus becomes a person, you have to punish its murderer the same as you would punish someone who murdered you, all else being equal.

Any divergence from that logic simply proves that the person diverging doesn't really think the fetus is a person.

Please stop waffling and answer my very simple questions.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Oh I thought we were talking about the SCIENTIFIC definition of life. Because according to that, zygotes are very much living humans.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

That the way you read Genesis 2:7? lol

Please tell me what the following means:

6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

You don't even know what your own sacred book says. Which doesn't surprise me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

"I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother,....

1. As you have admitted to acceptance of homicide, why draw the line at 'first and second trimester"...?
Why not first or second decade of the child's life, as Obama's science adviser Singer has suggested be done (well...he didn't go quite that long....)


2. What is the right the mother has to take that life, aside from the acquiescence of homicidal maniacs like you?
Or....why does that mother not have the same "right" to kill any other person she comes across?

What, exactly, is that "right" based on?

 

[Carib Gyal]

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.

That the way you read Genesis 2:7? lol

Please tell me what the following means:

6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

You don't even know what your own sacred book says. Which doesn't surprise me.

It says the Lord made a man out of dust from the ground and breathed life into him. Let me know when anyone around here does the same. Until that time, we won't be creating humans, we will born them of humans.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Premeditated murder of a child should get what sort of sentence?

...I'm enjoying the squirming by the way.

Pre-mediated murder is a capital crime, because it cannot be tolerated. As such an individual has demonstrated that they have no respect for their responsibilities as a human being... having failed to bear the fundamental responsibility as a human being with a right to their life... thus they have forfeited the right to their life, and as such they must be destroyed.

If that 'feels' extreme... that's because it is, just as murdering another human being is extreme.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

According to the KJV the first breath is when man becomes a "living soul" too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

and before you were born I consecrated you;

I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
Jeremiah 1:5

 

[Skylar]

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

More accurately, we have a high view of personal choice. A woman has the authority to deny the use of her body to anyone. Or anything.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

Oh I thought we were talking about the SCIENTIFIC definition of life. Because according to that, zygotes are very much living humans.

You people are the ones who use the bible to excuse your beliefs on abortion. I'm just pointing out that the bible says when life begins and it's not at conception.

Science has not said when life begins. There are many theories on when it begins. I know that science has defined the when a pregnancy begins and that's not at conception. That's when the fertilized egg has implanted into the uterus and starts growing.

You're perfectly free to decide when life begins. But you'er not perfectly free to force that belief on anyone else.

 

[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

More accurately, we have a high view of personal choice. A woman has the authority to deny the use of her body to anyone. Or anything.

"A woman has the authority to deny the use of her body to anyone."

But the child is not "her body."

It is a totally separate biological being.

True story.

 

[Carib Gyal]

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.

According to the KJV the first breath is when man becomes a "living soul" too.

Keep reading. God also curses woman and greatly multiplies her sorrow and her.......yes, conception.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

and before you were born I consecrated you;

I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
Jeremiah 1:5

How about when God told Moses how to perform an abortion, PolitcalSpice?

Numbers 5

11 Then the LORD said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the LORD cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Oh I thought we were talking about the SCIENTIFIC definition of life. Because according to that, zygotes are very much living humans.

You people are the ones who use the bible to excuse your beliefs on abortion. I'm just pointing out that the bible says when life begins and it's not at conception.

Science has not said when life begins. There are many theories on when it begins. I know that science has defined the when a pregnancy begins and that's not at conception. That's when the fertilized egg has implanted into the uterus and starts growing.

You're perfectly free to decide when life begins. But you'er not perfectly free to force that belief on anyone else.

No, I haven't used the bible at all.

I'm quoting the science to you. But you ignorant nutjobs are clueless. You can't even be taught. Your sole objective and your only motivation is the slaughter of those who cannot defend themselves. You're the same in every generation. Stupid, selfish, cruel. But primarily stupid.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The concept that one person can own another person as property is not a liberal position.

The basic foundation of the collectivist philosophy you promote is that the state owns all people, to dispose of as the state sees fit, and that rights (privilege really) are based on group identification. The words used have changed, the basic premise of man as property remains the same.

Do what ever mental gymnastics you need to justify yourself. Doesn't bother me a bit.

I have nothing to justify. You seek to rewrite history in a more favorable light to the evil of leftism. I simply offer facts and rationality, which defeat your efforts.