The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[NYcarbineer]

6. The views that include abortion, harvesting organs, eugenics, and other ways of disposing of human beings, evolved in several directions, first substituting the image of a self-creating dynamo for the universe, operating by automatic, undirected physical forces: never mind the contradictory nature of the concept, it served the need of eliminating a Creator.

That assumes there's only one origin for support for abortion. Which isn't true. The legal rationale for abortion is the authority of a woman to choose for herself how her body will be used, based on the right to privacy.

Which has nothing to do with 'eugenics'. That a eugenicist may also support abortion has no more relevance than the fact that a suicide bomber may also support the belief in a creator.

You keep assuming that whatever you believe is universal truth and objective morality. But that's not necessarily true. Nor even probable.

This takes us in the direction of a mechanistic, value-free view of nature. We can call this view ‘liberalism,’ as defined by the self-identified liberal philosopher Peter Berkowitz: “Each generation of liberal thinkers [focuses on] dimensions of life previously regarded as fixed by nature,” then seeks to show that in reality they are “subject to human will and remaking." Sex Lies and Secularism - Christian Research Institute

Again, you're view of liberalism is based on the same fallacy that you tripped on before: liberalism isn't 'value free' anymore than its 'morality free'. Liberals simply reject the idea that you, Political Chic, define morality or values. Your entire argument is predicated on our acceptance of you as an infallible arbiter of objective morality and universal truth.

And you're not.

And without our acceptance of you as infallible moral arbiter, you're just another schmo with a personal opinion. Which is what you were all along. You don't have an objective moral system. You have a subjective one.

" the authority of a woman to choose for herself how her body will be used, based on the right to privacy."

But....since the baby is not her body, no such right accrues.

The right to an abortion is already established in law.

 

[alang1216]

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.

Maybe my confusion stems from the fact I don't think I can easily define what a human being is. Every one seems to know what a human being is but can anyone define it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Which, as noted above, doesn't have anymore claim to the use of her body than anyone or anything else. She gets to chose who or what uses her body. And with her choice, can deny that use.

" claim to the use of her body than anyone or anything else. She gets to chose who or what uses her body."

Except that the baby is not her body,dope.

Yes it is. Just as the eggs in her are.

 

[BluesLegend]

Whatever lets you libs sleep at night after brutally mutilating and killing a helpless human life form in the womb.

Are you willing to execute women for having abortions?

Pathetic, this is liberal playbook page 1 paint the issue as a choice between the liberal view or some whacky extreme with no grey area. Frankly it lacks intelligence.

 

[Derideo_Te]

6. The views that include abortion, harvesting organs, eugenics, and other ways of disposing of human beings, evolved in several directions, first substituting the image of a self-creating dynamo for the universe, operating by automatic, undirected physical forces: never mind the contradictory nature of the concept, it served the need of eliminating a Creator.

That assumes there's only one origin for support for abortion. Which isn't true. The legal rationale for abortion is the authority of a woman to choose for herself how her body will be used, based on the right to privacy.

Which has nothing to do with 'eugenics'. That a eugenicist may also support abortion has no more relevance than the fact that a suicide bomber may also support the belief in a creator.

You keep assuming that whatever you believe is universal truth and objective morality. But that's not necessarily true. Nor even probable.

This takes us in the direction of a mechanistic, value-free view of nature. We can call this view ‘liberalism,’ as defined by the self-identified liberal philosopher Peter Berkowitz: “Each generation of liberal thinkers [focuses on] dimensions of life previously regarded as fixed by nature,” then seeks to show that in reality they are “subject to human will and remaking." Sex Lies and Secularism - Christian Research Institute

Again, you're view of liberalism is based on the same fallacy that you tripped on before: liberalism isn't 'value free' anymore than its 'morality free'. Liberals simply reject the idea that you, Political Chic, define morality or values. Your entire argument is predicated on our acceptance of you as an infallible arbiter of objective morality and universal truth.

And you're not.

And without our acceptance of you as infallible moral arbiter, you're just another schmo with a personal opinion. Which is what you were all along. You don't have an objective moral system. You have a subjective one.

" the authority of a woman to choose for herself how her body will be used, based on the right to privacy."

But....since the baby is not her body, no such right accrues.

The fetus is using her body, PoliticalSpice. You can't force someone else to use their body against their will.

 

[Carib Gyal]

I noticed none of your anti freedom people never answered my question about ectopic pregnancies.

I guess the truth about that is very inconvenient for you because there's absolutely no life in that fertilized egg and there never will be.

What happens is if that fertilized egg isn't aborted the woman dies. End of story. There is no life and all that fertilized egg causes is death for a living breathing woman.

If there is no life, there is NO LIFE. I support a woman's right to choose whether to abort her child if her life is threatened, just as I support her right to choose to defend herself if her life is threatened. Of course, she doesn't HAVE to in either case.

 

[Skylar]

You people want the fetus to be a person, but you don't want people to be convicted of murder for killing those persons.

That is thoroughly irrational.

Or kidnapping for all those frozen IVF embryos. Worse, the odds of an IVF embryo becoming a living child drops as a woman ages. With the odds plummeting to less than 1% by age 45.

So.......manslaughter at the very least, yes? First degree murder at worst, right?

If not, why not?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

What squirming?

 

[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.

Maybe my confusion stems from the fact I don't think I can easily define what a human being is. Every one seems to know what a human being is but can anyone define it?

There are multiple definitions. For the purposes of abortion the legal definition of a person is what matters.

 

[Skylar]

Three times I've posted that the individual that Liberals would like...'erased'....is a separate human being from the mother who is being given the 'right' to kill same.

She doesn't have a 'right to kill'. She has a right to deny the use of her body. The result of denying the use of her body kills. The result is identical. The basis of her freedom, radically different.

And a woman has the right to deny the use of her body to anyone or anything.

 

[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.

Which, as noted above, doesn't have anymore claim to the use of her body than anyone or anything else. She gets to chose who or what uses her body. And with her choice, can deny that use.

" claim to the use of her body than anyone or anything else. She gets to chose who or what uses her body."

Except that the baby is not her body,dope.

Yes it is. Just as the eggs in her are.

You failed high school biology and ethics????


An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.

 

[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.

"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.

Which, as noted above, doesn't have anymore claim to the use of her body than anyone or anything else. She gets to chose who or what uses her body. And with her choice, can deny that use.

" claim to the use of her body than anyone or anything else. She gets to chose who or what uses her body."

Except that the baby is not her body,dope.

She's not using the embryo's body for anything. She's simply denying the use of her body TO the embryo. And she can deny the use of her body to anyone or anything.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Three times I've posted that the individual that Liberals would like...'erased'....is a separate human being from the mother who is being given the 'right' to kill same.

She doesn't have a 'right to kill'. She has a right to deny the use of her body. The result of denying the use of her body kills. The result is identical. The basis of her freedom, radically different.

And a woman has the right to deny the use of her body to anyone or anything.

But it's not her body; the life you plan for her to take belongs to someone else.

 

[emilynghiem]

Okay let's take another situation.

What if a woman AGREES to have sex, get pregnant and have a baby with the father,
not just for her, but for
him and her, or for him, or for another couple, so there is someone else who feels spiritually tied to the baby.

They sign an agreement that she will have the baby unless a miscarriage happens naturally,
in which case the parties agree that all medical procedures will be taken to try to save the baby.

There is no coercion, no fraud, no manipulation or any other terms "not met"
so the woman AGREES there is NO fault on the other parties if she happens to change her mind. She AGREED and signed an AGREEMENT to have the baby regardless if her feelings or thoughts change.

In that case, if she has AGREED to have the baby and not have an abortion,
do you believe she still has the right to change her mind and get an abortion
after there are "other people" who already feel emotionally tied to the spirit of the child inside her body. Even if she concedes there was no fault on the other parties, the contract is valid,
but she just changed her mind.

What about that scenario? Can we start there? Thanks!

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Which, as noted above, doesn't have anymore claim to the use of her body than anyone or anything else. She gets to chose who or what uses her body. And with her choice, can deny that use.

" claim to the use of her body than anyone or anything else. She gets to chose who or what uses her body."

Except that the baby is not her body,dope.

Yes it is. Just as the eggs in her are.

You failed high school biology and ethics????


An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.

That is rule you made up.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Which, as noted above, doesn't have anymore claim to the use of her body than anyone or anything else. She gets to chose who or what uses her body. And with her choice, can deny that use.

" claim to the use of her body than anyone or anything else. She gets to chose who or what uses her body."

Except that the baby is not her body,dope.

Yes it is. Just as the eggs in her are.

You failed high school biology and ethics????


An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.

So if the embryo were a genetic clone, you'd have no problem with the abortion?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"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.

Which, as noted above, doesn't have anymore claim to the use of her body than anyone or anything else. She gets to chose who or what uses her body. And with her choice, can deny that use.

" claim to the use of her body than anyone or anything else. She gets to chose who or what uses her body."

Except that the baby is not her body,dope.

Yes it is. Just as the eggs in her are.

You failed high school biology and ethics????


An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.

That is rule you made up.

Destroyed you, huh?

I stated a biological fact.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Three times I've posted that the individual that Liberals would like...'erased'....is a separate human being from the mother who is being given the 'right' to kill same.

She doesn't have a 'right to kill'. She has a right to deny the use of her body. The result of denying the use of her body kills. The result is identical. The basis of her freedom, radically different.

And a woman has the right to deny the use of her body to anyone or anything.

But it's not her body; the life you plan for her to take belongs to someone else.

She has the right to serve the fetus with an eviction notice since according to you it is a separate being. She is under no obligation to provide it with room and board for 9 months.

 

[Skylar]

Okay let's take another situation.

What if a woman AGREES to have sex, get pregnant and have a baby with the father,
not just for her, but for him and her, or for him, or for another couple, so there is someone else who feels spiritually tied to the baby.

They sign an agreement that she will have the baby unless a miscarriage happens naturally,
in which case the parties agree that all medical procedures will be taken to try to save the baby.

There is no coercion, no fraud, no manipulation or any other terms "not met"
so the woman AGREES there is fault on the other parties if she happens to change her mind.
She AGREED and signed an AGREEMENT to have the baby regardless if her feelings or thoughts change.

In that case, if she has AGREED to have the baby and not have an abortion,
do you believe she still has the right to change her mind and get an abortion
after there are "other people" who already feel emotionally tied to the spirit of the child inside her body.

Yes. She has that right. Though the parties to the agreement could probably sue her for breach of contract.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

Breathed the breath of life through the nose. When that being took it's first breath of air through the nose it was alive.

That is what the bible says about when life begins.

Oh and if the story of adam and eve in the bible is true, all humanity came from incest.

Not really. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb and lept for joy when Mary visited pregnant with Jesus.