The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[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.

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

You can't deny what I just posted.

Here's another:In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.

You're busted, huh?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

Good. Then it can be abolished by law too.

 

[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.

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

Her womb is her body. And she's denying the use of it to.....anyone or anything. The embryo has no right to the use her body anymore than it has a right to the use of anyone else's.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

You can't deny what I just posted.

Here's another:In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.

You're busted, huh?

Since you won't agree that women who have abortions should be convicted of murder,

you have refuted your own argument that the fetus is a person.

 

[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.

Good. Then it can be abolished by law too.

And then we're back to women being convicted of murder for having abortion, which not 1% of the population wants.

 

[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.

Her womb is her body. And she's denying the use of it to.....anyone or anything. The embryo has no right to the use her body anymore than it has a right to the use of anyone else's.

You can run but you can't hide.

You can't deny that the child is not her body, can you.

 

[Skylar]

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?

You can't deny what I just posted.

Here's another:In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.

You're busted, huh?

You didn't answer my question. If the embryo were a genetic clone, then you wouldn't have a problem with the abortion, right?

If not, why not?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...

Then why won't you take the stand that under that reality, abortion becomes a capital crime?

Abortion IS a capital crime... except where the pre-born child came about through forcible rape, or without the mindful willingness, soundly reasoned consent of the mother; thus such represents a threat to the mother's life.

That the government does not recognize the crime, is irrelevant.

History is replete with examples of governments sanctioning murder. And that sanction coming at a very high cost to those administering that murder, when reason was set against the abomination, and justice was finally served.

It's foolish to justify evil because such is popular. And history has proven that time and time again.

 

[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.

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

Her womb is her body. And she's denying the use of it to.....anyone or anything. The embryo has no right to the use her body anymore than it has a right to the use of anyone else's.

You can run but you can't hide.

You can't deny that the child is not her body, can you.

Deny it? The embryo no being part of her body is the basis of my argument.

Its separate. And as such, she can deny it the use of her body. As she has no obligation to allow anyone or anything to use her body against her will.

 

[PoliticalChic]

" 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?

You can't deny what I just posted.

Here's another:In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.

You're busted, huh?

Since you won't agree that women who have abortions should be convicted of murder,

you have refuted your own argument that the fetus is a person.

How about you simply admit the truth I posted about differing DNA, and slink back under your rock.

 

[Carib Gyal]

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.

Any decent lawyer would get a continuation.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

This coming from Leftists who make it legally difficult for landlords to evict tenants. Hell, in France, you people have it set up so squatters can take up residence in unoccupied homes and can't be evicted until spring

 

[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.

Any decent lawyer would get a continuation.

Too late since the eviction has already taken place.

 

[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.

Her womb is her body. And she's denying the use of it to.....anyone or anything. The embryo has no right to the use her body anymore than it has a right to the use of anyone else's.

You can run but you can't hide.

You can't deny that the child is not her body, can you.

Deny it? The embryo no being part of her body is the basis of my argument.

Its separate. And as such, she can deny it the use of her body. As she has no obligation to allow anyone or anything to use her body against her will.

Since I've force you to admit that the child is a separate entity, there is no way for you to continue to claim the right to kill same.

You're dismissed.

 

[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 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.

So she should never sign such an agreement in the first place, since she cannot guarantee she can keep it, right.
And that would solve the problem, by making sure people don't EVER involve each other in such contracts
if they don't have the same beliefs, right? That way, there is no risk of one party "changing their minds"
and breaching the expectations of the other.

so is this the best way to settle the issue?

And just legally separate the beliefs where there is NO WAY they can impose on each other.
How do we do that?

 

[Carib Gyal]

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.

Her womb is her body. And she's denying the use of it to.....anyone or anything. The embryo has no right to the use her body anymore than it has a right to the use of anyone else's.

You can run but you can't hide.

You can't deny that the child is not her body, can you.

Deny it? The embryo no being part of her body is the basis of my argument.

Its separate. And as such, she can deny it the use of her body. As she has no obligation to allow anyone or anything to use her body against her will.

Unless her life is threatened, she has no right to kill another human being. Maybe she could sue the child when it gets of age.

 

[Skylar]

...

Then why won't you take the stand that under that reality, abortion becomes a capital crime?

Abortion IS a capital crime

Not in the US it isn't.

... except where the pre-born child came about through forcible rape, or without the mindful willingness, soundly reasoned consent of the mother; thus such represents a threat to the mother's life.

What relevance would 'forcible rape' have with the situation?

That the government does not recognize the crime, is irrelevant.

Sure its relevant. As you don't define law anymore than you define nature, morality, or objective truth. So your opinion wouldn't establish any crime.

History is replete with examples of governments sanctioning murder.

But who says abortion is murder? That would be you. And as we've long since established, you citing yourself is a meaningless standard. As you're nobody.

 

[Carib Gyal]

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.

Any decent lawyer would get a continuation.

Too late since the eviction has already taken place.

The Politics of the Abortion Word Games Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Her womb is her body. And she's denying the use of it to.....anyone or anything. The embryo has no right to the use her body anymore than it has a right to the use of anyone else's.

You can run but you can't hide.

You can't deny that the child is not her body, can you.

Deny it? The embryo no being part of her body is the basis of my argument.

Its separate. And as such, she can deny it the use of her body. As she has no obligation to allow anyone or anything to use her body against her will.

Since I've force you to admit that the child is a separate entity, there is no way for you to continue to claim the right to kill same.

You're dismissed.

You don't get to impose your religious beliefs on someone else's body.

 

[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?

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

Legal definitions evolve as societies evolve. I'm looking for a more universal definition.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Her womb is her body. And she's denying the use of it to.....anyone or anything. The embryo has no right to the use her body anymore than it has a right to the use of anyone else's.

You can run but you can't hide.

You can't deny that the child is not her body, can you.

Deny it? The embryo no being part of her body is the basis of my argument.

Its separate. And as such, she can deny it the use of her body. As she has no obligation to allow anyone or anything to use her body against her will.

Unless her life is threatened, she has no right to kill another human being. Maybe she could sue the child when it gets of age.

Except she is not killing the fetus. She is merely refusing to be obligated to another human being.