The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Great defense: 'I didn't kill the dude, I simply deprived him of air.'

And, the moron, inadvertently, verifies the title of the thread: "the-politics-of-the-abortion-word-game"

You are the one who wanted to play this silly semantics game so stop whining now that you are looking foolish, PoliticalSpice.

No...I'm the one who revealed all the words you Liberals use to avoid using "murder."

Get it now, you dunce?

 

[koshergrl]

Children are guaranteed the use of their mother's bodies until such time as a substitute can be found.

Sorry. They are also guaranteed the use of any adult's body if they are in danger..did you know you can be thrown in jail for knowingly leaving an unsupervised child at a park...even if the child isn't yours? If you go to a park, and there is an unsupervised child there, and you leave, and harm comes to that child, you can be prosecuted.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Great defense: 'I didn't kill the dude, I simply deprived him of air.'

And, the moron, inadvertently, verifies the title of the thread: "the-politics-of-the-abortion-word-game"

You are the one who wanted to play this silly semantics game so stop whining now that you are looking foolish, PoliticalSpice.

No...I'm the one who revealed all the words you Liberals use to avoid using "murder."

Get it now, you dunce?

If that was your "objective" you have failed miserably since it has rebounded on you and now you are squirming like a 3 year old needing to pee.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

More correctly it is the philosophy you claim I promote.

 

[Skylar]

I just schooled you on the biological difference between the child and the mother...and force you to lie and claim that it was your argument.

Laughing....you're still running from my question? Its so simple...if genetic diversity is the basis of your claim, then the lack of it should remove any conflicts. If instead, you're being hypocrtical, and using genetic diversity as a bullshit proxy from your ACTUAL reason, you'll continue to run from my question like it were on fire.

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

Kinda painted yourself into a corner, dincha?

1. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”

The Lord is elected? Really? So how do folks vote for him? Are Gentiles counted as 3/5ths a person in terms of representation?

And if no, then where did the Bible outline the process for electing a senator. If the Constitution is based on the Bible, it should be remarkably simple for you to do.

If you're once again talking out of your ass, I suspect you'll run from the question just like you did the 'genetic clone' question above. As you have no rational answer.

 

[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.

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.

When nature designed us, having lots of babies was necessary for the survival of the species.

So now that you think there are enough humans, it's time to start killing them?

Ok.

Psst...nature didn't design us. Nature isn't an entity.

I'll bet he thinks the world is overpopulated, too.

Liberals are taught to live from one crisis to another.

It's funny that the same people who insist we no longer need abortion think it should be applied judiciously to those populations who are dying out...as if killing them off faster will somehow preserve them. That's how we know..it isn't about science or anything else. It's just about eliminating people they don't think deserve life.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The girls are arguing against abortion in this thread - and kicking ass.

It's a mixed up, jumbled up, shook up world.

Except my Lola.

Dana is a girl too and she is kicking your and PoliticalSpice's asses so hard your noses are bleeding.

 

[koshergrl]

I just schooled you on the biological difference between the child and the mother...and force you to lie and claim that it was your argument.

Laughing....you're still running from my question? Its so simple...if genetic diversity is the basis of your claim, then the lack of it should remove any conflicts. If instead, you're being hypocrtical, and using genetic diversity as a bullshit proxy from your ACTUAL reason, you'll continue to run from my question like it were on fire.

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

Kinda painted yourself into a corner, dincha?

1. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”

The Lord is elected? Really? So how do folks vote for him? Are Gentiles counted as 3/5ths a person in terms of representation?

And if no, then where did the Bible outline the process for electing a senator. If the Constitution is based on the Bible, it should be remarkably simple for you to do.

If you're once again talking out of your ass, I suspect you'll run from the question just like you did the 'genetic clone' question above. As you have no rational answer.

As I pointed out. These people can't be taught.

 

[Skylar]

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

As defined by whom?

A universal definition should be independent of the "whom".

So, no 'whom'. Check.

So a universal truth as recognized by whom? There are plenty of folks that claim to have 'universal truth'. But they disagree with each other. They can't all be right. Thus, how would we know who has universal truth and who is simply self deluded?

Or worse, what if no one has recognized universal truth? How would we know?

 

[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.

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

Speaking of shrill Leftist strawman how many women were executed for having an abortion? Or even did serious time? Did it ever occur to you that most people will simply obey the law?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"She" conceived that life through her own willful and wanton behavior. She has a right to not allow her womb to conceive a child... she does NOT have a right to willfully engage in the behavior designed for conception, then to murder the life she conceived.

Says you. Back in reality, she can deny the use of her body to anyone. At any time. She can grant consent....and then change her mind. At any time. Or choose to change it back. She has an unlimited number of choices in the matter. Not just the one that you imagine she is limited to.

As no one or no thing has the right to the use of her body.

You're a moron.

What an absurd argument, that she can deny 'her body' when it was proven that the baby was not 'her body.'


It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Great defense: 'I didn't kill the dude, I simply deprived him of air.'

And, the moron, inadvertently, verifies the title of the thread: "the-politics-of-the-abortion-word-game"

You are the one who wanted to play this silly semantics game so stop whining now that you are looking foolish, PoliticalSpice.

No...I'm the one who revealed all the words you Liberals use to avoid using "murder."

Get it now, you dunce?

If that was your "objective" you have failed miserably since it has rebounded on you and now you are squirming like a 3 year old needing to pee.

What a transparent lie.

You may leave.

 

[alang1216]

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.

Of course you are. That's why the thread is named what it is. You people change the definitions to suit yourselves and to allow you to kill at will.

That means 'you' people are asserting rights for something you can't define and apparently don't understand. Sounds arbitrary to me.

I define it perfectly well, thank you, with the assistance of my friends at Princeton. I provided the citations, and attributed the sources. Where were you?

I don't recall seeing a definition from your friends. Is a strand of DNA a human being? If I took DNA from an fertilized human egg and put it into an unfertilized human egg (with DNA removed) and implanted it via invitro in a woman who caries it to term, is that a human being? What if the source of the DNA was one of my skin cells, would that be a human being?

 

[koshergrl]

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.

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.

Speaking of shrill Leftist strawman how many women were executed for having an abortion? Or even did serious time? Did it ever occur to you that most people will simply obey the law?

They view the women who seek abortions as not only immoral, but criminal. Totally without worth, and not to be trusted. Which is why they want them to kill their babies.

 

[Skylar]

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.

"She" conceived that life through her own willful and wanton behavior. She has a right to not allow her womb to conceive a child... she does NOT have a right to willfully engage in the behavior designed for conception, then to murder the life she conceived.

Says you. Back in reality, she can deny the use of her body to anyone. At any time. She can grant consent....and then change her mind. At any time. Or choose to change it back. She has an unlimited number of choices in the matter. Not just the one that you imagine she is limited to.

As no one or no thing has the right to the use of her body.

You're a moron.

What an absurd argument, that she can deny 'her body' when it was proven that the baby was not 'her body.'

She's not using the embryo's body. The embryo is using hers. And she can deny the embryo the use of her body, the use of her womb....at any time.

Without the mother's womb, the embryo dies. The basis of her right isn't the 'right to kill'. Its the right to deny the use of her body to anyone or anything.

It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).

Its being evicted. That the eviction results in death is a consequence. Not an 'execution'. As the embryo has no right to the use of the woman's body.

And its the right to control the use of her body that is the basis of a woman's right to abort.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Of course you are. That's why the thread is named what it is. You people change the definitions to suit yourselves and to allow you to kill at will.

That means 'you' people are asserting rights for something you can't define and apparently don't understand. Sounds arbitrary to me.

I define it perfectly well, thank you, with the assistance of my friends at Princeton. I provided the citations, and attributed the sources. Where were you?

I don't recall seeing a definition from your friends. Is a strand of DNA a human being? If I took DNA from an fertilized human egg and put it into an unfertilized human egg (with DNA removed) and implanted it via invitro in a woman who caries it to term, is that a human being? What if the source of the DNA was one of my skin cells, would that be a human being?

I suggest you read through the thread more carefully.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

"She" conceived that life through her own willful and wanton behavior. She has a right to not allow her womb to conceive a child... she does NOT have a right to willfully engage in the behavior designed for conception, then to murder the life she conceived.

Says you. Back in reality, she can deny the use of her body to anyone. At any time. She can grant consent....and then change her mind. At any time. Or choose to change it back. She has an unlimited number of choices in the matter. Not just the one that you imagine she is limited to.

As no one or no thing has the right to the use of her body.

You're a moron.

What an absurd argument, that she can deny 'her body' when it was proven that the baby was not 'her body.'

She's not using the embryo's body. The embryo is using hers. And she can deny the embryo the use of her body, the use of her womb....at any time.

Without the mother's womb, the embryo dies. The basis of her right isn't the 'right to kill'. Its the right to deny the use of her body to anyone or anything.

It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).

Its being evicted. That the eviction results in death is a consequence. Not an 'execution'. As the embryo has no right to the use of the woman's body.

And its the right to control the use of her body that is the basis of a woman's right to abort.

....in your opinion.

 

[Skylar]

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.

"She" conceived that life through her own willful and wanton behavior. She has a right to not allow her womb to conceive a child... she does NOT have a right to willfully engage in the behavior designed for conception, then to murder the life she conceived.

Says you. Back in reality, she can deny the use of her body to anyone. At any time. She can grant consent....and then change her mind. At any time. Or choose to change it back. She has an unlimited number of choices in the matter. Not just the one that you imagine she is limited to.

As no one or no thing has the right to the use of her body.

You're a moron.

What an absurd argument, that she can deny 'her body' when it was proven that the baby was not 'her body.'

She's not using the embryo's body. The embryo is using hers. And she can deny the embryo the use of her body, the use of her womb....at any time.

Without the mother's womb, the embryo dies. The basis of her right isn't the 'right to kill'. Its the right to deny the use of her body to anyone or anything.

It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).

Its being evicted. That the eviction results in death is a consequence. Not an 'execution'. As the embryo has no right to the use of the woman's body.

And its the right to control the use of her body that is the basis of a woman's right to abort.

....in your opinion.

Oh, the right to control the use of her body isn't mere opinion. Its well established law.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

Great defense: 'I didn't kill the dude, I simply deprived him of air.'

And, the moron, inadvertently, verifies the title of the thread: "the-politics-of-the-abortion-word-game"

You are the one who wanted to play this silly semantics game so stop whining now that you are looking foolish, PoliticalSpice.

No...I'm the one who revealed all the words you Liberals use to avoid using "murder."

Get it now, you dunce?

If that was your "objective" you have failed miserably since it has rebounded on you and now you are squirming like a 3 year old needing to pee.

What a transparent lie.

You may leave.

Only in your wet dreams. I am enjoying your discomfit enormously.

Watching you contort like a pretzel only to find your nostrils breathing in the noxious odor from your own nether regions.

You just can't buy entertainment this amusing.

 

[koshergrl]

"She" conceived that life through her own willful and wanton behavior. She has a right to not allow her womb to conceive a child... she does NOT have a right to willfully engage in the behavior designed for conception, then to murder the life she conceived.

Says you. Back in reality, she can deny the use of her body to anyone. At any time. She can grant consent....and then change her mind. At any time. Or choose to change it back. She has an unlimited number of choices in the matter. Not just the one that you imagine she is limited to.

As no one or no thing has the right to the use of her body.

You're a moron.

What an absurd argument, that she can deny 'her body' when it was proven that the baby was not 'her body.'

She's not using the embryo's body. The embryo is using hers. And she can deny the embryo the use of her body, the use of her womb....at any time.

Without the mother's womb, the embryo dies. The basis of her right isn't the 'right to kill'. Its the right to deny the use of her body to anyone or anything.

It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).

Its being evicted. That the eviction results in death is a consequence. Not an 'execution'. As the embryo has no right to the use of the woman's body.

And its the right to control the use of her body that is the basis of a woman's right to abort.

....in your opinion.

Oh, the right to control the use of her body isn't mere opinion. Its well established law.

Not as you are defining it, I'm afraid.