The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[JoeB131]

I've always found it fascinating that some one is having a baby but some one else lost a fetus.

Not fascinating at all.

If you want it, it's a "Baby".

If you don't want it, it's "That thing I need to take care of next week".

Easy-peasy

 

[JoeB131]

Oh I totally agree with every BIT of that... except where it rationalizes that the child in utero is not a child. Pretending otherwise rejects the responsibility intrinsic to being female.

No one should take on the raising of a child lightly, and as a result, no one should engage in the behavior designed for that which should not be taken lightly, lightly. Because as a great thinker one noted, human beings are not stock-farm Animals, we have the means to reason, to know that what should not be taken lightly... because there's a life at risk, which is not yours.

In short: You have no right to screw, when such results in someone besides you, getting screwed.

Your Girl Ayn Rand had a number of lovers on the side. Somehow, I don't think she was thinking of her "responsibilities of being female" to be a breeding machine.

Hey, the 19th Century Called. They want their misogyny back.

 

[koshergrl]

"An objective study of the Holocaust and legal abortion demonstrates striking similarities. There are differences. For instance, the Nazis felt they had to hide the death camps to avoid general outrage; nearly all such camps were in Poland or Byelorussia, not Germany. In contrast, Americans debate but largely accept abortion clinics in our midst." Are Abortion and the Holocaust Comparable

So says Steve Kellmeyer, Catholic blogger. The question is, why should I give a shit what Mr. Kellmeyer believes?

You never did answer my question. If abortion is a crime against children and against humanity.....why then has the UN insisted that safe and legal access to abortion is a requirement of every State?

And why, pray tell, has the UN never found that abortion is a crime against any child, a crime against humanity, a violation of any child's rights, discrimination against children, or a crime of any kind?

And who, other than yourself, are you citing that says as much? The Catholic blogger?

Why would I give a shit what the UN thinks about abortion?

 

[koshergrl]

psst...nobody has advocated for "absolute prohibition".

Psst....that's not an answer to any question I asked? That's an excuse for an answer.

Psst.....why does the UN mandate safe and legal access to abortion if abortion is a crime against humanity? What does the UN know that you don't?

Psst.......why has the UN never found any claim you've made regarding abortion to be true. Ever?

Psst.......if your argument had merit, you wouldn't be running from it.

"On July 22, 1942, the Fuhrer exhibited a highly positive attitude towards abortion as an indispensable method of dealing with the non-German populations in countries under Nazi control. "In view of the large families of the native populations," he asserted, "it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible." Hitler also personally announced that he "would personally shoot" any "such idiot" who "tried to put into practice such an order (forbidding abortion) in the occupied Eastern territories."

Hitler and Abortion

Laughing....and Godwin's law!

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"[2][3]— that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism."

Godwin s law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The last, desperate bastion of every hapless poster desperately polishing her little rhetorical turd.

Psst......you just blinked.

Progressives have always been highly motivated to hide their motives..and to hide the fact that they were the #1 proponents of the more disgusting aspects of Hitler's final solution. As they still are.

Oh, you want a different set of children and people killed off...but you still want people killed off.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The onus is now on PolitcalSpice to produce this "guarantee"!

I see much squirming ahead in her immediate future.

FYI that one is a "keeper"!

Must you let everyone know what an imbecile you are?

Well....by this point it is common knowledge.


"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Wikipedia, the ..en.wikipedia.org/.../Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happines..Wikipedia

Thank you for admitting that you could not produce this imaginary "guarantee" of yours, PoliticalSpice.

FYI the DofI is not the Constitution and has no legal standing. The Constitution was written for the purpose of defining the role of the government. Lastly your "creator" didn't grant you any rights and most certainly doesn't protect any of them. (Hint: try finding your "inalienable rights" in your bible, they don't exist.)

Of course I did.

It's the mission statement of the United States of America.

A "mission statement" is not a guarantee, PoliticalSpice. You need to take a remedial English language class at your local community college because you are using terms you don't understand. That much is obvious to everyone in this thread by now.

Hey, she might benefit from Obama's college plan. LOL!

Sure, but community college is already free. I suggest you take advantage of it, sweetie.

 

[Dana7360]

Must you let everyone know what an imbecile you are?

Well....by this point it is common knowledge.


"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Wikipedia, the ..en.wikipedia.org/.../Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happines..Wikipedia

Thank you for admitting that you could not produce this imaginary "guarantee" of yours, PoliticalSpice.

FYI the DofI is not the Constitution and has no legal standing. The Constitution was written for the purpose of defining the role of the government. Lastly your "creator" didn't grant you any rights and most certainly doesn't protect any of them. (Hint: try finding your "inalienable rights" in your bible, they don't exist.)

Of course I did.

It's the mission statement of the United States of America.

A "mission statement" is not a guarantee, PoliticalSpice. You need to take a remedial English language class at your local community college because you are using terms you don't understand. That much is obvious to everyone in this thread by now.

Hey, she might benefit from Obama's college plan. LOL!

Sure, but community college is already free. I suggest you take advantage of it, sweetie.

Community college isn't free. At least not in my state. I took a class on web design fall quarter. The class cost nearly 600 tuition fee and nearly 100 dollars for the computer program used in the class.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Thank you for admitting that you could not produce this imaginary "guarantee" of yours, PoliticalSpice.

FYI the DofI is not the Constitution and has no legal standing. The Constitution was written for the purpose of defining the role of the government. Lastly your "creator" didn't grant you any rights and most certainly doesn't protect any of them. (Hint: try finding your "inalienable rights" in your bible, they don't exist.)

Of course I did.

It's the mission statement of the United States of America.

A "mission statement" is not a guarantee, PoliticalSpice. You need to take a remedial English language class at your local community college because you are using terms you don't understand. That much is obvious to everyone in this thread by now.

Hey, she might benefit from Obama's college plan. LOL!

Sure, but community college is already free. I suggest you take advantage of it, sweetie.

Community college isn't free.

Well it is now.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

20,000 years ago what was the chance a human baby would survive until age 5?

If you don't think we are a product of nature, take that up with Eyes "BOTH are aware that the behavior in which they are about to engage is that which nature designed for procreation"

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Yep...

And nothing's changed, accept people no longer respect themselves or their responsibilities to others, which is a manifestation of evil. And evil produces only chaos, calamity and catastrophe.

Now, there is only one set of ideas which reject objectivity. What is that Ideology?

In the answering of THAT, you'll find: The Problem.

What? Nothing's changed? Child rearing has completely changed. Modern science, the modern world and modern medicine have negated the need for having huge families in order for a few to survive into adulthood. Our sexual drives have not changed.

 

[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.

20,000 years ago what was the chance a human baby would survive until age 5?

If you don't think we are a product of nature, take that up with Eyes "BOTH are aware that the behavior in which they are about to engage is that which nature designed for procreation"

So poor women should kill their babies because there are too many babies?

Otay. That's what Pharoah said about Jewish babies.

 

[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.

Yep...

And nothing's changed, accept people no longer respect themselves or their responsibilities to others, which is a manifestation of evil. And evil produces only chaos, calamity and catastrophe.

Now, there is only one set of ideas which reject objectivity. What is that Ideology?

In the answering of THAT, you'll find: The Problem.

What? Nothing's changed? Child rearing has completely changed. Modern science, the modern world and modern medicine have negated the need for having huge families in order for a few to survive into adulthood. Our sexual drives have not changed.

Tell that to the people who are dying faster than they can be born in Africa.

The idea that progressive baby killers want to save the population is a lie. They are most adamant about inflicting abortion upon OPPRESSED people. Rather than work to eliminate the horrific conditions that lead to the hideous mortality rate of poor countries, they instead advocate baby killing. To more effectively kill off those populations.

 

[koshergrl]

For example, most progressives think these guys need more abortion clinics. Obviously, they are overpopulated. Yeah, that's the ticket:

Boko Haram is actually putting ISIS to shame for barbarism Hot Air

Obviously, too many babies are born there.

 

[Kosh]

For example, most progressives think these guys need more abortion clinics. Obviously, they are overpopulated. Yeah, that's the ticket:

Boko Haram is actually putting ISIS to shame for barbarism Hot Air

Obviously, too many babies are born there.

Yes, that is why the far left is not against genocide, yet many of them seem to be against the death penalty..

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

20,000 years ago what was the chance a human baby would survive until age 5?

If you don't think we are a product of nature, take that up with Eyes "BOTH are aware that the behavior in which they are about to engage is that which nature designed for procreation"

What people existed 20,000 years ago?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh I totally agree with every BIT of that... except where it rationalizes that the child in utero is not a child. Pretending otherwise rejects the responsibility intrinsic to being female.

No one should take on the raising of a child lightly, and as a result, no one should engage in the behavior designed for that which should not be taken lightly, lightly. Because as a great thinker one noted, human beings are not stock-farm Animals, we have the means to reason, to know that what should not be taken lightly... because there's a life at risk, which is not yours.

In short: You have no right to screw, when such results in someone besides you, getting screwed.

Your Girl Ayn Rand had a number of lovers on the side. Somehow, I don't think she was thinking of her "responsibilities of being female" to be a breeding machine.

Hey, the 19th Century Called. They want their misogyny back.

What's your point?

"Ayn Rand did it, so it must be ok...?"

Taking seriously one's responsibility for the life one conceives, IS what separates human beings from the animal kingdom... which is saddled with adherence to their base instincts, thus it is YOU who is advocating that human females are merely breeding stock... which can only be relived of the burden, through the mass murder of their off-spring.

You people truly are helpless.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution. Calling it "privacy" doesn't change that fact.

There is a right to privacy in the Constitution and you have no right to shove your meddling sanctimonious nose into any woman's uterus without her explicit permission.

Wrong. There's nothing in a woman's uterus that she alone has the power to put there. That means that any baby belongs to more than just the mother. So it isn't so "private" after all.

Sounds like you have never been in a serious relationship with any women at all.

Try telling a woman that her uterus is not "private" and see how far that gets you.

Congratulations on saying something even dumber than PoliticalSpice has managed in this entire thread.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti- abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals."
-- Ayn Rand; from The Ayn Rand Letter

-

dude, you totally melted their brains.

You really do believe we are all stupid don't you?

So you agree that your uterus is NOT private?

The Politics of the Abortion Word Games Page 21 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution. Calling it "privacy" doesn't change that fact.

There is a right to privacy in the Constitution and you have no right to shove your meddling sanctimonious nose into any woman's uterus without her explicit permission.

Wrong. There's nothing in a woman's uterus that she alone has the power to put there. That means that any baby belongs to more than just the mother. So it isn't so "private" after all.

I'll bet you'd sing a different tune if it was your reproductive rights being threatened.

You are a sick little putz, a completely evil Peeping Tom.

MYOFB

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Link?

Why the red? do you think you are a mod?

link? Use some common sense. Abortion was illegal before Roe vs. Wade. Was it because a fetus at that time was considered a vegetable?

No you're wrong. Abortion has been legal in my state since the people of my state had their first chance to vote on the subject in 1968. So abortion has been legal in my state for 47 years.

We've had two more chances to vote on the abortion issue. Again in the early 1980s when we voted to use state tax dollars to pay for abortion. It passed and I voted in the majority. So our state medicaid dollars have been paying for abortions for around 35 years.

Then again in the early 1990s. we had the chance to vote on an initiative that said that no matter what DC does, no matter what any judge says, no matter what any politician does in our state congress, abortion stays legal and safe in my state. It passed again and I voted with the majority. So no matter what any judge or politician in DC or politician in our state congress says or does, abortion stays legal and safe in my state forever.

Alter the dates to the relevant period and that's pretty much what happened in Germany in the 1930s and 40s with the Jews. They were innocent and unable to defend themselves and their mortal judgment became a bureaucratic matter. No Trials and any public speech which advocated for Jews was quickly beaten into submission.

And the Germans didn't care what anyone else thought about it... , for a while there. Then, fairly suddenly, that they didn't care, didn't matter.

Now you understand why I HATE Nazis with their Jew hate talk, the same kind of talk that turned a religious society into a murderous machine. I'll oppose Jew haters with unrelenting antagonism wherever I encounter them.

Of course... it's evil. Where one fails to oppose evil, by default one joins with evil and, in so doin', destroy one's self.

I totally get it.

No, actually, you don't.

You say you are against exactly what you post in favor of.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti- abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals."
-- Ayn Rand; from The Ayn Rand Letter

-

dude, you totally melted their brains.

Naw. They'll cherry pick, just like they do with religion.

They'll worship Rand while pretending that she wasn't a pro-abortion nazi.

Besides, they do think of women as farm animals. They want that control and the welfare of an unwanted baby is of no importance to them. Only the fetus matters to them.