The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[Luddly Neddite]

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?

Are you saying you don't know when homo sapiens first appeared on the planet?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

So, you think its fine if they starve, just as long as they're born.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

So, large families were the result of the fragility of children?

If that were true, then there would have been no large families.

Here's a clue, large families provided for more labor... more labor to work.

To work on the farm... where children routinely began work at the ever so tender age of 5 and 6 years old... real work, concerted, difficult, arduous work; work which was required to sustain the family.

Today... children do not work. Why not? Because it's illegal. Who made it illegal? The Ideological left. Why did the Left make child labor illegal? Because child labor was cheap... and it took work away from adults, with skills which did not exceed that expected of a child.

Now.. that's a lot and its all change. So a lot has changed.

What has NOT changed, is human physiology. Not a scintilla has changed in human physiology. PERIOD.

When a man and woman, participate in sexual intercourse, they run a very high likelihood that they will conceive a child. That is because THAT is what sexual intercourse is designed to do. It's not designed to give pleasure... the pleasure is designed to encourage intercourse... this because intercourse; while designed as the means for procreation, given the variations in environmental, individual and a host of other considerations, conception does not always occur... . Thus the pleasurable sensation, promotes the likelihood of repetition, which increases the potential for conception.

Any of this makin' sense to ya?

Sex is not a sport.

Sex is not a suitable activity for recreation.

These are facts... and they're not subject to being less than fact, because someone disagrees... .

Sex is a very serious, natural biological function that comes with enormous responsibilities. And rejecting those responsibilities doesn't change THAT FACT.

Life, like everything else, begins at the beginning... and sexual intercourse is how human life conceives another human life. And THAT FACT, is not even remotely debatable... and THAT FACT does not become less than a fact, because someone can't find the strength of character to accept reality.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

So... you feel that woman can spontaneously conceive, through their own will?

Now that's fascinatin'.

Of course, in reality, woman cannot conceive spontaneously through their own will... just as they cannot spontaneously abort the life they conceived through their own will.

In reality a male is required to fertilize a woman's egg, this must be executed through the overt effort of more than just the woman. And the same is true to abort the life she conceived, except, she has the means to pierce her womb and murder her child... but that requires overt effort, set into action on her part or on the part of another.

BECAUSE of the mind-numbing responsibilities intrinsic to the female with regard to her sexual behavior, she is rightfully entitled, as the sole arbiter of who, when and where she engages in sexual intercourse.

Once she CHOOSES to do so... her right to choose has come and gone. From there, her responsibilities supersede the majority of her choices.

That is a fact... and all of the braying, weeping and gnashing of leftist tooth, doesn't make that less then a fact.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

So, you think its fine if they starve, just as long as they're born.

Why must a child be born, when there's a great risk, or a likelihood that the child would starve?

Is someone here advocating that women should be forced to conceive children?

Can ya point to where those advocacies can be found? I'd like to respond to those advocacies... and I am pretty sure I can destroy any credibility that such may be enjoying.


So please, just provide a link to those posts where sub-species have found a way to make such public advocacies.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

A lot of posters here are in favor of sharia law.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

So... you feel that woman can spontaneously conceive, through their own will?

Now that's fascinatin'.

Of course, in reality, woman cannot conceive spontaneously through their own will... just as they cannot spontaneously abort the life they conceived through their own will.

In reality a male is required to fertilize a woman's egg, this must be executed through the overt effort of more than just the woman. And the same is true to abort the life she conceived, except, she has the means to pierce her womb and murder her child... but that requires overt effort, set into action on her part or on the part of another.

BECAUSE of the mind-numbing responsibilities intrinsic to the female with regard to her sexual behavior, she is rightfully entitled, as the sole arbiter of who, when and where she engages in sexual intercourse.

Once she CHOOSES to do so... her right to choose has come and gone. From there, her responsibilities supersede the majority of her choices.

That is a fact... and all of the braying, weeping and gnashing of leftist tooth, doesn't make that less then a fact.

It's also a fact that sex produces babies, and regardless of the manner of the making, once a being has been made, we do not have the right to destroy it arbitrarily.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The wall of separation was part of case law much earlier:

REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES. LII Legal Information Institute

In any case, abortion before "the quickening" was legal at the time of this country's founding.

You might want to read something other than ridiculous propaganda if you don't want to continually make an ass of yourself.

Have someone explain both the first amendment, and the religious character of the Founders to you.

It might take quite a while......

If they were so religious, why did they dabble in astrology?


(from Poor Richard's Almanack)

Yes, agrarian cultures tended toward pagan fundamentals... . If it helps, they also used calendars, followed lunar and solar cycles and prayed for rain.

Where's the problem?

Like that "Gaia worship" that religionists are so upset about?

"I hope this [discovery of oxygen] will give some check to the rage of destroying trees that grow near houses, which has accompanied our late improvements in gardening, from an opinion of their being unwholesome. I am certain, from long observation, that there is nothing unhealthy in the air of woods"
-- Benjamin Franklin; letter to Joseph Priestly (1772)

-

So when did Benjamin Franklin propose the EPA?

He travelled through time and met with Nixon in a secret villa...

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Well, the baby is created from a man's sperm and a woman's egg, ergo, it "belongs" to both parents. And those two, in their own privacy, have their child.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Might just win the 2015 BigRebDoofus prize....

 

[Statistikhengst]

When does a person become a "person"? Apparently the surpreme court gets to decide this based on whatever arbitrary reason they see fit. At one time a fetus was a person, but that was before the Roe vs. Wade decision.
Perhaps in the future the supreme court will make a fetus a person again, or maybe it will be changed in the other direction and "it" will not be a person until 2 years after leaving the womb.

Perhaps there should be a constitutional amendment to state when a person becomes a person.

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.

So, we do have one thing in common. Progress.

 

[Statistikhengst]

"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

-

Isn't Ayn Rand a Conservative icon?

Hmmmmmmmm....

 

[Statistikhengst]

"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

-

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.

It's not yet a child, but it IS a life-form.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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..

OK, that was insane. Exactly WHO on the left is against genocide?

 

[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.

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

OK, that was insane. Exactly WHO on the left is against genocide?

None of you are against it.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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?

Us. Homo Sapiens, at least 50,000 years ago:

Human - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well, this thread seems to have everyone going for it: the crazy train, full-speed ahead.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well, this thread seems to have everyone going for it: the crazy train, full-speed ahead.

With PoliticalSpice's threads she can't be too choosy about her "supporters" and what direction they are going to go off on.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Have someone explain both the first amendment, and the religious character of the Founders to you.

It might take quite a while......

If they were so religious, why did they dabble in astrology?


(from Poor Richard's Almanack)

Yes, agrarian cultures tended toward pagan fundamentals... . If it helps, they also used calendars, followed lunar and solar cycles and prayed for rain.

Where's the problem?

Like that "Gaia worship" that religionists are so upset about?

"I hope this [discovery of oxygen] will give some check to the rage of destroying trees that grow near houses, which has accompanied our late improvements in gardening, from an opinion of their being unwholesome. I am certain, from long observation, that there is nothing unhealthy in the air of woods"
-- Benjamin Franklin; letter to Joseph Priestly (1772)

-

So when did Benjamin Franklin propose the EPA?

He travelled through time and met with Nixon in a secret villa...

So in other words you can't prove that Franklin or any of the founders would support a national environmental agency with broad discretionary powers. Got it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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?

Us. Homo Sapiens, at least 50,000 years ago:

Human - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Really? What civilizations existed 20,000 years ago? Where's the archeological evidence of humanity?