The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[Boss]

Grow up, learn that no one wants to "control women's bodies" and that's not what this is about. Reasonable people who want to reach a solution our civilized society can accept, are not impressed with militant-style protest chants. Ethical and moral people in society are not going to accept exterminating a million Americans every year out of vanity and convenience. That won't happen forever, we will eventually put an end to it because it's not right and we know it's not.

Here's the problem.

No society has ever been able to outlaw abortion effectively.

Maybe you need to look up Romania's attempt to outlaw abortion AND birth control. It failed, miserably. Women found ways to get abortions in a Communist Dictatorship determined to stop them.

Of course for most on the social right it's not about ending abortion, it's about using the practice as a political weapon, a way to control others and compel conformity.

It's about that on both the right and left.

I am very much pro life, I am not even in favor of the death penalty, and I feel abortion is simply the death penalty for the most innocent and precious life there can be. To me, it's a moral issue that I can't compromise principles on. That said, I also realize I am a member of a society of people who may not always share my views on things, and in order to maintain civilization it behooves me to consider the rest of society.

I am willing to discuss parameters where abortion is appropriate, but that begins with accepting that we are discussing human life. If we can't begin there, we can't have a rational discussion. Too many on the left want to pretend we are discussing something other than a human life. I get that... I understand why they don't want to face what they are doing... I would want to pretend the fetus is something else too! But rational minds have to remain honest and that begins with accepting the facts.

The fetus is a life. At what point should that human life be afforded Constitutional rights? Interestingly enough, there is case law precedent for a fetus being considered a human being with rights.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".

 

[BlindBoo]

A fertilized egg is the earliest stage of development. Are you saying that is a child?

"Child" is a stage of human development. A fetus is no more a child than a teen is a geriatric. However, they are ALL human life. What we commonly refer to as "a fertilized egg" is somewhat of a misnomer because it is actually the fusing of egg and sperm cells and is already more than a singular egg cell. When this fusion of sperm and egg cells begins to generate new cells, it is officially and forever a living human organism.

Any debate on the termination of human life needs to be made on this basis in fact, that we ARE talking about human life. Now if we want to draw some distinction as to the "value" of that life based on level or stage it has reached, you think "Child" is appropriate, and that is fine. I would argue that we should just extend that on out to 18 years old. Why not? Save us the problem of having to raise the snot-noses! No more smart mouth teen delinquents! We can justify it by saying it's the parents right to have "post-birth abortions" and everything will be fine and dandy, right?

When it forms it has unique human DNA and is perhaps capable of forming a complete human being. It really no chance of survival on it's own, it must attach itself to it's mother if it is to have any chance at all. A zygote is not a child and cannot be murdered any more than a embryo can. A child is born. Killing children is murder no matter how much you may or may not want to.

 

[BlindBoo]

A fertilized egg is the earliest stage of development. Are you saying that is a child?

"Child" is a stage of human development.

Semantics... the fertilized human egg IS human life.

Your need to rationalize otherwise, is irrelevant.

That it is NOT your life, means that you've no right to kill it, unless it represents a threat to you. And then, only where you are innocent of causing the threat to yourself.

Meaning that you can't rob someone, then in the process of that action, claim that you had to kill the innocent, because they were a threat to your life. Just as ya can't reasonably claim that the pre-born baby is a threat to your life, after you willfully engaged in sexual intercourse, resulting in the conception of that life.

So it's human life? So was the egg and so was the sperm. And yes the mother has the right to stop it from attaching to her and to terminate it's development into a child up to a certain point.

 

[JoeB131]

A fetus removed from the womb 20 weeks or earlier WILL DIE. Every time. Therefore, it's not "a life".

Then how in the hell can it "DIE?"

Retarded semantics... I love them.

Hey, fuckwad, please tell me how you are going to stop ONE woman from having an aboriton, then I'll give a shit about your semantics.

 

[Vandalshandle]

A fetus removed from the womb 20 weeks or earlier WILL DIE. Every time. Therefore, it's not "a life".

Then how in the hell can it "DIE?"

Retarded semantics... I love them.

Hey, fuckwad, please tell me how you are going to stop ONE woman from having an aboriton, then I'll give a shit about your semantics.

Nobody is going to stop abortions. However, the pro-life people would be satisfied by making doctors and midwives into criminals.

 

[JoeB131]

Nobody is going to stop abortions. However, the pro-life people would be satisfied by making doctors and midwives into criminals.

I don't worry about people like boss every criminalizing abortion.

What I worry about is them voting against our economic interests because they just can't stand the thought of a woman choosing not to have an unwanted baby.

 

[Boss]

When it forms it has unique human DNA and is perhaps capable of forming a complete human being. It really no chance of survival on it's own, it must attach itself to it's mother if it is to have any chance at all. A zygote is not a child and cannot be murdered any more than a embryo can. A child is born. Killing children is murder no matter how much you may or may not want to.

I don't know how else to explain this to you but you are still talking in terms of something that is living and then dies. If something is alive and living, then it dies, it must have been some form of living organism. It defies logic otherwise. You are trying to claim that it is not a living human organism unless it meets the threshold of survival, but that implies it is already living.

A fetus already has developed unique DNA, it has a heartbeat, brainwave function, fingerprints... it is already a "complete" human being, it needs nothing more than time to develop. No, it can't survive on its own outside the womb, just as a newborn can't survive in a dumpster. You have NO point.

And I am not sure why we are off on some silly argument about the legal definition of murder. I realize legalized abortion is not murder under the law, I've not argued otherwise and it has nothing to do with whether a fetus is a human being. People are sitting on death row awaiting execution are human beings, they are not going to be "murdered" they are going to be "executed."

 

[Boss]

So it's human life? So was the egg and so was the sperm. And yes the mother has the right to stop it from attaching to her and to terminate it's development into a child up to a certain point.

The egg and sperm cells are not living human organisms, a fetus is. Under current law, the woman can kill the fetus any time she pleases, it's her choice. Obama even voted for a bill in Illinois which would allow her to kill the fetus after it is born.

The fetus is a living human being and you've simply not proved otherwise.

 

[BlindBoo]

When it forms it has unique human DNA and is perhaps capable of forming a complete human being. It really no chance of survival on it's own, it must attach itself to it's mother if it is to have any chance at all. A zygote is not a child and cannot be murdered any more than a embryo can. A child is born. Killing children is murder no matter how much you may or may not want to.

I don't know how else to explain this to you but you are still talking in terms of something that is living and then dies. If something is alive and living, then it dies, it must have been some form of living organism. It defies logic otherwise. You are trying to claim that it is not a living human organism unless it meets the threshold of survival, but that implies it is already living.

A fetus already has developed unique DNA, it has a heartbeat, brainwave function, fingerprints... it is already a "complete" human being, it needs nothing more than time to develop. No, it can't survive on its own outside the womb, just as a newborn can't survive in a dumpster. You have NO point.

And I am not sure why we are off on some silly argument about the legal definition of murder. I realize legalized abortion is not murder under the law, I've not argued otherwise and it has nothing to do with whether a fetus is a human being. People are sitting on death row awaiting execution are human beings, they are not going to be "murdered" they are going to be "executed."

Nothing more to explain.

 

[Boss]

Nobody is going to stop abortions. However, the pro-life people would be satisfied by making doctors and midwives into criminals.

I don't worry about people like boss every criminalizing abortion.

What I worry about is them voting against our economic interests because they just can't stand the thought of a woman choosing not to have an unwanted baby.

What I can't stand the thought of is a million lives per year being sucked down a tube for the sake of vanity and convenience. You're okay with that because you have no regard for the sanctity of human life. You don't even value the mental health of those who are getting the abortions. People just don't matter to you at all, this is one of the key liberal agenda items so you have to do battle for it, and that's really all you give a fuck about.

I've never said anything about "criminalizing' abortion, just as I've never mentioned "outlawing" abortion. I have explained my position numerous times. I think abortion should be rare and not "on demand." In situations where the woman became pregnant through no choice of her own... rape, incest, etc., I believe the woman should have the option to terminate the pregnancy within the first trimester. Where tests indicate the child will have severe birth defects or brain damage, I think the mother should have the right to terminate such a pregnancy within the first trimester. If the mother's life is at risk, again... she should have the right to choose. However, if the woman has chosen to willingly have unprotected sexual intercourse and has become pregnant and has remained pregnant for some time past the first trimester, she should not be allowed to abort the child. If she does not want the child, it can be adopted. The madness has to stop and it will.

Now you liberal schmucks can be as condescending as you please here, Roe v. Wade is law of the land and women can get abortions in every state. But I believe Roe will be revisited in our lifetimes and when it is, I hope that SCOTUS acknowledges the rights of the unborn.

 

[BlindBoo]

So it's human life? So was the egg and so was the sperm. And yes the mother has the right to stop it from attaching to her and to terminate it's development into a child up to a certain point.

The egg and sperm cells are not living human organisms, a fetus is. Under current law, the woman can kill the fetus any time she pleases, it's her choice. Obama even voted for a bill in Illinois which would allow her to kill the fetus after it is born.

The fetus is a living human being and you've simply not proved otherwise.

Obama expressed that he feared the bill would undermine Roe v Wade by defining any fetus as a human with human rights and claimed it could be used to take down any abortion rights legislation that anti-choice activists didn’t like.

Obama was, however, “fully in support” of a federal bill that provided the same protection viable fetuses while also including protections for Roe v Wade :

OBAMA: I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.

Obama also felt that the legislation would have taken decision-making out of the hands of doctors, giving anti-abortion activists an opening to sue abortion providers by alleging that they chose to terminate the life of a viable fetus on purpose. He did not, however, express any support for “infanticide” or for ending the life of a viable fetus

FACT CHECK The Truth About Obama s Abortion Record ThinkProgress

The fetus stage of the prenatal human being begins around week 10.

 

[Boss]

First of all, I am not interested in your apologetics for Obama. We're not talking about Obama here.

A fetus is a human being in the fetal stage of development. PERIOD!

 

[mudwhistle]

Once again Don PoliticalSpice Quixote is on her futile crusade to tear down the wall of separation between church and state.

There is no such "wall, " you uneducated dunce.

The KKKer, Hugo Black, FDR's first Supreme Court nominee, inserted it and dopes like you believe that the concept was not anathema to the view of the Founders.

1. The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting ... First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Once again PoliticalSpice exposes her woeful ignorance of American history.

The KKKer, Hugo Black, FDR's first Supreme Court nominee, inserted it and dopes like you believe that the concept was no anathema to the view of the Founders.

Try reading Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists.

Jefferson s Letter to the Danbury Baptists June 1998 - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson​

Jan. 1. 1802.

It was Jefferson himself who first used the phrase to describe the intent of the 1st Amendment.

Once again you have made a fool of yourself!

You are truly a moron.

"To provide some context, “the Baptists who supported Jefferson were outsiders — a beleaguered religious and political minority in region where a Congregationalist-Federalist axis dominated political life.” They were seeking reassurances of a religion friendly disposition from their new president who was horribly vilified during the election as an “infidel and atheist.” This rumor had become so widespread during the presidential campaign, New England housewives were known to have buried their family Bibles in the backyards so fearful that the new Administration would confiscate their Holy Scriptures.

So this famous letter having to do with the ‘wall of separation between church and state’ was a political statement giving his reassurances to the Baptists that he was a friend to religion, and a response to the vilification he received from the Federalist Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut. This was not a definitive manifesto on the relationship between government and religion.

In fact, his actions as president run counter to how modern day historians and justices construe this letter. President Jefferson supported the use of federal funds to be used to build churches and to help Christian missionary work among the Indians. So the modern day perception of Jefferson’s wall directly flies in face of how Jefferson behaved in his political life."
‘Writing About Anything I Want To because I can.

Your ignorance is exactly what the Left counts on.



Justice Rehnquist, in Wallace v. Jaffree:

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the Constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

Yet from a tiny acorn grew the mightiest of liberal talking-points

 

[BlindBoo]

First of all, I am not interested in your apologetics for Obama. We're not talking about Obama here.

A fetus is a human being in the fetal stage of development. PERIOD!

You are the one who brought the Presidents record into the conversation by lying about it I might add, therefore your misconception about that event deserved to be corrected.

I just don't believe that every fertilized egg has the rights a viable child does.

 

[Boss]

First of all, I am not interested in your apologetics for Obama. We're not talking about Obama here.

A fetus is a human being in the fetal stage of development. PERIOD!

You are the one who brought the Presidents record into the conversation by lying about it I might add, therefore your misconception about that event deserved to be corrected.

I just don't believe that every fertilized egg has the rights a viable child does.

Well no, I didn't lie about anything, it is well publicized that Obama voted for a bill as an Illinois state senator that would have allowed abortions after birth. You simply interjected apologist spin, which is what Obama sycophants do best. This debate has nothing to do with Obama or his record, but I fully understand why you'd want to derail the debate and meander off into another argument about Obama instead. Because you are losing THIS debate very badly.

I don't care what you believe, this is not about what you or I believe, it's about what is fact. I don't believe fertilized eggs should have the same rights as a child outside the womb and I've never argued that. Once that fertilized egg began reproducing cells it became a living human organism in the state of being, a human being. That is a biological fact and you need to acknowledge that before we can move on to what you and I believe.

 

[BlindBoo]

First of all, I am not interested in your apologetics for Obama. We're not talking about Obama here.

A fetus is a human being in the fetal stage of development. PERIOD!

You are the one who brought the Presidents record into the conversation by lying about it I might add, therefore your misconception about that event deserved to be corrected.

I just don't believe that every fertilized egg has the rights a viable child does.

Well no, I didn't lie about anything, it is well publicized that Obama voted for a bill as an Illinois state senator that would have allowed abortions after birth. You simply interjected apologist spin, which is what Obama sycophants do best. This debate has nothing to do with Obama or his record, but I fully understand why you'd want to derail the debate and meander off into another argument about Obama instead. Because you are losing THIS debate very badly.

I don't care what you believe, this is not about what you or I believe, it's about what is fact. I don't believe fertilized eggs should have the same rights as a child outside the womb and I've never argued that. Once that fertilized egg began reproducing cells it became a living human organism in the state of being, a human being. That is a biological fact and you need to acknowledge that before we can move on to what you and I believe.

Again you are the one who brought up the Preisdent in this not me. There was never a bill he voted for that would have allowed for abortions after birth. That's just silly, that would be murder.

Nope it doesn't becomes a living human being until after birth, period.

 

[Boss]

Again you are the one who brought up the Preisdent in this not me. There was never a bill he voted for that would have allowed for abortions after birth. That's just silly, that would be murder.

Nope it doesn't becomes a living human being until after birth, period.

All you seem to be doing is repeating your fucktarded nonsense. That's not debate, that's someone being an ignorant fool. I have already posted about the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".

So there is is, skippy.... codified LAW that totally contradicts your claim. It is a human being at ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, and to argue otherwise is pure ignorance of biology.

 

[Boss]

That's just silly, that would be murder.

No, murder (under the law) is the unlawful taking of another person's life. Killing someone in self defense is not murder. Accidentally killing someone is not murder. Executing someone sentenced to death is not murder. Having a legal abortion is not murder.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I get it, Boss. You are not opposed to abortion if it is rare, but you support the Supreme Court reversing itself regarding it's decision to legalize it.

I think that I need to dwell on that for a while............

 

[Boss]

I get it, Boss. You are not opposed to abortion if it is rare, but you support the Supreme Court reversing itself regarding it's decision to legalize it.

I think that I need to dwell on that for a while............

No, I am opposed to abortion under any and all circumstances because it is human life. However, I realize that I live in a society of people who don't all share my same regard for human life and I am willing to accept they deserve a right to their opinions and choices. I don't mind having the debate over when it is appropriate to terminate a human life, but by god we're going to call it that and be honest and not hide behind semantics claiming a fetus isn't a human being.

Roe v. Wade did not legalize abortion, it made abortion a constitutional right of choice for the woman. I believe the SCOTUS got it wrong because they failed to acknowledge the right to life of the unborn fetus. At some point, this issue will be revisited. America is not going to continue to tolerate abortion on demand.