The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[Vandalshandle]

A fetus isn't a human being. Neither was the living basil carcinoma that was removed from my brother's nose last year.

A human fetus isn't a feline or canine or bovine fetus so it can only be human and the fact that it exists means that it is and if it is it's a "being." Can't get around simple logic no matter how hard you try.

The Supreme Court justices seem to have no problem getting around your logic, at all.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A fetus isn't a human being. Neither was the living basil carcinoma that was removed from my brother's nose last year.

A human fetus isn't a feline or canine or bovine fetus so it can only be human and the fact that it exists means that it is and if it is it's a "being." Can't get around simple logic no matter how hard you try.

The Supreme Court justices seem to have no problem getting around your logic, at all.

So....can I assume that you agree with the Dred Scott decision, too?

 

[TSJohnson]

So....can I assume that you agree with the Dred Scott decision, too?

Dred Scott and Roe v Wade were two different decisions, genius.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

So....can I assume that you agree with the Dred Scott decision, too?

Dred Scott and Roe v Wade were two different decisions, genius.

Just to clarify PC's genius ability for analogy:

"...the United States Supreme Court issues a decision in the Dred Scott case, affirming the right of slave owners to take their slaves into the Western territories, thereby negating the doctrine of popular sovereignty and severely undermining the platform of the newly created Republican Party."""

 

[Dana7360]

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".

No one is telling you that you can't believe as you choose.

YOU however are telling people they can or can't believe.

No one is forcing you to have an abortion but you advocate forcing women to carry a pregnancy they don't want, might harm them or could kill them.

You also seem to think that you have a right to decide who can have an abortion or what regulations are put on abortion. Again, you're taking freedom from someone else. Again, you're trying to tell someone else they have to believe and live as you do.

I don't believe what you believe. I support abortion. I know what it's all about. Especially abortion in the 3rd trimester. Which you show how much you don't know about abortion by separating a 3rd trimester abortion from what you call partial birth abortion. Which is the same thing as a late term abortion. It's all the same thing. I know that it's illegal to abort a fetus in the 3rd trimester unless there's a serious problem with the fetus and or the woman's health or life is in serious jeopardy. That's it. No one goes through 6 months of pregnancy and then decides to abort. Late term abortions save lives. Period end of story. You sound like you advocate that women die instead of that life saving abortion is performed.

You say that a fertilized egg is human life. Please tell me what human life is in an ectopic pregnancy?

 

[Boss]

A fetus isn't a human being. Neither was the living basil carcinoma that was removed from my brother's nose last year.

A human fetus isn't a feline or canine or bovine fetus so it can only be human and the fact that it exists means that it is and if it is it's a "being." Can't get around simple logic no matter how hard you try.

The Supreme Court justices seem to have no problem getting around your logic, at all.

In Roe v. Wade the SCOTUS actually ruled fetuses are human beings. Not that SCOTUS carries more weight than science and biology, but since you mentioned them. The entire ruling is predicated on "viability" of the already-existing human life.

In order to believe that a fetus is not a human life, you have to reject science and biology.

 

[Vandalshandle]

A fetus isn't a human being. Neither was the living basil carcinoma that was removed from my brother's nose last year.

A human fetus isn't a feline or canine or bovine fetus so it can only be human and the fact that it exists means that it is and if it is it's a "being." Can't get around simple logic no matter how hard you try.

The Supreme Court justices seem to have no problem getting around your logic, at all.

In Roe v. Wade the SCOTUS actually ruled fetuses are human beings. Not that SCOTUS carries more weight than science and biology, but since you mentioned them. The entire ruling is predicated on "viability" of the already-existing human life.

In order to believe that a fetus is not a human life, you have to reject science and biology.

Not at all. All we have to do is to reject your definition of "human life", which, frankly, is not difficult at all.

 

[Boss]

No one is telling you that you can't believe as you choose.

YOU however are telling people they can or can't believe.

No, I am not. You are free to believe whatever you please. I have a right as a citizen of the US to voice my opinions and advocate for change, just like you do, sister. Our laws, society and civilization are the rules and guidelines the people have set. Many a law came out of public demand for change. You don't get to tell me my voice is irrelevant in the course society takes.

No one is forcing you to have an abortion but you advocate forcing women to carry a pregnancy they don't want, might harm them or could kill them.

I have no problem with allowing abortion for risk to mother's health, never have. I also favor allowing abortion for women who had their opportunity to choose taken away, like rape or incest. I don't even object to allowing abortion for the myriad of unusual circumstances, as long as it happens within the first trimester, with proper regulation, counseling and oversight.

You also seem to think that you have a right to decide who can have an abortion or what regulations are put on abortion. Again, you're taking freedom from someone else. Again, you're trying to tell someone else they have to believe and live as you do.

Again, I am not the King of America. I can't decide what the law are for everybody. We have to do that together as a society, and whether we agree or disagree, we have to live with whatever society decides. Every law, regardless of what law it is, somehow infringes on the liberty of someone else. Speed limits infringe on my liberty to drive as fast as I please. Laws on homicide infringe on my liberty to kill whomever I wish.

I don't believe what you believe. I support abortion. I know what it's all about. Especially abortion in the 3rd trimester. Which you show how much you don't know about abortion by separating a 3rd trimester abortion from what you call partial birth abortion. Which is the same thing as a late term abortion. It's all the same thing. I know that it's illegal to abort a fetus in the 3rd trimester unless there's a serious problem with the fetus and or the woman's health or life is in serious jeopardy. That's it. No one goes through 6 months of pregnancy and then decides to abort. Late term abortions save lives. Period end of story. You sound like you advocate that women die instead of that life saving abortion is performed.

And I support abortion in a restricted and limited form which takes into account the health and life of the mother as well as all the other red herrings you toss out in defense of abortion as birth control. If we could cut the number of abortions down from the current 1 million per year, to 14,000 some odd cases of "risk to life or health" and "rape/incest" and maybe 10,000 other "extenuating circumstances," it would be a huge victory for humanity. It's not ideal, I still don't agree with abortion as a matter of principle, but I can live with 24k dead fetuses a lot better than a million.

You people who support this shit are liberals, and this is what you need to realize, just as with all the rich history of social injustices liberals have battled, the piper will ultimately be paid. At some point, America will end this madness. Until then, get used to having myself and others in your face and going for the jugular in the arena of debate. We're not backing down... Hell no, we won't go!

You say that a fertilized egg is human life. Please tell me what human life is in an ectopic pregnancy?

That's easy, it's still a human life. It's where the embryo attaches itself to somewhere other than the uterus and represents a serious danger to the woman. I have never heard any argument for discontinuing the procedure to deal with ectopic pregnancy, and frankly, that would be stupid. Which is why you bring it up, to introduce more hyperbole. It's the Saul Alinsky tactic of making your opponent look ridiculous and absurd by constructing straw men.

 

[Boss]

A fetus isn't a human being. Neither was the living basil carcinoma that was removed from my brother's nose last year.

A human fetus isn't a feline or canine or bovine fetus so it can only be human and the fact that it exists means that it is and if it is it's a "being." Can't get around simple logic no matter how hard you try.

The Supreme Court justices seem to have no problem getting around your logic, at all.

In Roe v. Wade the SCOTUS actually ruled fetuses are human beings. Not that SCOTUS carries more weight than science and biology, but since you mentioned them. The entire ruling is predicated on "viability" of the already-existing human life.

In order to believe that a fetus is not a human life, you have to reject science and biology.

Not at all. All we have to do is to reject your definition of "human life", which, frankly, is not difficult at all.

My definition is science and biology's definition. You've presented NO evidence to the contrary.

Sorry!

 

[Vandalshandle]

A fetus isn't a human being. Neither was the living basil carcinoma that was removed from my brother's nose last year.

A human fetus isn't a feline or canine or bovine fetus so it can only be human and the fact that it exists means that it is and if it is it's a "being." Can't get around simple logic no matter how hard you try.

The Supreme Court justices seem to have no problem getting around your logic, at all.

In Roe v. Wade the SCOTUS actually ruled fetuses are human beings. Not that SCOTUS carries more weight than science and biology, but since you mentioned them. The entire ruling is predicated on "viability" of the already-existing human life.

In order to believe that a fetus is not a human life, you have to reject science and biology.

Not at all. All we have to do is to reject your definition of "human life", which, frankly, is not difficult at all.

My definition is science and biology's definition. You've presented NO evidence to the contrary.

Sorry!

And my definition is a legal one, which is the only definition that has any relevance when it comes to a political debate, which is, in fact, what this thread is all about. The argument that you just won is strictly in your own mind. it will not stand in a court of law. Nor, have you convinced me that parasitic cells growing in a woman's uterus, which would not survive if removed, is anyone's business but the woman whose body it is. Nor, have you convinced me that any regulation that government were to pass regarding abortion would have any impact on society other than to criminalize the provider of the abortion. You have successfully convinced me of only one point. That point is that you don't like abortion and want to limit it for people other than yourself.

 

[DriftingSand]

A fetus isn't a human being. Neither was the living basil carcinoma that was removed from my brother's nose last year.

A human fetus isn't a feline or canine or bovine fetus so it can only be human and the fact that it exists means that it is and if it is it's a "being." Can't get around simple logic no matter how hard you try.

The Supreme Court justices seem to have no problem getting around your logic, at all.

In Roe v. Wade the SCOTUS actually ruled fetuses are human beings. Not that SCOTUS carries more weight than science and biology, but since you mentioned them. The entire ruling is predicated on "viability" of the already-existing human life.

In order to believe that a fetus is not a human life, you have to reject science and biology.

Not at all. All we have to do is to reject your definition of "human life", which, frankly, is not difficult at all.

If it's human and living then it's human life. What's so difficult to understand?

 

[DriftingSand]

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!

Jefferson recognized America as a Christian nation but didn't believe that any particular denomination should be dominant over the others. That was one of the reasons why he broke from England. He was wholly opposed to any government regulating a person's right to religion:

Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:

[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 1798 [3]

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 [4]

[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 [5]

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 [6]

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Separation of Church and State

By the same token, Jefferson was responsible for using the halls of Congress for church services:

It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Religion and the Federal Government Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic Exhibitions Library of Congress

The first Congress sponsored the first Bible printed in the USA:

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

Religion and the Congress of the Confederation - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic Exhibitions Library of Congress

Are you joining PoliticalSpice in her crusade to tear down the wall of separation between church and state?

Yes or no?

"Duke University's decision to sound Muslim call to prayer riles some
(CNN)The Muslim call to prayer will sound from a bell tower at North Carolina's Duke University -- but not everyone is considering the chant music to the ear.

Starting Friday, the Duke Muslim Students Association will chant the call, or adhan, from the Duke Chapel bell tower. The adhan signals the beginning of the weekly prayer service. It's ubiquitous in Muslim countries the world over; not so in the Carolina piedmont.

The call will last three minutes and will be only "moderately amplified," the school said."
Duke University s decision to sound Muslim call to prayer riles some - CNN.com


so....how soon can one expect John 3:16 to receive a similar broadcast?

Good news ... Duke nixed the idea of allowing a Muslim prayer chant (chuckle, chuckle, chuckle):

Duke nixes plan to use chapel tower for Muslim prayer call

 

[Boss]

A human fetus isn't a feline or canine or bovine fetus so it can only be human and the fact that it exists means that it is and if it is it's a "being." Can't get around simple logic no matter how hard you try.

The Supreme Court justices seem to have no problem getting around your logic, at all.

In Roe v. Wade the SCOTUS actually ruled fetuses are human beings. Not that SCOTUS carries more weight than science and biology, but since you mentioned them. The entire ruling is predicated on "viability" of the already-existing human life.

In order to believe that a fetus is not a human life, you have to reject science and biology.

Not at all. All we have to do is to reject your definition of "human life", which, frankly, is not difficult at all.

My definition is science and biology's definition. You've presented NO evidence to the contrary.

Sorry!

And my definition is a legal one, which is the only definition that has any relevance when it comes to a political debate, which is, in fact, what this thread is all about. The argument that you just won is strictly in your own mind. it will not stand in a court of law. Nor, have you convinced me that parasitic cells growing in a woman's uterus, which would not survive if removed, is anyone's business but the woman whose body it is. Nor, have you convinced me that any regulation that government were to pass regarding abortion would have any impact on society other than to criminalize the provider of the abortion. You have successfully convinced me of only one point. That point is that you don't like abortion and want to limit it for people other than yourself.

But the fetus is not "parasitic cells" at all. The fetus is a living human organism in the fetal stage. The so-called "legal definition" acknowledges the fetus is a human life and rulings such as Roe v. Wade are predicated on the "viability" of said life. As I said, to consider the fetus anything but human life will require you to abandon science and biology.

I'm not here to convince you of anything, I am simply educating you on basic fundamental biology here. But it doesn't really matter if I convince you, you're just one person like me, you're not the King. We are part of a civilized society of people who work together to resolve differences and come to agreement on how we should live. That has to begin with reasonable minds who rationally accept science regarding the unborn.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Supreme Court justices seem to have no problem getting around your logic, at all.

In Roe v. Wade the SCOTUS actually ruled fetuses are human beings. Not that SCOTUS carries more weight than science and biology, but since you mentioned them. The entire ruling is predicated on "viability" of the already-existing human life.

In order to believe that a fetus is not a human life, you have to reject science and biology.

Not at all. All we have to do is to reject your definition of "human life", which, frankly, is not difficult at all.

My definition is science and biology's definition. You've presented NO evidence to the contrary.

Sorry!

And my definition is a legal one, which is the only definition that has any relevance when it comes to a political debate, which is, in fact, what this thread is all about. The argument that you just won is strictly in your own mind. it will not stand in a court of law. Nor, have you convinced me that parasitic cells growing in a woman's uterus, which would not survive if removed, is anyone's business but the woman whose body it is. Nor, have you convinced me that any regulation that government were to pass regarding abortion would have any impact on society other than to criminalize the provider of the abortion. You have successfully convinced me of only one point. That point is that you don't like abortion and want to limit it for people other than yourself.

But the fetus is not "parasitic cells" at all. The fetus is a living human organism in the fetal stage. The so-called "legal definition" acknowledges the fetus is a human life and rulings such as Roe v. Wade are predicated on the "viability" of said life. As I said, to consider the fetus anything but human life will require you to abandon science and biology.

I'm not here to convince you of anything, I am simply educating you on basic fundamental biology here. But it doesn't really matter if I convince you, you're just one person like me, you're not the King. We are part of a civilized society of people who work together to resolve differences and come to agreement on how we should live. That has to begin with reasonable minds who rationally accept science regarding the unborn.

I don't know if there is a biological thread on this forum. if there were, I would probably not go to it. This is a political thread, on a political forum. And, from that perspective, you don't have a case.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

You started out ignorant, and crossed the "moron" threshold.

 

[Bfgrn]

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!

Hey asshole, Obama's name was brought up by WHOM?

 

[Boss]

I don't know if there is a biological thread on this forum. if there were, I would probably not go to it. This is a political thread, on a political forum. And, from that perspective, you don't have a case.

I don't understand what you mean, it sounds like you are claiming that we can't be honest about when human life begins because we are democrats and republicans and this is a political forum?

Furthermore, you seem to be gleeful about some arbitrary point of order you've made to "dismiss my case" on grounds that my arguments is too scientifically valid and irrefutable for a political forum. I would suggest applying to USMB for a moderator job. No really, you'd be good at telling everyone what was valid and when cases were made and such. Until such time, I think I will go have a shit and pretend I am giving it in your honor.

A fetus is a human life. So says biology. So says the SCOTUS.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A fetus isn't a human being. Neither was the living basil carcinoma that was removed from my brother's nose last year.

A human fetus isn't a feline or canine or bovine fetus so it can only be human and the fact that it exists means that it is and if it is it's a "being." Can't get around simple logic no matter how hard you try.

The Supreme Court justices seem to have no problem getting around your logic, at all.

So....can I assume that you agree with the Dred Scott decision, too?

The 'Supreme Court has been wrong' argument fails as an appeal to consequences fallacy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A fetus isn't a human being. Neither was the living basil carcinoma that was removed from my brother's nose last year.

A human fetus isn't a feline or canine or bovine fetus so it can only be human and the fact that it exists means that it is and if it is it's a "being." Can't get around simple logic no matter how hard you try.

The Supreme Court justices seem to have no problem getting around your logic, at all.

In Roe v. Wade the SCOTUS actually ruled fetuses are human beings. Not that SCOTUS carries more weight than science and biology, but since you mentioned them. The entire ruling is predicated on "viability" of the already-existing human life.

In order to believe that a fetus is not a human life, you have to reject science and biology.

Not at all. All we have to do is to reject your definition of "human life", which, frankly, is not difficult at all.

If it's human and living then it's human life. What's so difficult to understand?

For you and others opposed to a woman's right to privacy, the fact that this has no legal bearing on the issue whatsoever appears difficult for you to understand.

Prior to birth there is no 'personhood,' no entitlement to Constitutional protections, no legal standing equal to that of the woman.

That you disagree with his is personal, subjective, and legally irrelevant, as there are indeed those who disagree with you. The right to privacy protects your beliefs by allowing you to not have an abortion if it's contrary to those beliefs; likewise the right to privacy protects others of good faith and good conscience who disagree with you and believe that 'personhood' starts after one is born.

But whatever one's beliefs, the right to privacy ensures that government not interfere with each citizens' protected liberty to believe as he sees fit.

 

[JoeB131]

In Roe v. Wade the SCOTUS actually ruled fetuses are human beings. Not that SCOTUS carries more weight than science and biology, but since you mentioned them. The entire ruling is predicated on "viability" of the already-existing human life.

In order to believe that a fetus is not a human life, you have to reject science and biology.

Well, no, actually, I don't. Fact is, there are thousands of children who die of starvation every day in the world, and you don't really care about them.

Also, while SCOTUS put viability as a criteria as to when to cut off abortion, they also ruled that the health of the mother throws those out in the companion ruling "Doe v. Boland". Pro-Life nuts like to forget the Boland ruling, because it doesn't help their cause.