The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[NYcarbineer]

Killing this is what you people want a woman to get a lethal injection for...

 

[Boss]

Again, Doe v. Bolton invalidated what few restrictions Roe put into place, and good riddance. The ruling didn't say it was human life one way or the other, and only in cases of "Viability" might it be restricted.

LMAO... Idiot... the unambiguous acknowledgement of "viability" is admitting there is human life. So yes, their ruling certainly did accept the fetus is human life.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Again, Doe v. Bolton invalidated what few restrictions Roe put into place, and good riddance. The ruling didn't say it was human life one way or the other, and only in cases of "Viability" might it be restricted.

LMAO... Idiot... the unambiguous acknowledgement of "viability" is admitting there is human life. So yes, their ruling certainly did accept the fetus is human life.

Whether or not it's human is irrelevant.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Again, Doe v. Bolton invalidated what few restrictions Roe put into place, and good riddance. The ruling didn't say it was human life one way or the other, and only in cases of "Viability" might it be restricted.

LMAO... Idiot... the unambiguous acknowledgement of "viability" is admitting there is human life. So yes, their ruling certainly did accept the fetus is human life.

At 26 weeks, not conception!

 

[JoeB131]

Again, Doe v. Bolton invalidated what few restrictions Roe put into place, and good riddance. The ruling didn't say it was human life one way or the other, and only in cases of "Viability" might it be restricted.

LMAO... Idiot... the unambiguous acknowledgement of "viability" is admitting there is human life. So yes, their ruling certainly did accept the fetus is human life.

No, the ruling said that they weren't willing to address the issue of life, but said that states COULD impose restrictions on 'viability".

ANd then in Doe v. Bolton, immediately struck those down if the doctor could claim "medical need". Medical need could be "I'm Depressed!"

So, yeah, I guess that "Viability" was an issue for all of ten minutes between the issuing of those two rulings. Fetuses were people for all of ten minutes before everyone realized THAT was a terrible idea.

 

[TemplarKormac]

However, as far as human beings are concerned, we are the only sentient species that doesn't recognize our own offspring in the stages of prenatal development.

You ignorance is legion!

Ever heard of kangaroos? They will sacrifice their own child to escape a predator.

And please provide us with the academic evidence that other species are capable of "recognizing" their "own offspring in the stages of prenatal development".

Or run away and ignore the question because you can't, as usual.

The child is already born, you dolt. That's not an abortion, and it is intellectually dishonest to use it to justify why women should be able to freely abort their children. When the kangaroo removes the neonate, it technically becomes born by our scientific standards. However, we are not kangaroos, we are homo sapiens, human beings; who know the difference between taking a life and preserving one. Your stupidity (and your non sequiturs) amount to a legion of legions.

Fact is, we are the predominant species on the planet, our intelligence distinguishes us from those species. Those species do eat or kill their own young, spontaneously abort them for lack of nourishment, or in the case of the blue footed booby (a bird) the dominant hatchling attempts to kill the younger, such a behavior leads the mother to build a nest with steeper sides, or lay heavier eggs. We on the other hand, have a unique respect (supposedly) for life. We can choose to preserve life, or take it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Its the same sadness when you have a miscarriage.

By that sadness alone, the mother knows the life she had the potential to bring forth into this world is now gone. She mourns. She reacts in the same manner a mother does when she loses her already born child to a tragic circumstance. The child is a life either way, hence the sadness.

And your "scientific evidence" for this is what? Some anti-rights religious website?

We call it psychology, genius.

 

[JoeB131]

We on the other hand, have a unique respect (supposedly) for life.

We do? Animals only kill when they need to survive.

We kill because we want their stuff, or because they are a different race, or because they don't believe in the same Sky Fairy we believe in.

we're the only species that makes other species extinct.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Charles Warner Executed Baby Killer Says My Body Is On Fire During Lethal Injection In Oklahoma

Executed for killing a baby.

If as you people claim there is no difference between a human zygote and a baby,

THIS is what you believe should happen to women who have abortions.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your foreskin is, or was HUMAN.

Sperms and eggs are human too.

Neither examples are living organisms. To qualify as a living biological organism, cells must work in organization to process energy and reproduce. These are human cells, they are not human life. They exist as a result of human life, the living organism produced them, but they are incapable of ever being living human organisms.

Once a fused egg and sperm cell begins to carry on the process of life, it forever becomes a living organism in the state of being. Since it is inside a human and all the cells are from the human organism, it has to be a human organism. A human organism in state of being is a human being.

Sounds pretty much like cancer cells to me.

So in essence we are all cancer cells? Tumors? This post here shows how you are unable to delineate between a cancerous growth and that of sentient life.

Cancer does not reproduce, it spreads through a process called carcinogenesis. It can be caused by external sources, or internal ones, which damage the genetic and epigenetic makeup of a cell. Cancer happens when the cycle, or human cell apoptosis, is thrown out of balance. The cells then literally transform into cancer, further damaging the structure of surrounding cells, and proliferating from there.

Humans on the other had make a conscious effort to reproduce by sexual means. They don't cause damage to anything or anyone else in the process of reproduction, a very benign process in comparison. The amount by which they proliferate is dictated by genes, by the reproductive potential of the parent.

Science. It doesn't come from the establishmentarians in your party.

 

[Derideo_Te]

However, as far as human beings are concerned, we are the only sentient species that doesn't recognize our own offspring in the stages of prenatal development.

You ignorance is legion!

Ever heard of kangaroos? They will sacrifice their own child to escape a predator.

And please provide us with the academic evidence that other species are capable of "recognizing" their "own offspring in the stages of prenatal development".

Or run away and ignore the question because you can't, as usual.

The child is already born, you dolt. That's not an abortion, and it is intellectually dishonest to use it to justify why women should be able to freely abort their children. When the kangaroo removes the neonate, it technically becomes born by our scientific standards. However, we are not kangaroos, we are homo sapiens, human beings; who know the difference between taking a life and preserving one. Your stupidity (and your non sequiturs) amount to a legion of legions.

Fact is, we are the predominant species on the planet, our intelligence distinguishes us from those species. Those species do eat or kill their own young, spontaneously abort them for lack of nourishment, or in the case of the blue footed booby (a bird) the dominant hatchling attempts to kill the younger, such a behavior leads the mother to build a nest with steeper sides, or lay heavier eggs. We on the other hand, have a unique respect (supposedly) for life.

Gazelles spontaneously abort when being chased by predators. Gelada monkeys abort their fetuses when a new male takes over the troop. Pregnant mice abort when they encounter strange males. It is called the Bruce effect and has been scientifically documented so all your outrage was futile.

Great job on proving that you have nothing but bluster and that it is a poor substitute for actual knowledge and intellect.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Its the same sadness when you have a miscarriage.

By that sadness alone, the mother knows the life she had the potential to bring forth into this world is now gone. She mourns. She reacts in the same manner a mother does when she loses her already born child to a tragic circumstance. The child is a life either way, hence the sadness.

And your "scientific evidence" for this is what? Some anti-rights religious website?

We call it psychology, genius.

Once again you expose your ignorance and inability to support your fallacious claims.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Its the same sadness when you have a miscarriage.

By that sadness alone, the mother knows the life she had the potential to bring forth into this world is now gone. She mourns. She reacts in the same manner a mother does when she loses her already born child to a tragic circumstance. The child is a life either way, hence the sadness.

Which is subjective perception, and not legal justification for the state to violate a woman's right to privacy and compel her to give birth against her will.

This is the fact you and others hostile to privacy rights refuse to accept: that you seek to expand the size and authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your foreskin is, or was HUMAN.

Sperms and eggs are human too.

Neither examples are living organisms. To qualify as a living biological organism, cells must work in organization to process energy and reproduce. These are human cells, they are not human life. They exist as a result of human life, the living organism produced them, but they are incapable of ever being living human organisms.

Once a fused egg and sperm cell begins to carry on the process of life, it forever becomes a living organism in the state of being. Since it is inside a human and all the cells are from the human organism, it has to be a human organism. A human organism in state of being is a human being.

Sounds pretty much like cancer cells to me.

So in essence we are all cancer cells? Tumors? This post here shows how you are unable to delineate between a cancerous growth and that of sentient life.

Cancer does not reproduce, it spreads through a process called carcinogenesis. It can be caused by external sources, or internal ones, which damage the genetic and epigenetic makeup of a cell. Cancer happens when the cycle, or cell apoptosis, is thrown out of balance. The cells then literally transform into cancer, further damaging the structure of surrounding cells, and proliferating from there.

Science. It doesn't come from the establishmentarians in your party.

Cancer cells do reproduce. In fact their lack the DNA to stop reproducing which is what makes them a cancer.

 

[Boss]

Cancer cells do reproduce. In fact their lack the DNA to stop reproducing which is what makes them a cancer.

Did you never learn the difference between cells and organisms in 5th grade like the rest of us?

Cancer is not an organism. You keep giving us examples of living cells but none are capable of carrying on the process of life and converting energy for reproduction, so they are not organisms.

Sperm and eggs are haploid cells, they are incapable of ever being anything other than a sperm or egg cell by themselves. They are living by virtue of energy converted by their host and have a limited life.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Cancer cells do reproduce. In fact their lack the DNA to stop reproducing which is what makes them a cancer.

Did you never learn the difference between cells and organisms in 5th grade like the rest of us?

Cancer is not an organism. You keep giving us examples of living cells but none are capable of carrying on the process of life and converting energy for reproduction, so they are not organisms.

Sperm and eggs are haploid cells, they are incapable of ever being anything other than a sperm or egg cell by themselves. They are living by virtue of energy converted by their host and have a limited life.

Coming from someone who believes in stone age myths that is ironic!

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

Abortion is not a belief, it is an action. No one is arguing against right to privacy, the argument is centered on whether right to privacy trumps the right to life of the unborn. So which "right" is more important, right to privacy or right to live? I think most would agree the right to live kind of trumps all others because if you can't live, you can't have any rights.

"Personhood" is an interesting criteria you've created to discriminate against the unborn. I might add, similar artificial criteria were designed to keep blacks enslaved and to keep women from voting. Technically, if we as a civil society allow such false criteria to stand, it means that any government at any time can simply deem you're not "person enough" to have rights. It's no longer about the scientific evidence someone is human, it's about the philosophical contemplation of whether they are enough value as a person. Dangerous territory, indeed!

Dangerous those founding fathers!

14th Amendment

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Bfgrn]

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

Nope... The "Supreme Court is right" argument fails because the SCOTUS has very often been wrong.

Look morons.... This argument is NOT about whether the SCOTUS has made a ruling on abortion. I think we're all aware of Roe v. Wade, and I don't think anyone is arguing this didn't happen. But because the SCOTUS ruled something, doesn't make it right. So far, that seems to be your only defense of abortion on demand.

Hey moron, Bfgrn did NOT say: "The 'Supreme Court has been wrong' argument fails as an appeal to consequences fallacy"

 

[Boss]

Dangerous those founding fathers!

14th Amendment

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I take it you flunked English as well as science? Nothing here indicates a person must be born to be a citizen. This is an amendment specifically to address slavery and establish freed black people as bona fide citizens. If I say this group here are certainly citizens, it doesn't mean no other group can be a citizen.

And a major point of order, the 14th Amendment came along WAY after the founding fathers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dangerous those founding fathers!

14th Amendment

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I take it you flunked English as well as science? Nothing here indicates a person must be born to be a citizen. This is an amendment specifically to address slavery and establish freed black people as bona fide citizens. If I say this group here are certainly citizens, it doesn't mean no other group can be a citizen.

And a major point of order, the 14th Amendment came along WAY after the founding fathers.

It's a major point that the the Constitution has been amended?

What IS that major point?

PS, there are no protections whatsoever, explicitly or implicitly, for a fetus, in the Constitution.