The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[TemplarKormac]

You have no right to make that choice for someone else.

Isn't abortion the act of making a choice for the unborn child?

Sigh.

 

[Bfgrn]

You are way beyond a moron. You have a VERY serious cognitive illness. Have a competent adult read what you just wrote and explain why you need to be institutionalized for the remainder of your natural life.

• "Zone 2": Political Forum / Israel and Palestine Forum / Race Relations/Racism Forum / Religion & Ethics Forum: Baiting and polarizing OP's (Opening Posts), and thread titles risk the thread either being moved or trashed. Keep it relevant, choose wisely. Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject, in addition to any flame. No trolling. No hit and run flames. No hijacking or derailing threads.

USMB Rules and Guidelines US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And you need to have an adult read you the rules to USMB posting so you'll stop violating them. This makes two days in a row you have come here and flagrantly violated this rule, and I am not going to ignore it any longer. You are old enough to know how to play by the rules. If you post again without including subject-relative content, I will report you and encourage others to do the same.

In keeping with the rules, I will add that fetuses are still human beings, your vapid little retort didn't change that fact one iota.

You are way beyond a moron. You have a VERY serious cognitive illness. Have a competent adult read what you just wrote and explain why you need to be institutionalized for the remainder of your natural life.

• "Zone 2": Political Forum / Israel and Palestine Forum / Race Relations/Racism Forum / Religion & Ethics Forum: Baiting and polarizing OP's (Opening Posts), and thread titles risk the thread either being moved or trashed. Keep it relevant, choose wisely. Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject, in addition to any flame. No trolling. No hit and run flames. No hijacking or derailing threads.

USMB Rules and Guidelines US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And you need to have an adult read you the rules to USMB posting so you'll stop violating them. This makes two days in a row you have come here and flagrantly violated this rule, and I am not going to ignore it any longer. You are old enough to know how to play by the rules. If you post again without including subject-relative content, I will report you and encourage others to do the same.

In keeping with the rules, I will add that fetuses are still human beings, your vapid little retort didn't change that fact one iota.

Add anal retentive to you psychological profile.

You want to IGNORE murder, attempted murder, violence, bombings, arson, death threats, kidnappings, assault, disruptions, bomb threats and harassment by your ilk.

Let's see...murder, attempted murder, violence, bombings, arson, death threats, kidnappings, assault, disruptions, bomb threats and harassment by religious zealots who kill in God's name. Sound familiar??

Where have we seen that before?

And you wish to spew ad hominem, ad baculum and non sequiturs all at once!

OH, I see...

Religious fanatics committing murder, attempted murder, violence, bombings, arson, death threats, kidnappings, assault, disruptions, bomb threats and harassment against law abiding citizens in the name of Allah are evil terrorists...

BUT...

Religious fanatics committing murder, attempted murder, violence, bombings, arson, death threats, kidnappings, assault, disruptions, bomb threats and harassment against law abiding citizens in the name of Jesus Christ are just doing God's work.

 

[JoeB131]

So, a toddler relies on the mother for sustenance the same as he did while within the womb. They can't both be fetuses, now can they?

Shit, dude, you can't provide for yourself. Are you a fetus?

 

[JoeB131]

You have no right to make that choice for someone else.

Isn't abortion the act of making a choice for the unborn child?

Sigh.

No, because Fetuses aren't children.

Again- even when abortion was AGAINST THE LAW, no one was charged with murder for terminating fetuses.

 

[BlindBoo]

Again you are confusing the ability to provide food, water and shelter with viability.

No, I am saying "viability" is an ambiguous term that means nothing. We apply it to the fetus in the context of what the fetus can or can't do outside it's appropriate environment. That standard isn't applied to human life elsewhere, only when it's in the womb. You are arguing that since it can't sustain itself outside the womb it's not 'viable' human life, but no human life can sustain itself outside the environment it is intended to survive in. The fetus certainly can sustain itself inside the womb attached to the uterus, if it couldn't we wouldn't need to abort anything.

Like I said "viability" is not ambiguous.......

The court also recognized that the state has an “important and legitimate interest” in protecting the health of the mother and even “the potentiality of human life” inside her. The court then asked: When does the state’s legitimate concern for maternal and fetal protection rise to the level of compelling interest? To answer this question, Blackmun created a three-tiered legal framework, based on the nine-month period of pregnancy, which gave the state greater interest and regulatory latitude in each successive tier.

The first tier in Blackmun’s framework encompassed the first trimester of pregnancy. Given that during these first three months the risks associated with abortion are actually lower than those associated with childbirth, the state has no real interest in limiting the procedure in order to protect a woman’s health, Blackmun argued. During this period, the state can only impose basic health safeguards – such as requiring that the procedure be performed by a qualified health professional – and can in no way limit access to abortion.

The second tier of Blackmun’s framework encompassed the period from the end of the first trimester to the point of fetal viability – the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, either through natural or artificial means, which typically takes place between about 24 and 28 weeks into a pregnancy. At this point, Blackmun determined, the state has an interest in protecting maternal health and can regulate abortion only to protect the health of the mother. In other words, regulations have to be directed toward ensuring maternal health and cannot be aimed at protecting a fetus or limiting access to abortion services. Thus, a state law requiring a doctor to describe to a woman seeking an abortion the risks associated with the procedure before receiving her informed consent would be constitutional – as long as the requirement aimed to protect maternal health and was not created to dissuade a woman from terminating her pregnancy.

A History of Key Abortion Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

 

[BlindBoo]

Coming from you that really hurts........

I've no doubt you have no problem lying or being recognized as one. People without honor or integrity rarely give a crap.

If I'm lying you should have no problem providing a link or a name of a poster who thinks that an unborn developing human fetus in not living or is not human. Otherwise, your accusation, like so many before, is false.

JoeB argued it for 14 pages, did you fail to read the thread?

I've read it all. Because you accuse JoeB of something doesn't mean it's true. With your propensity for using hyperbole, I'm incline to not believe a word you say. Perhaps sometime in the future Joe will enlighten us and answer the question if he think a fetus is alive and is human.

You've not read the thread if you haven't read JoeB claiming a fetus is not a human life. Like I said, he went on about it for 14 pages, just go back to about Page 90. But Joe is not the only one, I encounter this argument regularly on all abortion threads. It's usually one of the very first arguments presented. The "meaningless clump of cells" argument has been around a long time, and if you're just now hearing about it, you are WAY behind the curve in this convo.

Again, the clump of cells are living and are human.

 

[BlindBoo]

You've not read the thread if you haven't read JoeB claiming a fetus is not a human life. Like I said, he went on about it for 14 pages, just go back to about Page 90. But Joe is not the only one, I encounter this argument regularly on all abortion threads. It's usually one of the very first arguments presented. The "meaningless clump of cells" argument has been around a long time, and if you're just now hearing about it, you are WAY behind the curve in this convo.

at the point that most abortions are performed, (8-12 weeks) the fetus is no bigger than kidney bean.

ANd frankly, no woman is going to fuck up her whole life plan over a kidney-bean.

I get it, Boss must think you mean they're Kidney-Beans not Human-Beings

 

[BlindBoo]

So, a toddler relies on the mother for sustenance the same as he did while within the womb. They can't both be fetuses, now can they?

Nope not the same.

Your logic is flawed. All the organs are formed before birth and are functioning before birth. Viable in, viable out. Read a dictionary.

The second tier of Blackmun’s framework encompassed the period from the end of the first trimester to the point of fetal viability – the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, either through natural or artificial means, which typically takes place between about 24 and 28 weeks into a pregnancy.

A History of Key Abortion Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

 

[Boss]

Again you are confusing the ability to provide food, water and shelter with viability.

No, I am saying "viability" is an ambiguous term that means nothing. We apply it to the fetus in the context of what the fetus can or can't do outside it's appropriate environment. That standard isn't applied to human life elsewhere, only when it's in the womb. You are arguing that since it can't sustain itself outside the womb it's not 'viable' human life, but no human life can sustain itself outside the environment it is intended to survive in. The fetus certainly can sustain itself inside the womb attached to the uterus, if it couldn't we wouldn't need to abort anything.

Like I said "viability" is not ambiguous.......

The court also recognized that the state has an “important and legitimate interest” in protecting the health of the mother and even “the potentiality of human life” inside her. The court then asked: When does the state’s legitimate concern for maternal and fetal protection rise to the level of compelling interest? To answer this question, Blackmun created a three-tiered legal framework, based on the nine-month period of pregnancy, which gave the state greater interest and regulatory latitude in each successive tier.

The first tier in Blackmun’s framework encompassed the first trimester of pregnancy. Given that during these first three months the risks associated with abortion are actually lower than those associated with childbirth, the state has no real interest in limiting the procedure in order to protect a woman’s health, Blackmun argued. During this period, the state can only impose basic health safeguards – such as requiring that the procedure be performed by a qualified health professional – and can in no way limit access to abortion.

The second tier of Blackmun’s framework encompassed the period from the end of the first trimester to the point of fetal viability – the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, either through natural or artificial means, which typically takes place between about 24 and 28 weeks into a pregnancy. At this point, Blackmun determined, the state has an interest in protecting maternal health and can regulate abortion only to protect the health of the mother. In other words, regulations have to be directed toward ensuring maternal health and cannot be aimed at protecting a fetus or limiting access to abortion services. Thus, a state law requiring a doctor to describe to a woman seeking an abortion the risks associated with the procedure before receiving her informed consent would be constitutional – as long as the requirement aimed to protect maternal health and was not created to dissuade a woman from terminating her pregnancy.

A History of Key Abortion Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

Viability is ambiguous. Because you can cite a legal definition only means that we have created some illusion of non-ambiguity under the law but even the law is ambiguous. You've just posted how the law establishes viability of human life with regard to abortion... BUT... same same woman and fetus gets themselves killed in one of 60 acts of violence, the law says the fetus is a human life worthy of constitutional right to life under the law. So how can one argue it is not ambiguous?

 

[BlindBoo]

Again you are confusing the ability to provide food, water and shelter with viability.

No, I am saying "viability" is an ambiguous term that means nothing. We apply it to the fetus in the context of what the fetus can or can't do outside it's appropriate environment. That standard isn't applied to human life elsewhere, only when it's in the womb. You are arguing that since it can't sustain itself outside the womb it's not 'viable' human life, but no human life can sustain itself outside the environment it is intended to survive in. The fetus certainly can sustain itself inside the womb attached to the uterus, if it couldn't we wouldn't need to abort anything.

Like I said "viability" is not ambiguous.......

The court also recognized that the state has an “important and legitimate interest” in protecting the health of the mother and even “the potentiality of human life” inside her. The court then asked: When does the state’s legitimate concern for maternal and fetal protection rise to the level of compelling interest? To answer this question, Blackmun created a three-tiered legal framework, based on the nine-month period of pregnancy, which gave the state greater interest and regulatory latitude in each successive tier.

The first tier in Blackmun’s framework encompassed the first trimester of pregnancy. Given that during these first three months the risks associated with abortion are actually lower than those associated with childbirth, the state has no real interest in limiting the procedure in order to protect a woman’s health, Blackmun argued. During this period, the state can only impose basic health safeguards – such as requiring that the procedure be performed by a qualified health professional – and can in no way limit access to abortion.

The second tier of Blackmun’s framework encompassed the period from the end of the first trimester to the point of fetal viability – the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, either through natural or artificial means, which typically takes place between about 24 and 28 weeks into a pregnancy. At this point, Blackmun determined, the state has an interest in protecting maternal health and can regulate abortion only to protect the health of the mother. In other words, regulations have to be directed toward ensuring maternal health and cannot be aimed at protecting a fetus or limiting access to abortion services. Thus, a state law requiring a doctor to describe to a woman seeking an abortion the risks associated with the procedure before receiving her informed consent would be constitutional – as long as the requirement aimed to protect maternal health and was not created to dissuade a woman from terminating her pregnancy.

A History of Key Abortion Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

Viability is ambiguous. Because you can cite a legal definition only means that we have created some illusion of non-ambiguity under the law but even the law is ambiguous. You've just posted how the law establishes viability of human life with regard to abortion... BUT... same same woman and fetus gets themselves killed in one of 60 acts of violence, the law says the fetus is a human life worthy of constitutional right to life under the law. So how can one argue it is not ambiguous?

I have no problem with such laws because they are meant to punish criminal acts of violence against women, not because they bestow constitutional rights to the unborn, they don't.

 

[JoeB131]

You can talk about viability and science all day, but here's the pragmatic reality.

If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will find a way to not be pregnant.

 

[Boss]

I have no problem with such laws because they are meant to punish criminal acts of violence against women, not because they bestow constitutional rights to the unborn, they don't.

Oh, but they do! The Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes their rights under the law. You can be charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman.

 

[Boss]

You can talk about viability and science all day, but here's the pragmatic reality.

If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will find a way to not be pregnant.

Well I've got the best way in the world for her to not be pregnant. It's called abstinence. Works 100% of the time, never fails. So if that's what the woman wants I fully support her right to make that choice.

Now it's not my fault or that unborn baby's fault if the woman didn't make that choice and instead chose to have sexual intercourse. With that decision comes consequences. You claim to be "pro-choice" but what you really mean is "pro-irresponsibility for choice."

 

[BlindBoo]

I have no problem with such laws because they are meant to punish criminal acts of violence against women, not because they bestow constitutional rights to the unborn, they don't.

Oh, but they do! The Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes their rights under the law. You can be charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman.

Do tell. What constitutional rights are they granted by the act? Are you sure they're not just legal victims?

 

[JoeB131]

Well I've got the best way in the world for her to not be pregnant. It's called abstinence. Works 100% of the time, never fails. So if that's what the woman wants I fully support her right to make that choice.

Now it's not my fault or that unborn baby's fault if the woman didn't make that choice and instead chose to have sexual intercourse. With that decision comes consequences. You claim to be "pro-choice" but what you really mean is "pro-irresponsibility for choice."

Okay, just because you can't get laid, don't take it out on everyone else...

yes, it does come with consequences. Those consequences end up on the bottom of a medical waste container and everyone is better off for it.

 

[Boss]

I have no problem with such laws because they are meant to punish criminal acts of violence against women, not because they bestow constitutional rights to the unborn, they don't.

Oh, but they do! The Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes their rights under the law. You can be charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman.

Do tell. What constitutional rights are they granted by the act? Are you sure they're not just legal victims?

What are you, four years old or something? If they are protected under the law as legal victims then they certainly are being given constitutional rights. No one is "granted" constitutional rights. You are endowed with them as a human being and the constitution protects them. The fetus is recognized as a human being in the commission of over 60 federal crimes of violence.

 

[Bfgrn]

I have no problem with such laws because they are meant to punish criminal acts of violence against women, not because they bestow constitutional rights to the unborn, they don't.

Oh, but they do! The Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes their rights under the law. You can be charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman.

Key Facts on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act ("Laci and Conner's Law") (H.R. 1997)
Published by the National Right to Life Committee Updated April 1, 2004

The law covers the "child in utero," defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." The law explicitly provides that it does not apply to any abortion to which a woman has consented, to any act of the mother herself (legal or illegal), or to any form of medical treatment.

 

[Boss]

Well I've got the best way in the world for her to not be pregnant. It's called abstinence. Works 100% of the time, never fails. So if that's what the woman wants I fully support her right to make that choice.

Now it's not my fault or that unborn baby's fault if the woman didn't make that choice and instead chose to have sexual intercourse. With that decision comes consequences. You claim to be "pro-choice" but what you really mean is "pro-irresponsibility for choice."

Okay, just because you can't get laid, don't take it out on everyone else...

yes, it does come with consequences. Those consequences end up on the bottom of a medical waste container and everyone is better off for it.

Not everyone. The human life you discarded as medical waste is not better off.

My sex life has nothing to do with this debate, other than to further illustrate how devoid of a point you have become. In your mind, hurling some remark like that is supposed to degrade and mock me, make fun of me in front of your peers. It only serves to show how utterly immature you are and how selfish your attitude is toward others.

 

[Boss]

I have no problem with such laws because they are meant to punish criminal acts of violence against women, not because they bestow constitutional rights to the unborn, they don't.

Oh, but they do! The Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes their rights under the law. You can be charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman.

Key Facts on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act ("Laci and Conner's Law") (H.R. 1997)
Published by the National Right to Life Committee Updated April 1, 2004

The law covers the "child in utero," defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." The law explicitly provides that it does not apply to any abortion to which a woman has consented, to any act of the mother herself (legal or illegal), or to any form of medical treatment.

When did I argue this law protects the fetus from abortions?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again you are confusing the ability to provide food, water and shelter with viability.

No, I am saying "viability" is an ambiguous term that means nothing. We apply it to the fetus in the context of what the fetus can or can't do outside it's appropriate environment. That standard isn't applied to human life elsewhere, only when it's in the womb. You are arguing that since it can't sustain itself outside the womb it's not 'viable' human life, but no human life can sustain itself outside the environment it is intended to survive in. The fetus certainly can sustain itself inside the womb attached to the uterus, if it couldn't we wouldn't need to abort anything.

Like I said "viability" is not ambiguous.......

The court also recognized that the state has an “important and legitimate interest” in protecting the health of the mother and even “the potentiality of human life” inside her. The court then asked: When does the state’s legitimate concern for maternal and fetal protection rise to the level of compelling interest? To answer this question, Blackmun created a three-tiered legal framework, based on the nine-month period of pregnancy, which gave the state greater interest and regulatory latitude in each successive tier.

The first tier in Blackmun’s framework encompassed the first trimester of pregnancy. Given that during these first three months the risks associated with abortion are actually lower than those associated with childbirth, the state has no real interest in limiting the procedure in order to protect a woman’s health, Blackmun argued. During this period, the state can only impose basic health safeguards – such as requiring that the procedure be performed by a qualified health professional – and can in no way limit access to abortion.

The second tier of Blackmun’s framework encompassed the period from the end of the first trimester to the point of fetal viability – the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, either through natural or artificial means, which typically takes place between about 24 and 28 weeks into a pregnancy. At this point, Blackmun determined, the state has an interest in protecting maternal health and can regulate abortion only to protect the health of the mother. In other words, regulations have to be directed toward ensuring maternal health and cannot be aimed at protecting a fetus or limiting access to abortion services. Thus, a state law requiring a doctor to describe to a woman seeking an abortion the risks associated with the procedure before receiving her informed consent would be constitutional – as long as the requirement aimed to protect maternal health and was not created to dissuade a woman from terminating her pregnancy.

A History of Key Abortion Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

Viability is ambiguous. Because you can cite a legal definition only means that we have created some illusion of non-ambiguity under the law but even the law is ambiguous. You've just posted how the law establishes viability of human life with regard to abortion... BUT... same same woman and fetus gets themselves killed in one of 60 acts of violence, the law says the fetus is a human life worthy of constitutional right to life under the law. So how can one argue it is not ambiguous?

Incorrect.

You're confusing criminal law with that of civil law.

If a fetus is killed during the commission of a crime, the crime is against the woman, not the fetus, as it has no 'rights' whatsoever. It's the woman whose rights have been violated by the criminal who took from that woman her choice to have a child or not.

With regard to civil law concerning a woman's right to privacy, the state also has no authority to violate the protected liberty of a woman by compelling her to give birth against her will.

Whether the woman's right to decide is violated by a criminal act or by the state acting in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, it is the woman alone who has been wronged, her right to decide taken from her.