The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[I.P.Freely]

in Talmudic law jewish mourning rites do not apply to an unborn "child", if that foetus is a threat to the mother no matter at what stage within the woman, it may be dismantled and removed bit by bit. It is only when the majority of the "child" has exited the vagina does it lose its bar kayyama status.
90% of American Jews when poled chose choice, thankfully Israel has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world....................helped by American funding of their exchequer.

 

[JoeB131]

No, you are the one rejecting reality. I mean, you can shove pictures of medical waste in people's faces all day, but no one is going to fuck up their life for your religious stupidity.

But science defines the differences between medical waste and living human organisms, it's not left up to people to decide. You're the one rejecting what science says a fetus is and insisting that people "decide" what things are based on their emotions. Only one viewpoint can be valid here and it's not yours.

No, actually, it's left up to the woman it's in to decide, as it should be. Frankly, Science really isn't on your side on this issue... there are very few scientists who are saying 'Yes, we need to ban all abortion and birth control, too."

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Naw, guy, when you say shit like 'don't have sex", everyone knows that you use your personality as birth control.

Yeah, Abstinence works. Just ask Bristol Palin.

Real world, people are fucking and having abortions when they get a little surprise on the EPT.

Bristol Palin didn't. She was mature enough to accept responsibility for the consequences of her actions. We're getting to the real heart of the matter with you, it's all about being able to shuck responsibility and do as you damn well please regardless of human life. But that's why you are getting such blowback on this and it's not going to stop. Ever.

Blowback, a.k.a. "nuggets"


Anti-Choice Violence and Intimidation

A campaign of violence, vandalism, and intimidation is endangering providers and patients and curtailing the availability of abortion services. Since 1993, eight clinic workers – including four doctors, two clinic employees, a clinic escort, and a security guard – have been murdered in the United States. Seventeen attempted murders have also occurred since 1991. In fact, opponents of choice have directed more than 6,400 reported acts of violence against abortion providers since 1977, including bombings, arsons, death threats, kidnappings, and assaults, as well as more than 175,000 reported acts of disruption, including bomb threats and harassing calls.

Hogwash. Women and children killed, mutilated, and tortured in abortion clinics number in the tens of thousands. Give it up.

NONE of them are breaking ANY laws. They are law abiding citizens being terrorized by scum from the right.

What an outrageous lie. They aren't *terrorized*. They are, however, maimed, tortured and killed by leftist monsters, who think of women as chattel, and their children as disposable.

 

[Boss]

No, you are the one rejecting reality. I mean, you can shove pictures of medical waste in people's faces all day, but no one is going to fuck up their life for your religious stupidity.

But science defines the differences between medical waste and living human organisms, it's not left up to people to decide. You're the one rejecting what science says a fetus is and insisting that people "decide" what things are based on their emotions. Only one viewpoint can be valid here and it's not yours.

No, actually, it's left up to the woman it's in to decide, as it should be. Frankly, Science really isn't on your side on this issue... there are very few scientists who are saying 'Yes, we need to ban all abortion and birth control, too."

Why do you keep trying to change the debate? No one has argued that scientists are lobbying for an end to abortion. No one is arguing that abortion isn't the current law of the land. My "side" in this issue is common sense, not rigid extremism like yours. I favor pro-life, all things being equal, but I am okay with reasonable exceptions to also accommodate choice. I've never in my life suggested a ban on birth control, so I don't have any idea why you infer that I have, other than you being a dishonest piece of shit.

We were discussing human organisms and when they exist, and science is pretty fucking clear on this. Not a single science book or paper will be found to indicate a human organism is determined by choice. Science doesn't leave things up to your discretion to decide, that's not what science does. In fact, that's the entire reason science was invented... to establish things based on our observations and facts rather than emotions and authority.

Now you can sit here and run your ignorant mouth about it all you like. You can call me names and ridicule me... you can lie about and distort things I've said... but the debate is not going away. It will not change in 20 years or 50 years, or however long it may take. You may feel a sense of confidence for the moment because the prevailing political winds are blowing your way, but I wouldn't get too cocky about that. Plenty of SCOTUS rulings have met the dustbin of history and are remembered for how deplorably wrong they were, and Roe v Wade will certainly go down as one of those rulings. You are literally denying human rights to human life and that will not stand.

 

[BlindBoo]

We were discussing human organisms and when they exist, and science is pretty fucking clear on this. Not a single science book or paper will be found to indicate a human organism is determined by choice. Science doesn't leave things up to your discretion to decide, that's not what science does. In fact, that's the entire reason science was invented... to establish things based on our observations and facts rather than emotions and authority.

Science give us choices in areas were we've never had choices before. The scientific method was created to give us a baseline of understanding the physical world around us.

 

[Boss]

We were discussing human organisms and when they exist, and science is pretty fucking clear on this. Not a single science book or paper will be found to indicate a human organism is determined by choice. Science doesn't leave things up to your discretion to decide, that's not what science does. In fact, that's the entire reason science was invented... to establish things based on our observations and facts rather than emotions and authority.

Science give us choices in areas were we've never had choices before. The scientific method was created to give us a baseline of understanding the physical world around us.

Stop being a dipwad and trying to intentionally misconstrue what I said. Science does not fucking say that you can arbitrarily decide a molecule of oxygen and two molecules of hydrogen is only water if you want it to be... does it???? NO! It says that is what water is! There is no choice to make! It is not up to your discretion!

The scientific method was not created to give us a baseline anything. It was designed as a system of methodology for the evaluation of physical evidence. Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with emotional choices based on feelings and intuitions.

To argue that science allows us to define life (or anything else) based on our choices or feelings is patently ignorant of science. It gives us a precise definition of living organisms and what constitutes one, and the human fetus certainly meets that criteria. It's not a question for you to decide, it's not ambiguous, there is no scientific debate about it.

 

[BlindBoo]

We were discussing human organisms and when they exist, and science is pretty fucking clear on this. Not a single science book or paper will be found to indicate a human organism is determined by choice. Science doesn't leave things up to your discretion to decide, that's not what science does. In fact, that's the entire reason science was invented... to establish things based on our observations and facts rather than emotions and authority.

Science give us choices in areas were we've never had choices before. The scientific method was created to give us a baseline of understanding the physical world around us.

Stop being a dipwad and trying to intentionally misconstrue what I said. Science does not fucking say that you can arbitrarily decide a molecule of oxygen and two molecules of hydrogen is only water if you want it to be... does it???? NO! It says that is what water is! There is no choice to make! It is not up to your discretion!

The scientific method was not created to give us a baseline anything. It was designed as a system of methodology for the evaluation of physical evidence. Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with emotional choices based on feelings and intuitions.

To argue that science allows us to define life (or anything else) based on our choices or feelings is patently ignorant of science. It gives us a precise definition of living organisms and what constitutes one, and the human fetus certainly meets that criteria. It's not a question for you to decide, it's not ambiguous, there is no scientific debate about it.

Science can tell us when a fetus becomes a viable human being.

Science cannot tell us that human beings are divine in nature.

Science cannot tell us that we human beings have an immortal soul, or when that little blob of cells is imbued with said soul.

 

[Boss]

We were discussing human organisms and when they exist, and science is pretty fucking clear on this. Not a single science book or paper will be found to indicate a human organism is determined by choice. Science doesn't leave things up to your discretion to decide, that's not what science does. In fact, that's the entire reason science was invented... to establish things based on our observations and facts rather than emotions and authority.

Science give us choices in areas were we've never had choices before. The scientific method was created to give us a baseline of understanding the physical world around us.

Stop being a dipwad and trying to intentionally misconstrue what I said. Science does not fucking say that you can arbitrarily decide a molecule of oxygen and two molecules of hydrogen is only water if you want it to be... does it???? NO! It says that is what water is! There is no choice to make! It is not up to your discretion!

The scientific method was not created to give us a baseline anything. It was designed as a system of methodology for the evaluation of physical evidence. Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with emotional choices based on feelings and intuitions.

To argue that science allows us to define life (or anything else) based on our choices or feelings is patently ignorant of science. It gives us a precise definition of living organisms and what constitutes one, and the human fetus certainly meets that criteria. It's not a question for you to decide, it's not ambiguous, there is no scientific debate about it.

Science can tell us when a fetus becomes a viable human being.

Science cannot tell us that human beings are divine in nature.

Science cannot tell us that we human beings have an immortal soul, or when that little blob of cells is imbued with said soul.

If it is a "fetus" it is already a viable human being. Fetus is a stage of development. Science can't make moral determinations on the value we place on life (viability) at any stage. It also can't evaluate souls. I would be the last person in the world to make such an argument. But whether or not a fetus is a living human organism in the state of being is answered by science.

I have no problem with a philosophical debate on when it's acceptable to terminate human life. I do not demand all of society conform to my viewpoint. I realize society is diverse and people have different values when it comes to human life. But in order for us to have a rational civil debate we have to first agree on the facts, and that includes recognizing the fetus for what it is, human life. If either of us are unwilling to accept that fact, we can't have a rational discussion.

 

[BlindBoo]

We were discussing human organisms and when they exist, and science is pretty fucking clear on this. Not a single science book or paper will be found to indicate a human organism is determined by choice. Science doesn't leave things up to your discretion to decide, that's not what science does. In fact, that's the entire reason science was invented... to establish things based on our observations and facts rather than emotions and authority.

Science give us choices in areas were we've never had choices before. The scientific method was created to give us a baseline of understanding the physical world around us.

Stop being a dipwad and trying to intentionally misconstrue what I said. Science does not fucking say that you can arbitrarily decide a molecule of oxygen and two molecules of hydrogen is only water if you want it to be... does it???? NO! It says that is what water is! There is no choice to make! It is not up to your discretion!

The scientific method was not created to give us a baseline anything. It was designed as a system of methodology for the evaluation of physical evidence. Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with emotional choices based on feelings and intuitions.

To argue that science allows us to define life (or anything else) based on our choices or feelings is patently ignorant of science. It gives us a precise definition of living organisms and what constitutes one, and the human fetus certainly meets that criteria. It's not a question for you to decide, it's not ambiguous, there is no scientific debate about it.

Science can tell us when a fetus becomes a viable human being.

Science cannot tell us that human beings are divine in nature.

Science cannot tell us that we human beings have an immortal soul, or when that little blob of cells is imbued with said soul.

If it is a "fetus" it is already a viable human being. Fetus is a stage of development. Science can't make moral determinations on the value we place on life (viability) at any stage. It also can't evaluate souls. I would be the last person in the world to make such an argument. But whether or not a fetus is a living human organism in the state of being is answered by science.

I have no problem with a philosophical debate on when it's acceptable to terminate human life. I do not demand all of society conform to my viewpoint. I realize society is diverse and people have different values when it comes to human life. But in order for us to have a rational civil debate we have to first agree on the facts, and that includes recognizing the fetus for what it is, human life. If either of us are unwilling to accept that fact, we can't have a rational discussion.

A nine week old fetus is not viable. Viability is not a feeling or a value placed on life.

 

[Boss]

A nine week old fetus is not viable. Viability is not a feeling or a value placed on life.

Viability is a subjective term being applied to something that is already a living organism. Viability does not establish what something is, it is an evaluation of something that already exists. If we shoot you off into space without a space suit, would you be viable as life in space? Of course not, but it doesn't change what you are.

 

[BlindBoo]

A nine week old fetus is not viable. Viability is not a feeling or a value placed on life.

Viability is a subjective term being applied to something that is already a living organism. Viability does not establish what something is, it is an evaluation of something that already exists. If we shoot you off into space without a space suit, would you be viable as life in space? Of course not, but it doesn't change what you are.

Viability is not subjective. It is a legal, objective point in the life of a fetus when it can sustain it's life functions outside of the womb of it's mother......but we've been here before.

 

[Boss]

A nine week old fetus is not viable. Viability is not a feeling or a value placed on life.

Viability is a subjective term being applied to something that is already a living organism. Viability does not establish what something is, it is an evaluation of something that already exists. If we shoot you off into space without a space suit, would you be viable as life in space? Of course not, but it doesn't change what you are.

Viability is not subjective. It is a legal, objective point in the life of a fetus when it can sustain it's life functions outside of the womb of it's mother......but we've been here before.

Nonsense. It is an artificial criteria being placed on the fetus to presumably 'exist' outside the normal parameters by which it already does exist. It's certainly subjective if for no other reason.

Whether abortion is legal is not the debate here. Whether the SCOTUS made a ruling on the basis of artificial criteria is not the issue. On the argument of when a human life begins, it can only be at conception, science is unambiguous on this. Consideration of 'viability' itself is already the admission that we are discussing a human life, of which 'viability' is being considered. .

Viability means possible... if it were not possible for the fetus to live, there is no point of abortion. If the organism can't possibly live it will cease to be a living organism. So as a living organism, it is already viable human life. What you are doing and what the SCOTUS did, was to take "viability" out of context and apply unrealistic standards for the fetus to meet. By applying the unrealistic expectation of the fetus to function outside conditions fetuses are supposed to function under, the term is subjectively redefined.

If we take this to the extreme on the ability to artificially place criteria of viability to distinguish life, we can make all sorts of horrendous arguments. Maybe people of a certain IQ are not viable? Maybe people of a certain race or culture aren't viable? Maybe when you've reached a certain age you're no longer viable?

 

[JoeB131]

Why do you keep trying to change the debate? No one has argued that scientists are lobbying for an end to abortion. No one is arguing that abortion isn't the current law of the land. My "side" in this issue is common sense, not rigid extremism like yours. I favor pro-life, all things being equal, but I am okay with reasonable exceptions to also accommodate choice. I've never in my life suggested a ban on birth control, so I don't have any idea why you infer that I have, other than you being a dishonest piece of shit.

We were discussing human organisms and when they exist, and science is pretty fucking clear on this. Not a single science book or paper will be found to indicate a human organism is determined by choice. Science doesn't leave things up to your discretion to decide, that's not what science does. In fact, that's the entire reason science was invented... to establish things based on our observations and facts rather than emotions and authority.

Guy, you can try to cite "science'< but this isn't about "Science". It's about your misogyny and religious stupidity and the fact you are too fucking stupid to realize what a tool you are.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... we {Liberals} really do care about the crawling and walking.

ROFLMNAO!

Yes... they care SO MUCH that they demand a RIGHT TO MURDER THEM, but they're VERY HIGH PRINCIPLED people... because they will NOT murder a pre-born child unless it is at LEAST an inconvenience...

LOL! Leftists...

Folks, you can NOT make this crap up.

 

[Chris]

Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly.
- Ayn Rand

 

[Boss]

Guy, you can try to cite "science'< but this isn't about "Science". It's about your misogyny and religious stupidity and the fact you are too fucking stupid to realize what a tool you are.

No, it's not about misogyny, it's about human life. You want to be smug and deny it is human life and I won't let you get away with it. I didn't try to cite science, I used science to refute your argument this is not human life. You seem to keep wanting to avoid that point and shift focus to something else... SCOTUS rulings... what is current law... how much you hate religious people...

It doesn't matter to me, as far as I'm concerned the debate is over and I'm on the victory lap.

 

[Boss]

Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly.
- Ayn Rand

Sorry, but science and biology are very clear as to when a living organism exists. Ayn Rand doesn't get to decide and neither do you or I. It is already a living thing, else you would have no need to terminate it. It is not protoplasm, it is a living human organism in state of being. The potential to be a living human organism was met at conception, it doesn't need to be met again somewhere down the line, it's already what it is.

Rights, according to our founding fathers, are not ascribed. They are endowed by our Creator. Again, not Ayn Rand, not you or I, but by our Creator. Those fundamental rights are eventually going to be respected by you and others. You'd think Liberals would understand this.

 

[I.P.Freely]

from the oldest religious laws recorded,
If a woman has difficulty in childbirth, one dismembers the embryo within her, limb by limb, because her life takes precedence over its life. However, once its head (or its 'greater part') has emerged, it may not be touched, for we do not set aside one life for another

Ohalot 7:6

To extrapolate this texts means the embryo is only a separate life when it exits the vagina and is parted from its host.

 

[JoeB131]

No, it's not about misogyny, it's about human life. You want to be smug and deny it is human life and I won't let you get away with it. I didn't try to cite science, I used science to refute your argument this is not human life. You seem to keep wanting to avoid that point and shift focus to something else... SCOTUS rulings... what is current law... how much you hate religious people...

It doesn't matter to me, as far as I'm concerned the debate is over and I'm on the victory lap.

It's not human life if the woman doesn't want it to be.

Then it's 'THat thing I need to take care of on Tuesday".

And there ain't shit you Bible-Thumping dillweeds can do about it. Heh, heh, heh.

 

[koshergrl]

We were discussing human organisms and when they exist, and science is pretty fucking clear on this. Not a single science book or paper will be found to indicate a human organism is determined by choice. Science doesn't leave things up to your discretion to decide, that's not what science does. In fact, that's the entire reason science was invented... to establish things based on our observations and facts rather than emotions and authority.

Science give us choices in areas were we've never had choices before. The scientific method was created to give us a baseline of understanding the physical world around us.

Stop being a dipwad and trying to intentionally misconstrue what I said. Science does not fucking say that you can arbitrarily decide a molecule of oxygen and two molecules of hydrogen is only water if you want it to be... does it???? NO! It says that is what water is! There is no choice to make! It is not up to your discretion!

The scientific method was not created to give us a baseline anything. It was designed as a system of methodology for the evaluation of physical evidence. Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with emotional choices based on feelings and intuitions.

To argue that science allows us to define life (or anything else) based on our choices or feelings is patently ignorant of science. It gives us a precise definition of living organisms and what constitutes one, and the human fetus certainly meets that criteria. It's not a question for you to decide, it's not ambiguous, there is no scientific debate about it.

Science can tell us when a fetus becomes a viable human being.

Science cannot tell us that human beings are divine in nature.

Science cannot tell us that we human beings have an immortal soul, or when that little blob of cells is imbued with said soul.

What science tells us is that a fetus and an embryo are genetically complete, individual, and live humans.

When leftist death cultists argue that they aren't *viable* the argument effectively ends, because *viability* is not the way we determine whether or not we get to kill humans. We don't kill off terminally ill cancer patients. We don't kill off people who are paralyzed. We don't kill off mental deficients, despite the fact that they are not "viable" in the strictest sense of the word (without care and protection, they will die).

We don't kill people based on whether or not the person in whose care they are currently placed wants to care for them.

Well, decent humans don't.

Death cultists do.

And that has absolutely zero, nada, nothing to do with *science*.