The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[Carib Gyal]

Thank you for conceding you have nothing but comments on my emoticons.

You have ceased commenting on your position, and merely comment on cartoons.

Win

You don't have a "position".

All you have is an emotion. That is not a valid position at all.

Get back to me when you can take a factual position on this issue and defend it with reason and logic instead of just regurgitating your emotion.

ooh you mad mad now fer realz

In other words you cannot come up with a factual position that you can defend with logic and reason.

Thank you for disqualifying yourself and your emotions from this thread. Have a nice day.

PS I never get mad because none of you deserve that much of my attention. However I do find the antics of the extreme right to be highly amusing so I do LOL at your expense a lot.

Sure I can. I can come up with legal, moral, and scientific reasons for my position.

For now, I'm content with keeping you dancing with cartoons.

Sure I can. I can come up with legal, moral, and scientific reasons for my position.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Trial isn't over yet, counselor

 

[TSJohnson]

I'm doing what everyone does....spit in your eye.

Huh. So not only are you an ignorant c u n t, but you don't even have the decency to accept that you're wrong about trying to enslave other women. Does being an evil bitch get you off or something? Is sadomasochism like your kink?

 

[Derideo_Te]

You don't have a "position".

All you have is an emotion. That is not a valid position at all.

Get back to me when you can take a factual position on this issue and defend it with reason and logic instead of just regurgitating your emotion.

ooh you mad mad now fer realz

In other words you cannot come up with a factual position that you can defend with logic and reason.

Thank you for disqualifying yourself and your emotions from this thread. Have a nice day.

PS I never get mad because none of you deserve that much of my attention. However I do find the antics of the extreme right to be highly amusing so I do LOL at your expense a lot.

Sure I can. I can come up with legal, moral, and scientific reasons for my position.

For now, I'm content with keeping you dancing with cartoons.

Sure I can. I can come up with legal, moral, and scientific reasons for my position.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Trial isn't over yet, counselor

But you don't have a case to present which means you forfeited.

 

[Carib Gyal]

the law does not consider humans who are not yet born as protected 'persons' under the constitution.

simple.

Sure it does. It just decides one minute is isn't human, and the next it is.

only if a pregnant woman is murdered does the law measure the harm of that lost potential...

Wrong. Abortions are only legal for a certain time. Live birth abortions have been illegal for some time, as have late term.

Plus, a woman doesn't have to be murdered for a killer to be charged with the murder of the unborn child.

"the law does not consider humans who are not yet born as protected 'persons' under the constitution."


i should have said until the human life is viable outside the womb...

when a pregnant woman is harmed to the degree of aborting her pregnancy against her will, the law recognizes the measurable harm.

it IS a very simple concept...

the law never claimed the potential life is not HUMAN. the OP is a typical strawman fail.

You should have said a lot of things. Like how schizophrenic the law is re: abortion. Or how it ignores the equality protections that are the very basis of all laws.

 

[Carib Gyal]

ooh you mad mad now fer realz

In other words you cannot come up with a factual position that you can defend with logic and reason.

Thank you for disqualifying yourself and your emotions from this thread. Have a nice day.

PS I never get mad because none of you deserve that much of my attention. However I do find the antics of the extreme right to be highly amusing so I do LOL at your expense a lot.

Sure I can. I can come up with legal, moral, and scientific reasons for my position.

For now, I'm content with keeping you dancing with cartoons.

Sure I can. I can come up with legal, moral, and scientific reasons for my position.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Trial isn't over yet, counselor

But you don't have a case to present which means you forfeited.

I haven't started presenting a case yet. You have been convicted of fraud.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm doing what everyone does....spit in your eye.

Huh. So not only are you an ignorant c u n t, but you don't even have the decency to accept that you're wrong about trying to enslave other women. Does being an evil bitch get you off or something? Is sadomasochism like your kink?

There can be no better proof that I have whipped you than the use of vulgarity.
Trust this: it won't be the last time I take you to the woodshed.

 

[Valerie]

narcissists imagine laws are all about their perceptions of them...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who forced her to have sex?

Do you understand the connection?

Her rapist? Her father? You don't know. That's why you don't get a say.

But I do say.

The woman carrying a totally separate human being has no right to end its life.

Then it should be the crime of murder? If not, what?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ah, the abortion is infanticide or murder argument.

Legally it is just not so.

So....you'll assign your right to make a judgment to the same kind of folks who OK' Dred Scott?

You must be a Liberal, huh?

Within a few years after Dred Scott the country was in the Civil war and by 1866 the matter of Slavery was settled.

The Taney Court was Conservative.

You lying moron....every one of you tries to hide your evil by casting the word 'conservative ' around.

Taney made a deal with Buchanan that allowed Buchanan to become the 15th President.
Buchanan was a Democrat....and his deal with Taney was that of a pair of racists.

As were, and are, Democrats.

The Court ruled 7-2. Slave owners were Democrats and conservatives. The Northern Republicans were liberals.

Liar.

Jim Crow was an example of Democrat liberal big government in action.

Wrong. Jim Crow was conservatism giving businesses a choice to discriminate.

 

[Derideo_Te]

In other words you cannot come up with a factual position that you can defend with logic and reason.

Thank you for disqualifying yourself and your emotions from this thread. Have a nice day.

PS I never get mad because none of you deserve that much of my attention. However I do find the antics of the extreme right to be highly amusing so I do LOL at your expense a lot.

Sure I can. I can come up with legal, moral, and scientific reasons for my position.

For now, I'm content with keeping you dancing with cartoons.

Sure I can. I can come up with legal, moral, and scientific reasons for my position.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Trial isn't over yet, counselor

But you don't have a case to present which means you forfeited.

I haven't started presenting a case yet. You have been convicted of fraud.

Only in your wet dreams.

 

[Carib Gyal]

narcissists imagine laws are all about their perceptions of them...

Wanna change the topic now? Ignorance imagines laws should be administered unequally. Can you say John Crow?

 

[Carib Gyal]

Sure I can. I can come up with legal, moral, and scientific reasons for my position.

For now, I'm content with keeping you dancing with cartoons.

Sure I can. I can come up with legal, moral, and scientific reasons for my position.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Trial isn't over yet, counselor

But you don't have a case to present which means you forfeited.

I haven't started presenting a case yet. You have been convicted of fraud.

Only in your wet dreams.

More fantasies. Very entertaining.

 

[Valerie]

you'd think self professed conservatives would be less emotional and more understanding on this legal issue...



In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."


...

The Court reviewed the history of abortion laws, from ancient Greece to contemporary America, and therein found three justifications for banning abortions: "a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct"; protecting the health of women; and protecting prenatal life. The Court rejected the first two justifications as irrelevant given modern gender roles and medical technology. As for the third justification, the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons deserving protection.

...

Roe v. Wade was a disinterested, pragmatic, and ultimately principled decision defending the most basic rights of personal liberty and privacy.


The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade 1973 PBS

 

[Skylar]

1. 1. If one accepts this divided concept of human nature, i.e., person, and body, this aligns one with the liberal political view, which rejects moral limits on desire as a violation of its liberty.

You seem to misunderstand the liberal political view. Liberals don't reject moral limits. They reject the idea that you, Political Chic, define what moral limits are.

Your misconception is rooted in your belief in an absolute moral code. Where you conceive what you believe to the the only true morality, and objective truth. Thus, per your reasoning, the rejection of you as an infallible moral arbiter is a rejection of morality itself.

The obvious problem with that reasoning being......you're not an infallible moral arbiter. Your personal beliefs don't define any objective moral system. And just because you believe something to be true doesn't mean it is, your nested assumptions not withstanding.

Your perspective requires the assumptions
1) There is a singular, objective moral code for all situations
2) That you could understand such a code if it existed
3) that you do understand that code
4) that you have the insight and information to apply that code accurately
5) anything that violates the objective moral code should be criminally prohibited

If any one of those assumptions is invalid, then your perspective on abortion is invalid. If any of those assumptions are invalid, all dependent assumptions that follow it are invalid.

And I think its reasonable for principled, thinking people to doubt that the validity of your assumptions. Individually, or together.

 

[Carib Gyal]

you'd think self professed conservatives would be less emotional and more understanding on this legal issue...



In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."


...

The Court reviewed the history of abortion laws, from ancient Greece to contemporary America, and therein found three justifications for banning abortions: "a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct"; protecting the health of women; and protecting prenatal life. The Court rejected the first two justifications as irrelevant given modern gender roles and medical technology. As for the third justification, the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons deserving protection.

...

Roe v. Wade was a disinterested, pragmatic, and ultimately principled decision defending the most basic rights of personal liberty and privacy.


The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade 1973 PBS

We have already agreed that abortion is legal

Here are two questions, both of which are worded so that you can answer with a simple yes or no. Feel free to explain your yes or no answers:

1. Do you agree with every single law?

2. If the court reversed itself, would you change your position on abortion?

 

[BlindBoo]

Ah, the abortion is infanticide or murder argument.

Legally it is just not so.

So....you'll assign your right to make a judgment to the same kind of folks who OK' Dred Scott?

You must be a Liberal, huh?

Within a few years after Dred Scott the country was in the Civil war and by 1866 the matter of Slavery was settled.

The Taney Court was Conservative.

You lying moron....every one of you tries to hide your evil by casting the word 'conservative ' around.

Taney made a deal with Buchanan that allowed Buchanan to become the 15th President.
Buchanan was a Democrat....and his deal with Taney was that of a pair of racists.

As were, and are, Democrats.

The Court ruled 7-2. Slave owners were Democrats and conservatives. The Northern Republicans were liberals.

Liar.

Jim Crow was an example of Democrat liberal big government in action.

Jim Crow laws (separate but equal) didn't appear until 1890. Southern Conservative were mostly Democrats until the coalition of Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....you'll assign your right to make a judgment to the same kind of folks who OK' Dred Scott?

You must be a Liberal, huh?

Within a few years after Dred Scott the country was in the Civil war and by 1866 the matter of Slavery was settled.

The Taney Court was Conservative.

You lying moron....every one of you tries to hide your evil by casting the word 'conservative ' around.

Taney made a deal with Buchanan that allowed Buchanan to become the 15th President.
Buchanan was a Democrat....and his deal with Taney was that of a pair of racists.

As were, and are, Democrats.

The Court ruled 7-2. Slave owners were Democrats and conservatives. The Northern Republicans were liberals.

Liar.

Jim Crow was an example of Democrat liberal big government in action.

Wrong. Jim Crow was conservatism giving businesses a choice to discriminate.

So....is this the sort of lie you're famous for?


Right up to today, Liberal Democrats were and are racists through and through

1. Governor Clinton invited Orval Faubus to his inauguration and they exchanged an almost South American abrazo, embrace, Booknotes Watch
   1. Clinton’s mentor was J. William Fulbright, a vehement foe of integration who had voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
   2. Governor Orval Faubus, progressive New Deal Democrat, blocked the schoolhouse door to the Little Rock Central High School with the state’s National Guard rather than allow nine black students to attend.

1. 1966- pro-integrationist Republican Winthrop Rockefeller won Arkansas, replacing Clinton-pal Orval Faubus.
2. 1966 Republican Bo Calloway ran against Democrat Lester Maddox, who “gained national attention for refusing to serve blacks in his popular cafeteria near the Georgia Tech campus. Newsmen tipped off about the confrontation reported how restaurant patrons and employees wielded ax handles while Mr. Maddox waved a pistol. …” Lester Maddox Dies at 87 Segregationist Ex-Governor Leaves Complicated Legacy HighBeam Business Arrive Prepared
   1. Maddox was endorsed by Democrat Jimmy Carter in the above governor’s race. When the race was too close to call, the Democrat state legislature gave it to Maddox.
   2. Calloway appealed to the Supreme Court….but the court upheld the legislature’s decision.
   3. On that very Supreme Court was former KKK member Justice Hugo Black.
   4. Democrat Hugo Black was Democrat FDR’s first appointee, in 1937. This KKK Senator from Alabama wrote the majority decision on Korematsu v. US; in 1967, he said ‘They all look alike to a person not a Jap.” Engage Conversations in Philosophy They all look alike to a person not a Jap The Legacy of Korematsu at OSU
   5. And, Hugo Black's anti-Catholic bias, which showed up in his actions on the Supreme Court:

"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."
Egnorance Hugo Black and the real history of the wall of separation between church and state

1. 1. Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425

I have more if you like getting beaten...

 

[PoliticalChic]

you'd think self professed conservatives would be less emotional and more understanding on this legal issue...



In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."


...

The Court reviewed the history of abortion laws, from ancient Greece to contemporary America, and therein found three justifications for banning abortions: "a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct"; protecting the health of women; and protecting prenatal life. The Court rejected the first two justifications as irrelevant given modern gender roles and medical technology. As for the third justification, the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons deserving protection.

...

Roe v. Wade was a disinterested, pragmatic, and ultimately principled decision defending the most basic rights of personal liberty and privacy.


The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade 1973 PBS

I don't mind educating you.....take notes:

"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems.

Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative officers concerning what is best for the country.

Surely there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal
government, and there is even less justification for a federal legislative branch’s reviewing on a policy basis the laws enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

 

[Valerie]

narcissists imagine laws are all about their perceptions of them...

Wanna change the topic now? Ignorance imagines laws should be administered unequally. Can you say John Crow?

it is the OP who wants to change the abortion 'topic' and play 'word games' ...


The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

The real question is what does it mean to be 'human'?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. 1. If one accepts this divided concept of human nature, i.e., person, and body, this aligns one with the liberal political view, which rejects moral limits on desire as a violation of its liberty.

You seem to misunderstand the liberal political view. Liberals don't reject moral limits. They reject the idea that you, Political Chic, define what moral limits are.

Your misconception is rooted in your belief in an absolute moral code. Where you conceive what you believe to the the only true morality, and objective truth. Thus, per your reasoning, the rejection of you as an infallible moral arbiter is a rejection of morality itself.

The obvious problem with that reasoning being......you're not an infallible moral arbiter. Your personal beliefs don't define any objective moral system. And just because you believe something to be true doesn't mean it is, your nested assumptions not withstanding.

Your perspective requires the assumptions
1) There is a singular, objective moral code for all situations
2) That you could understand such a code if it existed
3) that you do understand that code
4) that you have the insight and information to apply that code accurately
5) anything that violates the objective moral code should be criminally prohibited

If any one of those assumptions is invalid, then your perspective on abortion is invalid. If any of those assumptions are invalid, all dependent assumptions that follow it are invalid.

And I think its reasonable for principled, thinking people to doubt that the validity of your assumptions. Individually, or together.

"Your misconception is rooted in your belief in an absolute moral code."

I mention ' moral relativity, self-determined morality, and 'if it feels good, do it,' and a dunce comes up to prove it.