CDZ Chuz Life's list of (Abortion related) questions that abortion proponents can't or will not answer.

[Valerie]

Personhood - Rewire

 

[oldsoul]

I say no! But the supreme court disagrees with me.

They disagree that they should be constrained by the Constitution?

{
Article. I.
Section 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.}

Yet the Roe vs. Wade decision still stands.
Our country has strayed very far from the limitations/constraints of the constitution.

The constitution's like the bible, no one really pays any attention to it other than to use it to bludgeon opponents with.

If that is how you see things, I pity you. It is truely sad that your life experience is such that you even CAN believe this.

Oh come on, certainly you must have observed that this is how they are both leveraged in american society. Especially in the political arena.

At times, however, you made a very sweeping and broad statement. A statement that is patently false in my experience.

 

[Fenton Lum]

[

The constitution's like the bible, no one really pays any attention to it other than to use it to bludgeon opponents with.

Uh no, your side has not won yet. We still have a Constitution and it is still binding,

"Both" your sides hon.

You only have one side, the one that opposes America. I only have one side, the one loyal to the Constitution.

You make shit up because you don't accept reality, that's all.

 

[Fenton Lum]

They disagree that they should be constrained by the Constitution?

{
Article. I.
Section 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.}

Yet the Roe vs. Wade decision still stands.
Our country has strayed very far from the limitations/constraints of the constitution.

The constitution's like the bible, no one really pays any attention to it other than to use it to bludgeon opponents with.

If that is how you see things, I pity you. It is truely sad that your life experience is such that you even CAN believe this.

Oh come on, certainly you must have observed that this is how they are both leveraged in american society. Especially in the political arena.

At times, however, you made a very sweeping and broad statement. A statement that is patently false in my experience.

Apparently you mean patently false in some cases, at certain times.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

It's not your body, it's not your family, it's not your decision.

Grandpa? No, he is not my family, yet you might find some minor entanglement if you do decide to snuff him/

This is a moral question, and a religious question. If you believe abortion is wrong, don't have one. It's as simple as that. Then you are within your rights and your beliefs. I believe that if God didn't believe in a woman's right to choose, women wouldn't have miscarriages, there would be no plants which are aborificants, and all fetus' would be viable and achieve full gestation.

If a woman has an abortion and God disapproves, then God will deal with her. Until then, you have no right to intrude upon her privacy.

Whether a society allows people to kill the most defenseless members of society has nothing to do with some alleged god. It is a moral question, just as Hitler killing Jews was. Stopping a person from killing another human is not a matter of infringing their privacy, their right to be secure in their person and their papers.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

The constitution's like the bible, no one really pays any attention to it other than to use it to bludgeon opponents with.

Uh no, your side has not won yet. We still have a Constitution and it is still binding,

"Both" your sides hon.

You only have one side, the one that opposes America. I only have one side, the one loyal to the Constitution.

You make shit up because you don't accept reality, that's all.

Ad hom actually is the best you can do.

None the less, the U.S. Constitution is respected by all non-democrats in America and perhaps even a small group of older dems.

 

[Fenton Lum]

[

The constitution's like the bible, no one really pays any attention to it other than to use it to bludgeon opponents with.

Uh no, your side has not won yet. We still have a Constitution and it is still binding,

"Both" your sides hon.

You only have one side, the one that opposes America. I only have one side, the one loyal to the Constitution.

You make shit up because you don't accept reality, that's all.

Ad hom actually is the best you can do.

None the less, the U.S. Constitution is respected by all non-democrats in America and perhaps even a small group of older dems.

Bwa ha ha, yeah, sure it is. And your founders were all about fweedumb for everyone. Oh, and your economic system is free market capitalism, that's always a good one.

 

[Dragonlady]

[

It's not your body, it's not your family, it's not your decision.

Grandpa? No, he is not my family, yet you might find some minor entanglement if you do decide to snuff him/

This is a moral question, and a religious question. If you believe abortion is wrong, don't have one. It's as simple as that. Then you are within your rights and your beliefs. I believe that if God didn't believe in a woman's right to choose, women wouldn't have miscarriages, there would be no plants which are aborificants, and all fetus' would be viable and achieve full gestation.

If a woman has an abortion and God disapproves, then God will deal with her. Until then, you have no right to intrude upon her privacy.

Whether a society allows people to kill the most defenseless members of society has nothing to do with some alleged god. It is a moral question, just as Hitler killing Jews was. Stopping a person from killing another human is not a matter of infringing their privacy, their right to be secure in their person and their papers.

A child in utero is not a "defenseless member of society". It is a a collection of cells with the potential to become a life, at some point in the future. 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, so there is nothing mystical, magical or essential to this process. The worship of the human fetus by people who have no interest whatsoever in the child that fetus may become, never ceases to astonish me.

 

[Valerie]

1. What biological moment took place that makes your biological father YOUR biological father? conception.

2. When the United States Constitution says "all persons" (all human beings) are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws. . . Is that an INclusive or is that an EXclusive statement? SCOTUS has ruled and repeatedly reaffirmed that prenatal life is not considered a constitutionally protected "person" in most circumstances.

3. True or False: This is an image of an Oak Tree in the first days of its life:

4. True or False: This is the image of a child / human being / person in the first days of THEIR life:

5. A living human sperm cell and and a living human egg cell have the potential to merge together to form a new human organism. True or False:

6. If there was a way and if you could manage to physically attach yourself to the body of another (Even to unknowing and unaware) human being in such a way that they will DIE if you several the connection before nine months. . . Would that other human being / person have a right to the use of your body during that amount of time? Yes or No? just stop, false equivalence is false.

 

[Valerie]

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." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.

Because abortions lie within a pregnant woman's "zone of privacy," the abortion decision "and its effectuation" are fundamental rights that are protected by the Constitution from regulation by the states, so laws regulating abortion must be sufficiently "important." Was Texas's law sufficiently important to pass constitutional muster? 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. Culturally, while some groups regard fetuses as people deserving full rights, no consensus exists. The Court ruled that Texas was thus taking one "view" of many. Protecting all fetuses under this contentious "view" of prenatal life was not sufficiently important to justify the state's banning of almost all abortions.

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

 

[Valerie]

Beyond Roe v. Wade : Here’s What Gorsuch Means for Abortion
Neil Gorsuch's confirmation to the Supreme Court would reboot a 25-year campaign to chip away at abortion rights.

Here’s What Neil Gorsuch Means for Abortion

 

[Valerie]

most people with half a brain have gotten past the ongoing "debate" about the scientific semantics of fetal life.

these issues were never in legal question, despite all the emo morons so hung up on 'arguing' them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
A child in utero is not a "defenseless member of society".

In fact they are the MOST defenseless member of society; subject to slaughter at a whim.

It is a a collection of cells with the potential to become a life, at some point in the future. 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, so there is nothing mystical, magical or essential to this process. The worship of the human fetus by people who have no interest whatsoever in the child that fetus may become, never ceases to astonish me.

Your numbers are nonsense. A non-implanted egg is not a "spontaneous abortion." You are grave digging propaganda defeated in the 80's with that one.

A refusal to respect human life is something common among fascists from both the 1930's and the fascist democrats of today. Objection to an SS goon shooting a young Jew in the streets has little to do with whether that Jew may become a doctor or scientist, but a simple respect for human life that recognizes that ending a life is a serious proposition that should never be easy, and is anything but a private matter. Societies may protect life, or not. If the society does not, one cannot call that society civilized.

There are times when human life is rightly taken: Executions for crimes, when doing so will save another life, etc. A civilized society recognizes this and has a system of judicial review to protect the rights of the intended victim. This is a critical function for a just society. The law illegally crafted by the Supreme Court, in direct defiance of the United States Constitution fails to address the concept of judicial review. It's not only unconstitutional law, it's bad law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

most people with half a brain have gotten past the ongoing "debate" about the scientific semantics of fetal life.

these issues were never in legal question, despite all the emo morons so hung up on 'arguing' them.

Medical science is the greatest impediment to the justification of abortion. I understand why you wish to avoid facts at every turn. I am an agnostic, there is no god but I understand biology, hence I oppose abortion.

 

[usmbguest5318]

First, I don't propone abortion. I merely think it's not my or anyone else's business to encourage or prohibit a pregnant woman's having the procedure performed.

What biological moment took place that makes your biological father YOUR biological father?

There was no biological moment. There was a biological event, and that event was the acrosome reaction.

When the United States Constitution says "all persons" (all human beings) are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws. . . Is that an INclusive or is that an EXclusive statement?

It is an inclusive statement, however, fetuses, are not persons; thus that statement does not apply to them.

True or False: This is an image of an Oak Tree in the first days of its life:

I don't know. I have not observed the moment of an oak tree's emergence from the womb we call an acorn.

True or False: This is the image of a child / human being / person in the first days of THEIR life:

Not enough information is in the image for me to be certain. If the object shown in the image is in fact a human fetus that is inside a womb, my answer is, no, it is the image of a fetus. It's worth noting that I have no idea of when a genus homo fetus ceases to resemble those of a genus pan one.

A living human sperm cell and and a living human egg cell have the potential to merge together to form a new human organism. True or False:

Given the context of your OP, that is a leading question; thus I won't answer it. I'll rephrase it so it is neutrally presented, and then I'll answer the revised question. If you can produce you own version that doesn't contain qualitative adjectives that force the responder to tacitly agree to them as well as the rest of the question's content, by all means, present it and I'll answer it.

A human sperm cell and and a human egg cell have the potential to merge together to form a new human organism. True or False:

True

Starting at any age, any existing human being's (person's) aging can be traced all the way back to the moment of their biological conception. . . but no further. True or False:

False. Humans', people's, a person's age is measured from the point of emergence from the womb. A fetus' age can be traced to the moment of conception. A fetus is no longer a fetus when it leaves the womb.

If there was a way and if you could manage to physically attach yourself to the body of another (Even to unknowing and unaware) human being in such a way that they will DIE if you several the connection before nine months. . . Would that other human being / person have a right to the use of your body during that amount of time? Yes or No?

What? Can you rewrite that so it's a coherent question?

I agree, or at least do not wish to disagree, with most of your post, however, I would like to address one thing:

It is an inclusive statement, however, fetuses, are not persons; thus that statement does not apply to them.

If this were true, and I do not wish to debate that as it is not the point here, then how can a person be charged with two counts of murder, if they were to kill one pregnant woman. I understand that this is not Federal law, but State law, and not applicable to all states. In the States/jurisdictions this applies to, how do you reconcile these two, seemingly, contradictory elements?

how can a person be charged with two counts of murder, if they were to kill one pregnant woman. I understand that this is not Federal law, but State law, and not applicable to all states. In the States/jurisdictions this applies to, how do you reconcile these two, seemingly, contradictory elements?

I reconcile the paradox by saying that I wouldn't in any instance see one charged with two counts of murder if one happens to murder a pregnant woman. Insofar as I won't grant personhood to a fetus in an abortion scenario, I'm not going to grant it in any other. I think the laws as they exist now -- declaring the murder of pregnant woman as a double murder, if you will -- are the source of the inconsistency.

If one asks me what I think about something, my answer will derive from my principles. I realize that my principles may in certain instances lead to objectionable consequences. I've considered that and determined that those circumstances apply to exceptions not norms, and because of that, I don't have a problem with an occasionally "disturbing" outcome resulting from the consistent application of my principles.

 

[Chuz Life]

Looking at the trolling, flaming and personal attacks in several of the posts on this thread... can anyone (mods?) Help me understand the difference (if any) between the cdz and the basement (less moderated) zones here on usmb?

 

[Dragonlady]

[
A child in utero is not a "defenseless member of society".

In fact they are the MOST defenseless member of society; subject to slaughter at a whim.

It is a a collection of cells with the potential to become a life, at some point in the future. 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, so there is nothing mystical, magical or essential to this process. The worship of the human fetus by people who have no interest whatsoever in the child that fetus may become, never ceases to astonish me.

Your numbers are nonsense. A non-implanted egg is not a "spontaneous abortion." You are grave digging propaganda defeated in the 80's with that one.

A refusal to respect human life is something common among fascists from both the 1930's and the fascist democrats of today. Objection to an SS goon shooting a young Jew in the streets has little to do with whether that Jew may become a doctor or scientist, but a simple respect for human life that recognizes that ending a life is a serious proposition that should never be easy, and is anything but a private matter. Societies may protect life, or not. If the society does not, one cannot call that society civilized.

There are times when human life is rightly taken: Executions for crimes, when doing so will save another life, etc. A civilized society recognizes this and has a system of judicial review to protect the rights of the intended victim. This is a critical function for a just society. The law illegally crafted by the Supreme Court, in direct defiance of the United States Constitution fails to address the concept of judicial review. It's not only unconstitutional law, it's bad law.

Your attempts to confuse human life with a fetus in utero are false, and leading you nowhere but down the road to false equivalency. Gestation is a fragile biological period, and no my numbers are not incorrect: 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. The ignorance of men when it comes to women's biology is astounding. When an embryo fails to implant in the uterus, we call it that a "period". A miscarriage is an implanted embryo that fails to develop properly, or which the host rejects and expels for some reason. Sometimes it's due to illness or injury. There are many reasons for miscarriage, but these women are most definitely pregnant. I have even have an ultra-sound picture of the little zygote that I lost many years ago.

When a woman loses a baby by miscarriage, we don't name the fetus, we don't have a funeral for it, and by and large, women are expected to treat the loss with no down time, because the baby wasn't "real" yet. So no, the fetus is not yet a human, nor do we treat it as such.

In countries where abortion is banned, women who have had miscarriages are frequently harassed. Pregnant women who suffer falls or other injuries are suspected of trying to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy. I can't imagine the difficulty of dealing with the loss of a much longed for child, and then be faced with accusations that you aborted it and may be facing jail time.

Biologically, abortion makes sense. It makes no sense to bring a child into the world if you're in the middle of a difficult migration, or during a period of famine or war and to continue the pregnancy endangers the lives of both mother and child. When you're fleeing for your life, being heavy with child could end you and your unborn child. Women have needed that flexibility.

Today, it's hardly surprising to learn that 80% of the women who seek abortions, are poor working women, with no maternity leave, no job guarantee, and other children to support. In Canada, where abortion is free to the woman and fully paid for by the publicly funded heath coverage, far fewer women have abortions, even poor women. With job guarantees, mandated paid maternity leaves (funded through the national unemployment insurance program), and subsidized health care for the children of the poor, women can carry and bear their children knowing their job will be waiting for them.

 

[Chuz Life]

First, I don't propone abortion. I merely think it's not my or anyone else's business to encourage or prohibit a pregnant woman's having the procedure performed.

What biological moment took place that makes your biological father YOUR biological father?

There was no biological moment. There was a biological event, and that event was the acrosome reaction.

When the United States Constitution says "all persons" (all human beings) are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws. . . Is that an INclusive or is that an EXclusive statement?

It is an inclusive statement, however, fetuses, are not persons; thus that statement does not apply to them.

True or False: This is an image of an Oak Tree in the first days of its life:

I don't know. I have not observed the moment of an oak tree's emergence from the womb we call an acorn.

True or False: This is the image of a child / human being / person in the first days of THEIR life:

Not enough information is in the image for me to be certain. If the object shown in the image is in fact a human fetus that is inside a womb, my answer is, no, it is the image of a fetus. It's worth noting that I have no idea of when a genus homo fetus ceases to resemble those of a genus pan one.

A living human sperm cell and and a living human egg cell have the potential to merge together to form a new human organism. True or False:

Given the context of your OP, that is a leading question; thus I won't answer it. I'll rephrase it so it is neutrally presented, and then I'll answer the revised question. If you can produce you own version that doesn't contain qualitative adjectives that force the responder to tacitly agree to them as well as the rest of the question's content, by all means, present it and I'll answer it.

A human sperm cell and and a human egg cell have the potential to merge together to form a new human organism. True or False:

True

Starting at any age, any existing human being's (person's) aging can be traced all the way back to the moment of their biological conception. . . but no further. True or False:

False. Humans', people's, a person's age is measured from the point of emergence from the womb. A fetus' age can be traced to the moment of conception. A fetus is no longer a fetus when it leaves the womb.

If there was a way and if you could manage to physically attach yourself to the body of another (Even to unknowing and unaware) human being in such a way that they will DIE if you several the connection before nine months. . . Would that other human being / person have a right to the use of your body during that amount of time? Yes or No?

What? Can you rewrite that so it's a coherent question?

I agree, or at least do not wish to disagree, with most of your post, however, I would like to address one thing:

It is an inclusive statement, however, fetuses, are not persons; thus that statement does not apply to them.

If this were true, and I do not wish to debate that as it is not the point here, then how can a person be charged with two counts of murder, if they were to kill one pregnant woman. I understand that this is not Federal law, but State law, and not applicable to all states. In the States/jurisdictions this applies to, how do you reconcile these two, seemingly, contradictory elements?

how can a person be charged with two counts of murder, if they were to kill one pregnant woman. I understand that this is not Federal law, but State law, and not applicable to all states. In the States/jurisdictions this applies to, how do you reconcile these two, seemingly, contradictory elements?

I reconcile the paradox by saying that I wouldn't in any instance see one charged with two counts of murder if one happens to murder a pregnant woman. Insofar as I won't grant personhood to a fetus in an abortion scenario, I'm not going to grant it in any other. I think the laws as they exist now -- declaring the murder of pregnant woman as a double murder, if you will -- are the source of the inconsistency.

If one asks me what I think about something, my answer will derive from my principles. I realize that my principles may in certain instances lead to objectionable consequences. I've considered that and determined that those circumstances apply to exceptions not norms, and because of that, I don't have a problem with an occasionally "disturbing" outcome resulting from the consistent application of my principles.

This is key.

If you somehow found yourself convicted of a double homicide for killing a pregnant woman...
(As many people have been convicted already)

Given your stated view on the legitimacy of those (our fetal homicide) laws. . .

What would your defense, appeal / counter arguments be?

 

[usmbguest5318]

What would your defense, appeal / counter arguments be?

Counter-argument to what argument?

 

[G.T.]

seems op says noone ever answers the questions, and then like ten answers of the questions ensued.


op is wrong, that nobody answers the questions.


/thread